Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Adolphus

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Adolphus

Regarding the two warnings, one has to read the spirit of the law, not the letter.  How many writings have been published in different ways, in which pontifical declarations or acts have been condemned by serious persons?  Aren't they warnings?

What about Paul VI, who received at least two written warnings from Abbe de Nantes?

Thanks for the attempt.

But no, they are not warnings. By warnings what is understood are official admonitions by competent authority. This is, by the Bishops & Cardinals first and foremost, by the Roman Clergy, or by a Synod. Even if there is evidence of these "warnings" made by "serious persons" these would not count to determine "Manifest Heresy".

Thank you for the answer.

Can you tell me who gave the official admonitions to Honorious I?

Quote from: Cantarella

Why none of the 5000's Bishops of the Catholic Church have attempted to give the Conciliar Popes such public and official warnings as "suspects of heresy", Adolphus?

I don't know.  My guess is that they are as modernists as the person occupying the Holy See or they are afraid or even ignorant.

What is your guess, Cantarella?

Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by three ecuмenical councils when he was already dead. Firstly, The Council III of Constantinople condemned Honorius 40 years after his death so evidently while alive he remained Bishop of Rome (no idea if he ever received official admonitions during his life or not) but even after condemned as a heretic, his pontificate was not ever questioned.

This is interesting:

Quote

This anathema against Honorius was later one of the main arguments against Papal infallibility in the discussions surrounding the First Vatican Council of 1870, where the episode was not ultimately regarded as contrary to the proposed dogma. This was because Honorius was not considered by the supporters of infallibility to be speaking ex cathedra in the letters in question (although the Roman historian Hefele and opponents of the definition believed that Honorius had spoken ex cathedra)

As far as why no Bishop has intended to officially accuse and admonish the Conciliar Popes for heresy is perhaps because they know they may not win the case, when the majority of bishops as a whole (to all appearances) have fallen themselves into rampant liberalism (The problem with the heresy of Modernism is that it is like a shapeless and abstract invisible giant that is a gradual poison and no one is able to stop it because no one is able to really identify it in proper time. When they finally can see it, it is already too late).

Most probably the reason could be what is posted above about "Pope Infallibility", meaning that the Pontiff is protected from error only when speaking ex cathedra, so to demonstrate formal "heresy" there must be a persistent denial of a de fide Catholic dogma but no Pope have really done it. Unless he promulgated a Ex Cathedra heresy, then he would be a formal heretic. There is simply no solid evidence, irrefutable bullet-proof of "Manifest Heresy" in the Conciliar Popes and they know it.

This has been addressed directly to you already, with no rebuttal from you, and now you speak as if you never heard anything before. What is wrong with you?

The official story is that Honorius was not a manifest heretic. He did not incorporate any error in any of the official organs of the Church. He merely wrote a letter to an eastern patriarch and recommended inaction in the face of the then threatening heresy. Since heresy can sometimes be tolerated in the face of a greater evil, we don't know whether Honorius was actually a personal heretic. St. Francis de Sales said he was not a manifest heretic, but as far as a personal heretic he was "perhaps" so.

The use of the example of Honorius is good only to show how much the hierarchy got worried about heresy EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT MANIFEST. It is also good to shine light on the fact that the doctrinal errors of Vatican II go FAR beyond what Honorius did. The ecuмenia is in EVERY organ of the Church and with a FIXATION.

I started in another thread to go into how we can discern manifest heresy the easy way other than trying to find an outright denial of dogma....and you just poo-poohed it and bailed out with some silly response.

Ecuмenical Council of III Constantinople

Session XIII: “After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these docuмents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” (online text)

Council of Trullo

“Also we agree to guard untouched the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod, which first assembled in this imperial city in the time of Constantine, our Emperor, of blessed memory, which faith received still greater confirmation from the fact that the pious Emperor ratified with his own signet that which was written for the security of future generations. This council taught that we should openly profess our faith that in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations; and condemned by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one operation; to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this God-preserved city; Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch; Stephen, who was his disciple, and the insane Polychronius, depriving them henceforth from the communion of the body of Christ our God.” (online text)

Ecuмenical Council of IV Constantinople

Exposition of Faith: “Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod [Constantinople III], which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down that in the two natures of the one Christ there are, as a consequence, two principles of action and the same number of wills. So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs Apollinarius, Eutyches and Severus and proclaimed that the flesh of God, while being animated by a rational and intellectual soul, was without a principle of action and without a will, they themselves being impaired in their senses and truly without reason.”

Ecuмenical Council II Nicea

The Letter of the Synod to the Emperor and Empress: “And now having carefully traced the traditions of the Apostles and Fathers, we are bold to speak.  Having but one mind by the inbreathing of the most Holy Spirit, and being all knit together in one, and understanding the harmonious tradition of the Catholic Church, we are in perfect harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecuмenical councils; and accordingly we have anathematised the madness of Arius, the frenzy of Macedonius, the senseless understanding of Appolinarius, the man-worship of Nestorius, the irreverent mingling of the natures devised by Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the many-headed hydra which is their companion.  We have also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematised their own evil will.  Finally, taught by the Spirit, from whom we have drawn pure water, we have with one accord and one soul, altogether wiped out with the sponge of the divine dogmas the newly devised heresy, well-worthy to be classed with those just mentioned, which springing up after them, uttered such empty nonsense about the sacred icons.  And the contrivers of this vain, but revolutionary babbling we have cast forth far from the Church’s precincts.” (online text)

The first part of this paragraph is dealing with schismatics (Eastern Orthodox) who can pass orders and because of this, their sacraments are considered valid.

The second part is dealing with those baptized in Protestant sects, whose Baptism is still considered valid.

Nothing heretical so far.

In the third paragraph though, there is a problem: what is highlighted in color. This could be considered a denial of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" given that it says that the Christian Churches (Orthodox and Protestants) can be means of salvation . However, this could be heretical but ONLY if one does not believe in Invincible Ignorance but adheres to the strict interpretation of EENS which states that those outside the Church (schismatic and Protestant "Christians" in this case) are not heirs of Heaven but are condemned forever in Hell (commonly known as "feeneyite").

But then again, if one believes in Invincible Ignorance (which even Archbishop Lefebvre believed in) there is nothing heretical here either. According to what most traditionalist believe, even a good willed Hindu, totally ignorant of the Christian Faith, can end up in Heaven; which is even much more heretical that what was written here by Cardinal Ratzinger referring strictly to the "Christian communities" (Orthodox and Protestants) as means of salvation.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado

This has been addressed directly to you already, with no rebuttal from you, and now you speak as if you never heard anything before. What is wrong with you?

The official story is that Honorius was not a manifest heretic. He did not incorporate any error in any of the official organs of the Church. He merely wrote a letter to an eastern patriarch and recommended inaction in the face of the then threatening heresy. Since heresy can sometimes be tolerated in the face of a greater evil, we don't know whether Honorius was actually a personal heretic. St. Francis de Sales said he was not a manifest heretic, but as far as a personal heretic he was "perhaps" so.

The use of the example of Honorius is good only to show how much the hierarchy got worried about heresy EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT MANIFEST. It is also good to shine light on the fact that the doctrinal errors of Vatican II go FAR beyond what Honorius did. The ecuмenia is in EVERY organ of the Church and with a FIXATION.

I started in another thread to go into how we can discern manifest heresy the easy way other than trying to find an outright denial of dogma....and you just poo-poohed it and bailed out with some silly response.

Sorry but this is yet another case when historical facts just do not attest to sede propaganda. There is written evidence that Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by three ecunemical councils. Here is the proof:

St. Francis de Sales was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church in 1877. Which was 7 years after papal infallibility was defined. The pope and hierarchy studied his writings beforehand. At that time Pope Pius called the Saint's work "Controversies" - "a full and complete demonstration of the Catholic religion". In that work St. Francis says Honorius was "perhaps" a heretic, but not a manifest heretic. This is not sede propaganda.

The docuмent that you give does show that the hierarchy condemned Honorius, but this was AFTER his death, and it was without any pope approving of it. Without the pope's approval, it is exactly as St. Francis said.

“most Roman controversialists of recent years have admitted both the fact of Pope Honorius’s condemnation, and the Monothelite (and therefore heretical) character of his epistles.”

“I shall therefore say nothing further on this point but shall simply supply the leading proofs that Honorius was as a matter of fact condemned by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council.

1. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the xiiith Session, near the beginning.

2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session.

3. In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed ‘Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.’

4. In the decree of faith published at the xviijth Session it is stated that ‘the originator of all evil ... found a fit tool for his will in ... Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.’

 5. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that ‘Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome’ they had ‘punished with exclusion and anathema’ because he followed the monothelites.

6. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it ‘has slain with anathema Honorius.’

7. The imperial decree speaks of the ‘unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed’ and mentions among them ‘Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.’ The Emperor goes on to anathematize ‘Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.’

8. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.

 ‘Also Honorins. qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolilcae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes, qui in suo errore defuncti sunt.’

9. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the Trullan Canons (No. j.).

10. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.

11. Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)

12. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope from the [eighth] to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., ‘smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.’

13. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. Upon this we may well hear Bossuet: ‘They suppress as far as they can, the Liber Diurnus: they have erased this from the Roman Breviary. Have they therefore hidden it? Truth breaks out from all sides, and these things become so much the more evident, as they are the more studiously put out of sight.’

“With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council.” (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh: Clark, 1899))
 

Quote from: Nobody

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Nobody

Quote from: Nado

Auctorem Fidei, 1794. CONDEMNED:
'the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful"

Nado,

I picked this quote because it seemed to support your claim the best. After checking it out, it does not support your claim (that the Church cannot give us anything harmful) at all. Here's why :

Pius VI issued his bull "Auctorem Fidei" in response to the Synod of Pistoia, which contained 85 propositions, some of which were added by Scipio de' Ricci, the Bishop of Pistoia, and of which the latter repented afterwards. The text you quoted is from condemned proposition 78. If you read the whole proposition, you will see that it is not the text you quoted that was condemned, but rather the text that comes before that :

Quote

The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

I think this is quite a wordy piece of text, and very hard to extract the true meaning and circuмstances. It certainly does not simply condemn what you quoted as being condemned. At best, it shows that Pius VI did believe it unthinkable that the Church up until then had issued anything harmful that needed filtering out, but he does not say that it is something impossible by definition, and it certainly is not the target of the condemnation.

If the Church really teaches that nothing bad can come from her, why did she not just say so, in clear unambiguous words ?

Please also note, the difference in translation, which I have indicated in green.

I believe this example shows the danger in partially quoting some obscure text, out of context and without any qualifications. Therefore, I do not accept that this quote supports your proposition that "nothing harmful can come from the Church" and Cantarella's challenge remains unanswered.

I have looked carefully at what you present, and it is plainly incorrect. You have made a useless distinction between established and imposed, which are effectively the same thing, because that which is established by the Church is imposed.

The idea of being "CONDEMNED" comes from the removal of the "as if".

Nado,

Following my promise to get back to you regarding "Auctorem Fidei", here's my current opinion and observation :

1. Your original quote is misleading, since it is not the direct object of the condemnation in proposition 78, but rather comes AFTER the object that is condemned. You skipped the bulk of that sentence and therefore altered it's meaning.

2. In your favour, it does seem that your quote is what Paul VI believed to be impossible, or rather, had not happened yet, since the translation I have (Denzinger) uses the past tense "have established", while your translation omits the past tense and simply says "could impose". Given this past tense, it could be interpreted that Paul VI regarded the current situation as being without stain or error. It does not necessarily mean that it will always be like that. I am not saying this is the correct interpretation, only that we do not know for sure and would need to do further investigation and possibly even go back to the original and to the history books.

In any case, it is not sufficiently clear that this an infalible pronouncement that the Church cannot give us anything harmful. I do not regard it as proof of this position. And it certainly is not what I would expect the Church to say if she wanted to give us such an important principle as the one you are claiming she wants us to believe.

It is also interesting to note that this Synod of Pistoia sounds exactly like VII, in which the same ambigouity was used to try and inject errors into the Church.  As history shows, that council was afterwards condemned, just like no doubt VII will one day be condemned. But nowhere did I find any reference to the claim that the culprits were treated as pertinaceous heretics who lost their office, like some now treat the VII culprits. Why not ?

Overall, I see a red flag go up upon reading your response. You appear to have that erroneous attitude of looking at what the Church gives us in terms of whether it is fallible or infallible. That is most definitely not a Catholic attitude. Tradition shows no such attitude. That was something that predominated since Vatican II because of the desperateness of grappling with the crisis. It's an attitude that makes one more easily susceptible to fall for the Feeneyite heresy. We are obliged to assent to what "the Church" gives us, including the entire contents of encyclicals and catechisms.

Certainly it would be misleading if someone where to quote from Munificentissimus Deus something outside of the actual definition (of the Assumption) and say that what is quoted is "defined" by the Church. However, it is perfectly respectable to say the Church "teaches" it, unless the context makes it clear She does not. The same goes for an actual anathema; if the encyclical clearly says something is wrong, we can say the Church "condemns" it.

As for councils, they are not officially councils per se unless a true pope approves of whatever he approves from them. The Synod you speak of was not approved by an alleged pope. It has no resemblance to Vatican II.

We don't have to find a canonical heresy to say that a pope is not a true pope. As we see when papal infallibility was defined in 1870, it mentions that he will be prevented from "erring" against faith or morals. It doesn't say contradict or deny a previously defined dogma of the faith. To "err" means a mistake that harms faith or morals.

Additionally, "papal infallibility" is not the same as "Church infallibility". Papal infallibility is merely rare and solemn instances where the pope shines the entire Church infallibility on one act of his, in the name of the Church. The scope of Church infallibility, on the other hand, is thousands of times more common and frequent than papal infallibility.

There are quotes that solidly reveal just what I explained above:

St. Thomas Aquinas:
"it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain."
..