Why can you not admit that you were incorrect?
I said “when even the conciliar Popes themselves say the Orthodox are not excommunicated’ (I should have added so they lifted the excommunication.)
You said “They don't say that.”
You say post 83 “The excommunications which were lifted were that of Cardinal Humbert by the Patriarch of Constantinople and of the Patriarch of Constantinople by Cardinal Humbert.”
Implying that it was only excommunications lifted for our by individuals. You are wrong and you ignore my citations from a “conservative” Catholic web site which clearly state that Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras lifted the very old communications which were done during the schism which occured hundreds of years ago in the middle ages.
You need to get your facts straight and admit you were incorrect if you are going to be credible with your posts. Why will you not admit that the excommunications were lifted? Facts are facts and you are leaving things out and misrepresenting them.
“As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led in later centuries to mutual excommunications with "consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople."Paul VI and Athenagoras I, "Joint Declaration Penetres de Reconnaissance" (Dec. 7, 1965), 3: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58 (1966), 20. The excommunications were mutually lifted in 1965: "Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I in his synod ... declare by mutual agreement ... to regret and to remove from memory and from the midst of the church the sentences of excommunication" (ibid., 4); cf. also Paul VI apostolic letter Ambulate in Dilectione (Dec. 12, 1965): AAS 58 (1966), 40-41; Athenagoras I, Patriarchal Tomos (Dec. 7, 1965): Tomos Agapes Vatican-Phanar (1958-1970), 129 (Vatican Polyglot Press: Rome-Istanbul, 1971), 290-294. This web site explains the new theory of “sister churches”on this site the admit that “The expression sister churches does not appear as such in the New Testament” See http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3135
I said “Now Honorius was excommunicated for allowing heresy to flourish but he was not declared a non Pope ahead of time by anyone that I know of.”
which one already has namely Honorius
You said, “Honorius wasn't a heretic.”
My full statement which you refused to put was “from Grace and being excommunicated which one already has namely Honorius.” It is obvious that Honorius fell from grace because as the head of the Church he did not stop rampant heresy and was excommunicated for it as I said in my earlier post# 79
You were trying to refute me like I claimed that Honorius wasn’t excommunicated for allowing heresy to be spread but was a heretic himself. You misrepresent my words.
Now you were willing to admit you were wrong about Origin not being excommunicated as I stated that he was for his heresy of no one in Hell at the end of time.
Moreover, I was correct in stating that Bellarmaine believed it was possible for a Pope to defect from the faith and loose his chair and I gave citations in my former posts and below.
Now you gave no citations ie. web sites and books for your statement, “He says it can be held probably and piously that the Pope cannot defect. A probable opinion is a "theological opinion which is well founded either on the grounds of its intrinsic coherence or the extrinsic weight of authority favoring it."
By the way Christ’s statements when he said to Peter, "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not" ... Does not preclude the possibility that other Popes could not be excommunicated such as Honorius or be “manifest heretics as Bellarmine, Francis de Sales and Suerez posited. Now I do not adhere to this theory today but as I said if a living Pope excommunicated a Saint Pope like Pius X=- which I don’t think he would do or denied Christ’s divinity or said Contraception is a good thing and everyone should do it or abortion then its obvious he is a “manifest heretic.” So lets not make the seda vecantists look like they have fangs and horns just because they have applied Bellarmaine and other famous theologians and Doctors of the Church to today’s tragic situation of rampant heresy. As I accurately stated the excommunication was lifted on the Orthodox and I think its time for the Church of the Council as Paul VI called it to lift the excommunication on Lefebvre and the four Bishops of the SSPX. I think it is shear hypocrisy that Bishop Castro Mayer was not named in the so called excommunication when he was co- Consecrating the four SSPX Bishops as well and Mayer never signed ONE VATICAN II document because he rightly thought they were too ambiguous and prone to being interpreted in a liberal manner. Incidently the Mayer’s group in Campos never had to retract their statements about Vatican II or the New Mass or repudiate their so called previous schism or say Mayer was wrong in disobeying the Pope for co consecrating Bishops. It is time for us to stop being cruel to one another and love each other as did the apostles, correcting in charity but with firmness. The Pope is right to say that he was not strict enough. Honorius was not strict enough either, otherwise he would not have let heresy flourish. As I said, the situation is far worse than in Arius or Honorius time as Count Nero Capponi (a lawyer for the Roman rota) stated here http://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/CRIFAITH.HTM
The 1913 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church." The common opinion of many theologians is that a Pope could become a manifest heretic and loose his seat. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm.
St. Robert Bellarmine taught: "The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers." see Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice (Milan, 1857), vol. II, chap. 30, p. 420.
see http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/bellarmine.html.
Saint Robert as I told you thought it was possible but not probable and he stated:
"This opinion (that the Pope could not become an heretic) is probable and easily defended . . . Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, (he means that it is possible) and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic." Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice (Milan, 1857), vol. II, chap. 30 p. 418.
Bellarmine posited four theories then he stated in De Romano Pontifice this “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 [antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: "He would not be able to retain the episcopate, 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."
for his heresy of no one in Hell at the end of time
He denied teaching that, by the way.
Now you gave no citations ie. web sites and books for your statement,
Journet cites Bellarmine already in the OP.
It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.
shear hypocrisy that Bishop Castro Mayer was not named in the so called excommunication when he was co- Consecrating the four SSPX Bishops
He was named in the Decree of Excommunication issued by the Congregation for Bishops under His Eminence Cardinal Gantin.
about Bellarmine, I think we are both saying the same thing. He didn't think the Pope could become a heretic, but he admitted that he could be wrong and so treated of the matter assuming the falsity of his own belief.