FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: I owe some of you an apology..
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
It's because your  a convert and u converted into the NO. U never were brought up seeing the awfull shit that ocoured  and the fsith trashed  and your family mocked for still holding to the true fsith. All u see is a happy NO church. U don't get the awfull  shit that want  down nor do u een ant to. How  to simple Catholics just trying to belive  the true fsith were treated. The hruch reckovated, tabernacles tossed ect ect
so u wag a finger and stomp your foot
and ignor the travesty and Injustice  that has happenend. The affront to Christ.
such is what I see
(09-22-2011, 12:52 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-22-2011, 07:34 AM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]I still abhor and detest the all too common language directed at the Holy Father and Rome and I still have a great distaste in my mouth at the talk of the Pope being Pope of two religions.

I find this sort of thing highly distressing too.  It makes me feel sick.  It is difficult to post in a reasonable and charitable manner when feeling this way.  It is difficult to understand the the perspective of others when one feels so strongly about the subject.  It is good that you are trying.

What is so distressing about it??? I still don't understand what it makes you so sick??? Once you come to terms with the magnitude of the crisis we are in then after awhile it should not make you so sick!!

We have had Popes in the past who taught Arian heresy's, we have had Avignon Popes, 2 popes at the same time, Bad Popes, Popes with kids, Good Popes, polka dot Popes, Popes with 2 different noses, etc.... :o
Now in the last 40+ years we have had Pope's who  espouse the Modernist heresy, which in my opinion is worse because you don't know you are in error........It happens, but once you despair and lose all hope about it then the Devil wins!!!!
(09-22-2011, 01:10 PM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]We have had Popes in the past who taught Arian heresy's

Name one.

Yes, have there been Popes in history who taught heresy? 
Catholic theologians generally admit several other popes to have been heretical, including, most famously Liberius and Honorious. It is not particularly controversial amongst Catholic theologians to say that popes have been heretical. Indeed, Pope Adrian VI stated as follows:

“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII.” (Quaest. in IV Sent.)
Quote:Pope Honorius I (625-38) was posthumously condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1). He promoted the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ; the orthodox doctrine is that Christ has separate wills in his human and divine natures.

Honorius actively maintained the heresy in official papal letters written to Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople in reply to a formal consultation and to several other individuals. He did this at a crucial time, when Sergius was backing off before the objections of St. Sophronius. Thus began a tragedy that would afflict the whole Church. The Monothelites were able to argue that all the teachers of the orthodox faith had confessed their doctrine, including Sergius of Constantinople and Honorius of Rome.

III Constantinople condemned Honorius in his official papal capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian. The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some apologists still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.

To give a brief summary from the Council’s acts, which are quoted more fully later where it is clear that Honorius is being spoken of:

“We find that these documents [including those of Honorius] 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…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…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”

In order to approve the decrees of the Council, Pope St. Leo II (681-3) wrote to the Emperor that he anathematised Honorius because he “endeavoured by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate faith of the Roman Church”, not because of mere negligence (as some also lie).

“Nec non et Honorium [anathematizamus], qui hanc apostolicam ecclesiam non apostolicæ traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est.” (Mansi, Tom. XI. p. 731)

The Council of Trullo (692) repeated the condemnation. Two succeeding ecumenical councils ratified the sentence, Council II Nicea (787) and IV Constantinople (869-70). Popes approved both.

From the eighth to the eleventh century all new popes had to swear in their Papal Oath before assuming the office that they accepted that III Constantinople had authoritatively anathematised Honorius. This is found in the Liber Pontificalis and in the Liber Diurnus. The lessons in the Roman Breviary for the office of St. Leo II listed until the sixteenth century Honorius among those excommunicated by III Constantinople. First we shall give the testimony of historians regarding the condemnation of Honorius and then we shall give extracts from the acts of the councils in which the condemnation was given, linking also to the full texts.

Testimony of historians

First we cite the Roman Catholic historian and bishop of Rottenburg, Karl Joseph von Hefele (1809-1893). His work on the ecumenical councils is very highly regarded by Catholic theologians. “The standard work of Hefele’s, however, is the ‘Conciliengeschichte’ in seven volumes, reaching to the fifteenth century and embracing the history of dogma, canon law, liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and political history, so far as necessary. Von Funk rightly says that ‘as one of the most detailed and thorough works on church history, it has attained a prominent place in the learned literature of our time.’” (Johannes Baptist Sägmüller, Karl Joseph von Hefele, Catholic Encyclopedia 1910)

He wrote of the condemnations of Honorius as follows:

“It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic!…That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him:

“At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says: ‘After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor...them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine.’

“Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.

Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: ‘Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus!’

Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read: ‘The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ.’

“After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things: ‘Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them.’

“In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein: ‘We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.’

“In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes: ‘With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome...the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself...We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present...besides, we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.’

“It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical his letter to the Spanish bishops...and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig. Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by...the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after...Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: ‘We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning...Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc.’ The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places...To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath...according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that ‘he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius.’” (A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).

Next we shall cite the testimony given in The Seven Ecumenical Councils by Henry R. Percival, which is likewise very informative on the matter. He wrote, “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 Ecumenical 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 Ecumenical Council.” (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh: Clark, 1899))

Unsurprisingly, some Catholic theologians deceived on this matter and some apologists still do, refusing to admit that the pope was condemned and excommunicated as a heretic by the council.

“[They] have been driven to desperate efforts. Some pronounce the acts of the Council, which exist in Greek and Latin, downright forgeries (Baronius); others, admitting the acts, declare the letters of Honorius forgeries, so that he was unjustly condemned by the Council (Bellarmin)—both without a shadow of proof; still others, being forced at last to acknowledge the genuineness of the letters and acts, distort the former into an orthodox sense by a non-natural exegesis, and thus unwillingly fasten upon œcumenical Councils and Popes the charge of either dogmatic ignorance and stupidity, or malignant representation. So Perrone, in his Dogmatics, and Pennachi, in his Liber de Honorii I. Rom. Pont. causa , 1870, which is effectually disposed of by Hefele in an Appendix to the German edition of his tract.” (Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom)

Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by three ecumenical councils. All newly elected popes had to profess his condemnation before they could assume their office until the eleventh century and all Latin priests recited it in their breviary until the sixteenth. It is incredible that ecumenical councils under the care of papal legates and approved by popes would anathematize and excommunicate a pope without the utmost care and that Rome would have all her popes and priests confess it for a thousand years were it not justified. There is no room for doubt here. His heretical letters were burnt by order of the council and only a scrap survived; it is ridiculous that some should try to construct a case to acquit Honorious on the basis of the scrap and in the face of so much historical testimony.

Extracts from the councils

Ecumenical 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 documents 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.”

Session XVI: “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 Pyrrhus, 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 Ecumenical Council!”

Session XVIII: “The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith.  But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation.”

The Prosphoneticus to the Emperor: “Therefore we declare that in him there are two natural wills and two natural operations, proceeding commonly and without division:  but we cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous novelties as well as their inventors:  to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius and Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter (who were archbishops of Constantinople), moreover Cyrus, who bore the priesthood of Alexandria, and with them Honorius, who was the ruler of Rome, as he followed them in these things.”

Letter of the Council to Pope St. Agatho: “And by his help we have overthrown the error of impiety, having as it were laid siege to the nefarious doctrine of the heretics.  And then tearing to pieces the foundations of their execrable heresy, and attacking them with spiritual and paternal arms, and confounding their tongues that they might not speak consistently with each other, we overturned the tower built up by these followers of this most impious heresy; and we slew them with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God, that we may express ourselves after the manner of David, in accordance with the sentence already given concerning them in your letter, and their names are these: Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter.”

The Imperial Edict Publicly Posted: “As he [emperor Constantine] recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy; further, Cyrus, etc., and ordained that no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and one energy.  In no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved.  Whoever did not obey the imperial edict should, if he were a bishop or cleric be deposed; if an official, punished with confiscation of property and loss of the girdle; if a private person, banished from the residence and all other cities.”

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.”

Ecumenical 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.”

Ecumenical 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 ecumenical 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.”
The Pope cannot err when he Teaches faith.  Besides the dubious nature of labelling Honorious as a heretic, no Pope in the history of the Church has Taught error.  They can, in private, have a heretical belief but cannot Teach heresy or error.  Which is exactly what some of you are accusing the Popes of doing.
(09-22-2011, 09:48 AM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]So are you saying that the current Holy Father is the head of a new institutional church which Teaches things contrary to the Truth?  Whilst also being the true Pope of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?  That just doesn't make sense to me.

Does not make sense to me either.  But I see it with my two eyes and hear it with my two ears.  I am not going to try and rationalise their 2+2=5 teaching because I know 2+2=4 and will always equal 4 long after I am dead.

Religious Liberty.  Salvation of the Jews.  Salvation outside the Church.  There are a number of areas where the Church teaches and Popes promote beliefs in DIRECT OPPOSITION to what was taught as truth in the past.

B16 would not need to believe in mutable truth if no truth had changed.

Praying with Lutherans, Jews and Muslims.  This was considered totally wrong by the Church in the past.

They cannot just change their mind on this stuff.  I don't care who they are and what authority they claim.   Not even God can make 2+2=5 if He wants to have any credibility in my rational mind.

Such a god is about as useful to me as a chocolate teapot at the mad hatter's tea party.

Once I abandon this principle I am nothing more than a religious cult member worshipping a grey haired German in a white frock.

If they don't teach things contrary to the Truth what are you doing here?  Just go along to the Novus Ordo, post on Catholic Answers, and ignore anything you don't like that is not promulgated officially.  Write it off as private opinion.
(09-22-2011, 02:02 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]The Pope cannot err when he Teaches faith.  Besides the dubious nature of labelling Honorious as a heretic, no Pope in the history of the Church has Taught error.  They can, in private, have a heretical belief but cannot Teach heresy or error.  Which is exactly what some of you are accusing the Popes of doing.

(09-22-2011, 02:04 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]Not.

So you don't believe the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church is Teaching error?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12