Bp W Column, 5.30.09
#51
And Bellermine actually gave five possible choices but only went with one of them. However, a heretical pope is unprecedented so now no one can 'prove' what's the right course when this happens or if it can happen.
Reply
#52
Here it is again...for the citations see the link to the original work referenced below:

(05-30-2009, 04:58 PM)newschoolman Wrote: http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-...ology.html

Excerpt:

What is implicit in rupture theology is an assertion that the Papal Magisterium, as such, can defect in faith and morals by teaching heresy.  Opposed to this view, however, is the constant teaching of the Papal Magisterium concerning its own indefectibility in the realm of faith and morals.  For example, Pope Sixtus IV condemned outright the proposition that: “The Church of the city of Rome can err.”  The First Vatican Council would later set forth this teaching as follows:

"...in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled, and her well known doctrine has been kept holy...knowing full well that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of errors, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour..."


This teaching has been continually affirmed by the Popes.  Pope Pius XI, for example, reminds us of the “perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”  A few years later Pope Pius XII would affirm that the Church is “spotless in the Sacraments” and also “in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate…”


Some may ask whether the Second Vatican Council can be considered an “exception” to the rule as if the divine assistance could somehow be suspended for a period of time and the Magisterium of the Popes could now suddenly defect from faith and morals.  Pope Paul VI explicitly rejected such a notion:


“Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable.   We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail’ (Lk 22:32).”
Reply
#53
(05-30-2009, 09:33 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Bellarmine is the leading theological authority on the Church and the papacy since the Reformation.

He may be a genius, great saint, theologian doctor of the Church, but he got it wrong on the nature of the Papacy and heresy.
Bellarmine was never Pope.
Infallible Third Council of Constantinople contradicts his error.

Who is right an infallible Dogmatic Ecumenical Council or a cardinal? Two Popes or a cardinal? We have the Magisterium speaking on a Council and two Popes over the opinion of a fallible man.
Reply
#54
(05-30-2009, 09:30 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(05-30-2009, 08:36 PM)newschoolman Wrote: No, I am not that other guy.  In any case, I have found +Williamson very personable and with some very good qualities.   In terms of Catholic teaching, I prefer to stick to Rome and the Magisterium of the Popes -- from Peter to Benedict XVI inclusive.

By sticking to the Magisterium, does this include the Dogmatic infallible Councils? On this thread, you have have refused to acknowledge the infallible Third Council of Constantinople.  The Council that declares Honorius a heretic and anathematizes him. From Peter to Benedict you skip Pope Agatho and Leo II who condemn Honoruis.
How come to this day Pope Honorius is still ex-communicated and anathematized and the ex-communication has never been revoked?

Well, then you have distorted the meaning of said council.  As stated above:

No it refers to the inability of the Pope to "fall into heresy or to teach heresy."  Bishop Gasser, in the relatio, even says that Bellermine referred to this as the "most common and certain opinion." (Cf. Gasser, p. 59)  Again, all of this is way after Honorius and therefore, your theory of his heresy, properly speaking, is simply nonsense.
Reply
#55
(05-30-2009, 09:44 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(05-30-2009, 09:33 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Bellarmine is the leading theological authority on the Church and the papacy since the Reformation.

He may be a genius, great saint, theologian doctor of the Church, but he got it wrong on the nature of the Papacy and heresy.
Bellarmine was never Pope.
Infallible Third Council of Constantinople contradicts his error.

Who is right an infallible Dogmatic Ecumenical Council or a cardinal? Two Popes or a cardinal? We have the Magisterium speaking on a Council and two Popes over the opinion of a fallible man.

You are distorting said council to agree with your own private judgement in the matter -- a private interpretation that runs counter to all subsequent teaching as stated above.
Reply
#56
(05-30-2009, 09:37 PM)didishroom Wrote: And Bellermine actually gave five possible choices but only went with one of them. However, a heretical pope is unprecedented so now no one can 'prove' what's the right course when this happens or if it can happen.

Have you not heard of pope Honorius at all on this thread?

We have an Infallible Dogmatic Ecumenical Council already declaring Pope Honorius a heretic who held heresy was excommunicated and anathematized. Two Poes confirmed this.

The council was clear:

"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 [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines."
The Sixteenth Session adds: "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!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I

Reply
#57
(05-30-2009, 09:48 PM)newschoolman Wrote: You are distorting said council to agree with your own private judgement in the matter -- a private interpretation that runs counter to all subsequent teaching as stated above.

The words speak for themselves :

"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 [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines."
"To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! "
That is not hard to understand or read. Those are the actual words. The Council is speaking the truth and is infallible.
You just can't get yourself to believe what the Council declared. 
Reply
#58
Raphael, not to take sides here, but the historical context of Honorius' anathema has already been explained. Using him as a reference is what Prots do to dispel the whole doctrine of infallibility. Go to any Catholic Apologetics website and they will all concur.
Reply
#59
(05-30-2009, 09:59 PM)didishroom Wrote: Raphael, not to take sides here, but the historical context of Honorius' anathema has already been explained. Using him as a reference is what Prots do to dispel the whole doctrine of infallibility. Go to any Catholic Apologetics website and they will all concur.

Exactly.  The council judged Honorius for his silence and deemed it neglignece.  No Catholic teaching or theology since has ever held that Honorius adhered to and positively taught heresies.
Reply
#60

This from Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 306-307:

+++++++++++++++++++++

"The letters of Honorius do not contain any doctrinal error.  Even though the pope does refrain from using the term of a double will or double operation, he does teach in equivalent terms[...]

Before anything else, this much is absolutely sure: Honorius was not condemned as guilty of preaching heresy in his official capacity (ex cathedra). Something more, he was not even condemned as being privately a heretic. Strictly speaking, he was condemned for being a helper of heresy[...]

[...]Leo [II] wrote to the bishops of Spain explaining the matter. Honorius was condemned along with the others: "because instead of extinguishing the incipient flame of heretical doctrine, as befits the holder of the apostolic authority, he rather fanned it by his negligence." 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)