CathInfo.com

As I mentioned, St. Francis de Sales wrote that Honorius was not an explicit heretic. Honorius' actions were not from the papal office to the whole Church.

And not not every heretic loses office.

If Honorius was truly pope (he was), and yet was:
1. condemned by an ecuмenical council,
2. anathematized by name as a heretic,
3. condemned by a subsequent pope,

…but did not lose the papacy,

then the sedevacantist position is already destroyed.

Because the Church herself gives you the principle:

A pope can be condemned posthumously for heresy or negligence
without having lost the papacy during his life.

That is the exact teaching St. Francis de Sales defends.

Therefore, the slogan “a heretic can’t be pope” is completely refuted by the Church’s own history and dogmatic councils.

Affirm or deny:

The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.

Hi CatholicKnight, if this is an invitation extended to all I will participate, with regards to the proposition in quotes above my response is as follows: I Affirm.


Now your turn: Affirm or deny: Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death, even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic.

Affirm or deny:

The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.

Your insistenced upon a binary Yes or No drives the answer toward a false dichtomy.

I believe this to be true, though I object to your constant use of the world sin, as in public sin, since it can imply a judgment regarding the internal forum, which is not required.

Other than that, I hold the proposition to be true, and Pope Pius XII taught this.

Nevertheless, the Cajetan opinion and others have not been explicitly condemned, so one can hold them as a Catholic.

In addition, does a manifest heretic sepeparated from the Church lose office?  And that too can be distunguished, where, for instance, the sedeprivationists hold that he loses office not simpliciter, but secundum quid, where he loses the ability to formally exercise the office (and Fr. Chazal would say the same with sedeimpoundism), but remains nevertheless in material possession of and with legal claim TO the office.

I also don't believe, however, that the question is even relevant, since the I hold to the "Siri Theory", where none of them have been legitimate popes after the election.

So the tactic of trying to force binary yes-no answers to questions that admit of various distinctions is an attempt to drive toward acceptance of your false dichotomy.