Bp W Column, 5.30.09
#61
(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.

Explained by who? It has never been removed by the Church. It still stands. Where has the Church reversed itself?

This is a perfect example for Prots and we should be agreeing with the Prots when it comes to his heresy.

That we have a hertical Pope in history illistrates the limitions and when a Pope is infallible. Honorius was discussed at Vatican I and the Church at Vatican I taught as infallible that a Pope is only protected by the Holy Spirit when he speaks Ex-Cathedra. Papal Infallibility must meet the 5 aspects of Ex-cathedra.

Pope Honrius dis not speak Ex-Cathedra, therefore he was in error and heresy. This historical case shows prefectly the distinction between Papal infallibility and error.
Reply
#62
This is the bottom line.  The "error" of Honorius was not one in the order of faith -- rather it seems to have been in the prudential order. 

(05-30-2009, 10:08 PM)newschoolman Wrote: 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
#63
Dr. Robert Sungenis mounted the best defense of Papal infallibility by any Catholic apologist when he dabated Dr. White.

Dr. Sungenis defended the Church teaching that Pope Honorius  was a heretic against the Protestant debator. Sungenis agreed with Dr. White who knew Pope Honorius was a heretic and used our heretical Pope to defend Papal infallibility.

The protestants are not stupid. They know Honorius was a heretic because they have read the council documents and the anathemas against him by Pope Agatho and Leo II.

Sungenis vs. White, Papal Infallibility:

http://www.catholicintl.com/products/ut-...bility.htm

That is all I have to say on this topic because Catholics just won't believe their own Dogmatic Councils.

Reply
#64
Thank God we don't have to put our faith in the likes of Sungenis and White!  Rather, we have the doctors of the Church and the Magisterium of the Popes.
Reply
#65
(05-30-2009, 10:23 PM)newschoolman Wrote: Thank God we don't have to put our faith in the likes of Sungenis and White!  Rather, we have the doctors of the Church and the Magisterium of the Popes.

Why did you leave out the Infallible Council declaring Honorius heretic and anathema, and instead bring up Sungenis and White?
Reply
#66
The condemnation of Honorius was not overlooked by me -- but it should not be distorted by those with an agenda to "prove" that the magisterium of the Popes can somehow teach heresy, etc.  Van Noort explains below:
 

(05-30-2009, 10:12 PM)newschoolman Wrote: This is the bottom line.  The "error" of Honorius was not one in the order of faith -- rather it seems to have been in the prudential order.   

(05-30-2009, 10:08 PM)newschoolman Wrote: 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
#67
(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.

No, Bellarmine gave 5 choices of what would happen if a true Pope became a public heretic. Only one is theologically correct:

"St. Robert Bellarmine, [i Wrote:De Romano Pontifice[/i]"]"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'

According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."

Now St. Robert Bellarmine also held the pious opinion (not certain) that a true Pope could never fall into heresy AS A PRIVATE PERSON. Nobody thinks that a true Pope can preach (excercising his supreme authority as Pope) heresy to the Church (as this is contrary to the guaranteed assistance of the Holy Ghost) . Many people miss that distinction.
Reply
#68
(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.

Or it could be that you don't know what you are talking about. Was Cardinal Bellarmine unaware of this event? Why don't you quote this Council for us?
Reply
#69
(05-30-2009, 10:16 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: Dr. Robert Sungenis mounted the best defense of Papal infallibility by any Catholic apologist when he dabated Dr. White.

Dr. Sungenis defended the Church teaching that Pope Honorius  was a heretic against the Protestant debator. Sungenis agreed with Dr. White who knew Pope Honorius was a heretic and used our heretical Pope to defend Papal infallibility.

The protestants are not stupid. They know Honorius was a heretic because they have read the council documents and the anathemas against him by Pope Agatho and Leo II.

Sungenis vs. White, Papal Infallibility:

http://www.catholicintl.com/products/ut-...bility.htm

That is all I have to say on this topic because Catholics just won't believe their own Dogmatic Councils.

I quote Bellarmine (Saint and Doctor of the Universal Church) and you dismiss him.

You quote some layman named Sungenis.

Does anyone see any problem here?
Reply
#70
"Nobody thinks that a true Pope can preach (excercising his supreme authority as Pope) heresy to the Church (as this is contrary to the guaranteed assistance of the Holy Ghost) . Many people miss that distinction."

Yes, that's the key point in my view.  The Magisterium of the Popes can't defect in the teaching of faith and morals by virtue of the perpetual divine assistance promised to Peter.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)