Posted on 05/15/2006 7:52:03 PM PDT by pravknight
Sorry, I was imprecise. I understand that that was indeed the case. I had this out with a Protestant a few months back, and back then I couldn't find all the relevant historical sources on line, but given bornacatholic's post #9 it seems correct.
The conciliar anathemas backed by Pope Agatho, rather than the actual following of Sergius, makes the Honorius case seem more grave to me. Maybe I'm wrong on that score though.
That bears repeating. It is not the prerogative of a layman to judge the pope an informal heretic. The layman may well have private convictions of same, but only a later Pope could make that judgment definitively (ala Honorius).
Fr. Ripperberger is typical of the ultra trads who have apparently embraced the idea that their private judgment carries more authority than the Church's "current magisterium." Indeed, how can anyone really separate the "current magisterium" from the "previous magisterium"? But, more importantly, why should other Catholics follow these self-appointed know-it-alls? What makes their private judgment any better than Martin Luther's private judgment was or Charles Curran's private judgement is? The ultra trads offend the unity of the Church by denigrating the legitimacy and authority of Vatican II, by criticizing the acts and statements of the Holy See, and by insulting other Catholics who just aren't Catholic enough for them.
BTW, Fr. Ripperberger recently wrote an article in "Homiletic & Pastoral Review" in which he complained about the "danger" that NFP classes posed to the modesty of engaged and even married couples. His opinion that NFP may be used only in "grave" circumstances is extreme to say the least but it is typical of the super Catholics who are more concerned about the small percentage of Catholics using NFP than they are about the huge percentage of Catholics using contraception.
II. In none of the Acts of the Council is it said that Honorius is called a heretic because he maintained or taught heresy.
I think this assertion is kind of funny. How could he not be a heretic when the conciliar acts say:
To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!
Maybe in bornacatholic's mind it should read.
To Honorius, the orthodox, anathema! He wasn't a heretic, right?
Explaining away Pope Honorius is essential to prove papal impeccability.
The Latin Mass Magazine, compared to which the Pope is a prot, carried a LONG article about NFP. In it, some layman attacked the Living Magisterium about NFP. Apparently, Fr. Ripperberger, was influenced by the article.
Your citing Luther and Curran was apt. The Living Magisterium is attacked from the liberal left and the liberal right. It is just that in FR we usually read only about the attacks from the liberal traditionalists.
I disagree. Honorius merely refrained from teaching orthodoxy, while not actually ever enunciating anything that was at fault.
>>Facts are Pope Honorius explicitly taught that Christ had one will. "Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin."
So, are you then allowed to teach that Christ has one will because Pope Honorius said so? I guess there is nothing wrong with the above quote from Pope Honorius, right?
Dear pravknight,
You may have noticed that I don't post to you.
I would appreciate it if in the future you return the favor.
Thanks,
sitetest
Perhaps bornacatholic should examine his errors of implicitly deifying the pope and proclaiming the his solemnly defined dogma of papal impeccability, instead of pointing out my alleged errors.
He just is mad that he can't win a debate with me.
The only thing he is able to do is to trot out arguments about "divinely-constituted" authority and not deal with the issues.
Criticism of the abuse of authority is the prerogative of every Catholic.
Maybe Catholics should follow the example of the august Pope Honorius and preach that Christ has One Will and One Operation.
Maybe you should get your facts straight. Honorius didn't "preach" anything about our Lord having one will; it was a mistaken turn of phrase in a letter to Sergius (he clearly means one will in the humanity, rather than the two opposing human wills that Sergius had posited) that wasn't spread about until after his death. Honorius certainly didn't "preach" one operation, a phrase that he, in fact, rejected:
But whether on account of the works of divinity and of humanity, one or two operations ought to be said or understood to be derived, such (questions) should not concern us, leaving them to the grammarians, who are accustomed to sell to children words acquired by derivation. (Honorius, letter "Scripta fraternitatis vestrae" to Sergius, in Denzinger 251)Therefore, doing away with . . . the scandal of the new invention, we, when we are explaining, should not preach one or two operations; but instead of one operation, which some affirm, we should confess one operator, Christ the Lord, in both natures; . . . (Honorius, letter "Scripta dilectissimi filii" to Sergius, in Denzinger 252)
Maybe we could start a club or someting :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.