Posted on 05/15/2006 7:52:03 PM PDT by pravknight
*What total arrogant b.s. It is Holy Mother Church herself, not some arrogant theologian, who decides what is and isn't Tradition and tradition. His is a protestant mindset. He ought to consider officially, not just intellectually, joining the Protestants in Fiddlebacks.
And so what if that self-congratulatory paragraph directly contradicts what he wrote earlier in this same piece - Because God Himself entrusted the Deposit of Faith to the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is inherently traditional.- it doesn't matter. The point being made is he is a genius and we faithful Catholics are idiots being buffaloed and tricked by a disingenuous, untrustworthy Living Magisterium but it can't fool the faithful traditionalist like Chad the Trad. (Ain't he bad).
74 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth":29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:
God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31
I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION
75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34
. . . continued in apostolic succession
77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38
79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.
III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church 84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46
The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.
*The Catholic Church ain't the church of the arrogant theologian publicly taking his Mother to task and labelling as somehow inadequate or suspect Faithful laity who accept` the teaching of the Liivng Magisterium as authoritative.
As for his Magisterially condemned habit of labelling and dividing faithul Christians, how does ANY "trad" defend that practice? Obviously, Chad doesn't know this Tradition. (I assume he doesn;t know it because IF he did know it, that's put him in a MUCH worse light).
Pope Benedict XV - Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum
22. The success of every society of men, for whatever purpose it is formed, is bound up with the harmony of the members in the interests of the common cause. Hence We must devote Our earnest endeavours to appease dissension and strife, of whatever character, amongst Catholics, and to prevent new dissensions arising, so that there may be unity of ideas and of action amongst all. The enemies of God and of the Church are perfectly well aware that any internal quarrel amongst Catholics is a real victory for them. Hence it is their usual practice when they see Catholics strongly united, to endeavour by cleverly sowing the seeds of discord, to break up that union. And would that the result had not frequently justified their hopes, to the great detriment of the interests of religion! Hence, therefore, whenever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.
.... 24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.
*Here, Chad the bad directly engages in activity condemned by Tradition. If he is ignorant of this, what else is he ignorant about when it comes to Tradtion? Plenty.
Aaquinas VS. Chad
Obviously one who holds fast to Church teaching as to an infallible rule of faith gives assent to all that the Church teaches. Conversely, anyone who from among the many things taught by the Church picks some and not others as he chooses no longer holds fast to Church teaching as an infallible rule, but to his own will.
Vatican 1
"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
*No exceptions granted to those who label themselves "trads."
As to Chad's undermining of Vatican Two..
Pope Benedict XVI
(as Cardinal Ratzinger): Vatican II Has the Same Authority as Trent (if one goes, both go)
The Ratzinger Report
It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points . . .
Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . . It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called 'traditionalism,' also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.
To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the 'right' and 'left' alike) to view Vatican II as a 'break' and an abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them . . .
I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one's own already-established convictions?
*Theologians like Chad are pernicious and destroy unity. They spred doubt, uncertainty, confusion, enmity and disloyalty. That he and his ilk do in under the rubric of "traditon" just makes sicker the entire evil enterprise.
*What total arrogant b.s. It is Holy Mother Church herself, not some arrogant theologian, who decides what is and isn't Tradition and tradition. His is a protestant mindset. He ought to consider officially, not just intellectually, joining the Protestants in Fiddlebacks.
Protestant mindset. Gimme a break. Would you have followed Pope Honorius when he taught Monothelitism from the Chair of Peter (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. From the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council) or John XXII in his teachings on the beatific vision, not to mention the teachings of certain medieval councils that endorsed torture?
Name one Protestant doctrine the good father who is an incardinated seminary professor in Bishop Bruskewitz' diocese has embraced.
Defending the Tradition of the Church means rebuking those even in authority when their teachings are ambiguous or present a state of confusion for the laity and lower clergy.
St. Maximos the Confessor rebuked the reigning Patriarch of Constantinople when he taught the Monothelite heresy and was exiled to the Crimea for his defiance.
Vatican II's failure to harmonize its teachings on ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, as well as the post-Pius XII popes, in continuity with the pre-conciliar magisterium has done nothing but to bring confusion into the minds of the faithful.
Vatican II contradicts the canonical magisterium of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which applied the following canons to the entire Church. These canons were part of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which was in force at the time of the council. Postconciliar teachings such as the allowance of cremation, intermarriage, etc., stands in contradiction with the previous 19 centuries, not to mention the allowance of higher biblical criticism in the seminaries.
"Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he had permitted them to perform any service as Clergymen, let him be deposed."
Canon LXV Of the Holy Apostles:
"If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."
Canon IX of Laodicia (Also approved by the Ecumenical Synods)
Canon 31. It is riot lawful to make marriages with all [sorts of] heretics, nor to give our sons and daughters to them; but rather to take of them, if they promise to become Christians.
Canon 32. It is unlawful to receive the eulogiae of heretics, for they are rather alogiai [i.e., fol-lies], than eulogiae [i.e., blessings].
Canon 33. No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics.
Canon 34. No Christian shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs, that is, to those of the heretics, or those who formerly were heretics; for they are aliens from God. Let those, therefore, who go after them, be anathema.
Canon 35. Christians must not forsake the Church of God, and go away and invoke angels and gather assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one shall be found engaged in this covert idolatry, let him be anathema; for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has gone over to idolatry.
"Concerning the fact that those belonging to the Church must not be allowed to go visiting the cemeteries or the so called martyria of any heretics, for the purpose of prayer or of cure, but, on the contrary, those who do so, if they be among the faithful, shall be excluded from communion for a time until they repent and confess their having made a mistake, when they may be readmitted to communion."
Canon XXXIII of Laodicia
"Let not the Symbol of Faith be set aside…but let it remain unchanged: and let every heresy be given over to anathema…"
Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus
What really shows here is your hatred of the Old Rite of Mass and its strongest defenders. I think what you show here is a sense of parochialism that twists the pre-concilliar teachings in defense of liberal innovations, such as JP2's break with his predecessors' teachings on capital punishment. It seems anything that is not in sync with your private interpretations of Church teachings is Protestantism, which really shows your ignorance of what Protestantism really is.
What traditionalists in union with the Holy See want is the teachings of Vatican II explained in continuity with the Tradition of the preceeding 19 centuries. Vatican II fundamentalism establishes Vatican II as the rule of faith and casts everything that happened before the council to the four winds of the Earth.
*Theologians like Chad are pernicious and destroy unity. They spred doubt, uncertainty, confusion, enmity and disloyalty. That he and his ilk do in under the rubric of "traditon" just makes sicker the entire evil enterprise.
>>I think you should have a look at the teachings from the local bishops regarding ecumenism and how it is put into practice. Dioceses sponsoring joint worship services with Protestant churches, the large numbers of Catholic laity who don't think there is any difference between Protestantism and Catholicism.
Loyalty to the Church means loyalty to what has been passed down from the beginning, and when confusion emanates from the Chair of Peter as was the case during Pope Honorius's pontificate as well as those of JP2 and Paul VI, it has to be met with an honest critique.
Is the religious indifferentism that has spread since Vatican II in reponse to ambiguities in the conciliar and the postconciliar papal teachings any less evil. It is downright hilarious that you accuse those who wish to defend the Church from heretical tendencies evil.
Charismatic Neo-pentacostalism, Focolare's promotion of religious indifference with papal approval, the Neo-catechumenal Way and the integration of Hindu and Islamic prayers into the Mass in India are fruits of Vatican II.
Vatican II and the popes of the post-Vatican II era have spread confusion from the walls of the Vatican when it comes to ecumenism.
St. Pius X "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" para 14
"How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate."
You're right. It is very important for serious Catholics pondering the limits of infallibility to study the Honorius case. It certainly makes one a little more careful.
II. In none of the Acts of the Council is it said that Honorius is called a heretic because he maintained or taught heresy.
III. It is said expressly, and not once only, that Honorius is condemned because, by his silence, he fostered the Monothelites and followed the counsel of Sergius. For example, Act. Conc. XIII., "We execrate the impious dogmas of these men, and we judge that their own names shall be cast forth from the Holy Church of God, that is to say, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, and Paul, and also Theodore. . . . And with these we order that Honorius be cast out and anathematized, because we find by the writings, made to Sergius, that in all things he followed his counsel and confirmed his impious doctrines." The Latin has sequi mentem ejus, which is ambiguous, aud may mean either to follow the doctrine, or follow the intention and plan of Sergius; but the original Greek text, of which the Latin is a translation, has, without any ambiguity, "followed the counsel."
Honorius, therefore, is not condemned like the rest for his impious dogmas, but because, by following the counsel of Sergius, he did not repress but strengthened (confirmavit) an impious dogma.
IV. It is expressly said. in the Acts, that God cannot endure that rule of silence, "Et quomodo non indigneretur Deus qui blasphemebatur et non defendebatur." "And how could God but be indignant, who was blasphemed and NOT defended?" (In Sermo Prosphonetics, Act. XVIII.) Hence, also, and for the same reason the Council is indignant, and hurls its anathema against Honorius
. V. The letters of Honorius were burned because they were destructive to the Church and favorable to the heretical contumacy of Sergius, not indeed, in doctrine, but in their approbation of the rule of silence and in too great lenity toward the heresiarch. They are condemned not because they contained the same impiety as the writings of the others, but because "ad unam eademque impietatem tenderent;" they tended (in the Greek concurred) to one and the same impiety."
VI. If, therefore, Honorius is called a heretic, and is anathematized and cast out, it is not for heresy, but for connivance towards heretics. And expressly in this sense was the intention of the Council interpreted by the Emperor Constantine, who was not only present at the Council, but took part in it. In the same sense did St. Leo interpret it, who, having carefully examined the Acts of the Council and conferred with the legates who presided over it, approved them and translated them into Latin. Both Constantine and Leo say that Honorius was condemned, not because he taught error, but because he had favored and strengthened heretics, and had, not stained the Church himself, but suffered it to be distained by others.
*That is the truth anouit Honorius. However, even IF prav's personal opinions were accurate, that STILL would not give him permission to disobey.
Who died, resurrected, and gave him authority to judge when a Pope is right or wrong and when he can be disobeyed? That idea is purely protestant and gives prav authority over the sucessors of Peter, Ecumenical Councils etc. It is private judgement pure and simple
The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth century. Difficulties made themselves felt when, after the Great Western Schism, papal infallibility began to be doubted. Protestantism and Gallicanism made vigorous attacks on the unfortunate pope, and at the time of the Vatican Council Honorius figured in every pamphlet and every speech on ecclesiastical subjects. The question has not only been debated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as well as by the professed controversialists.
*Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
Those with a protestant mindset still use Honorius as a battering ram to try and destroy Christian unity and attack the Living Magisterium
Of course that's true, but it's also true that Honorius came the closest a Pope has ever come to teaching error, so it is an instructive historical case on how far the Pope can go in being, well, wrong.
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."
"We have brought out no new method of speech, but have taught whatever we have received from the holy Ecumenical Synods, and from the holy approved Fathers, as well as from the archbishops of this imperial city, to wit: Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, as also from Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, and from Cyrus who was Pope of Alexandria, that is to say with reference to will and operation, and so we have believed, and so we believe, so we preach; and further we are ready to stand by, and defend this faith...
The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our 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 Phasis 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 subjected 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. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches.
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 Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!
Those with an Ultramontane mindset deliberately try to erase the memory of this accursed pope as part of their effort to raise the pope to near god-like status. Pope Honorius is a testament to the fallibility of the ordinary papal magisterium.
If the pope is above reapproach and his teachings cannot be questioned, logically the Sixth Ecumenical Council, confirmed by Pope Agatho has to be dropped from the list of Catholic ecumenical councils. It's too inconvenient.
Even if Pope Honorius was not a formal heretic, it shows that a pope can err in the actions of his office.
Are you of the opinion that the pope is "God on Earth"?
Dear Claud,
"Of course that's true, but it's also true that Honorius came the closest a Pope has ever come to teaching error,..."
I disagree. Honorius merely refrained from teaching orthodoxy, while not actually ever enunciating anything that was at fault.
I think John XXII is the closest we had to a pope who actually taught error. Pope John actually held, as a private theologian, though while pope, that the blessed dead would not behold the Beatific Vision until the Last Judgment. He didn't teach this from the Chair of Peter, and attached no authority to his views. He eventually repudiated his own view, and taught authoritatively that the blessed dead do behold the Beatific Vision before final judgment.
I think that's as close as we've seen a pope to teaching error. Although, even here, he held a view as a private theologian that had not yet been definitively decided, and thus, did not hold what was yet formally heretical.
sitetest
Pope Honorius' heresy deprived him of the papacy, if you follow the teachings of the fathers and innumerable theologians.
A heretical pope ceases not only to be pope but being a member of the Church.
St. Robert Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, II.29.):
Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.
Do you believe in obeying error?
Bellarmine and Baronius followed Pighius in denying that Honorius was condemned at all.
Denying the plain fact the Acts show Pope Honorius I was anathematized for heresy is playing fast and loose with semantics.
Anathema, the Honorius the heretic!
Doesn't do enough for you.
Even if St. Robert Bellarmine denied the Honorius was a heretic in plain ignorance of what the pope wrote, it doesn't change the fact he was anathematized by an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. Sweeping Pope Honorius under the carpet sounds more like a cleanup effort or a bit like what a P.R. person does.
Perhaps we should follow the Coptic lead and rehabilitate "St." Dioscoros because he wasn't really a heretic. He was just misunderstood just like poor Pope Honorius.
This episode shows that a pope may err in his exercise of the papal office.
The passage cited is from a lengthy chapter Bellarmine devotes to refuting nine arguments advocating the position that the pope is subject to secular power (emperor, king, etc.) and an ecumenical council (the heresy of conciliarism).
The general context, therefore, is a discussion of the power of the state vis-à-vis the pope...In its particular context, the oft-cited quote is part of Bellarmine's refutation of the following argument:
Argument 7. Any person is permitted to kill the pope if he is unjustly attacked by him. Therefore, even more so is it permitted for kings or a council to depose the pope if he disturbs the state, or if he tries to kill souls by his bad example.
Bellarmine answers:
I respond by denying the second part of the argument. For to resist an attacker and defend one's self, no authority is needed, nor is it necessary that he who is attacked be the judge and superior of him who attacks. Authority is required, however, to judge and punish.
It is only then that Bellarmine states:
Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice, II.29.)
Bellarmine...is discussing the course of action which may legitimately be taken against a pope who upsets the political order or "kills souls by his bad example." A king or a council may not depose such a pope, Bellarmine argues, because they are not his superior—but they may resist him.
Nor does this quote support those traditional Catholics who would recognize John Paul II as pope but reject his Mass and ignore his laws.
First, the passage justifies resistance by kings and councils. It does not say that individual bishops, priests and laymen on their own possess this right to resist the pope and ignore his commands—still less that they can set up places of worship in opposition to diocesan bishops a pope has lawfully appointed.
Second, note the precise causes for resistance in the case Bellarmine is discussing: disturbing the state or giving bad example. These, obviously, are not the same thing as papal liturgical legislation, disciplinary laws or doctrinal pronouncements which an individual might somehow deem harmful. Bellarmine would hardly approve of disregarding, carte blanche, for 30 years the directives of men one claims to recognize as legitimate occupants of the papal office and the vicars of Christ on earth.
In sum, the passage neither condemns sedevacantism nor supports traditionalists like the adherents of the Society of St. Pius X.
*"trads," in misusing Bellarmine's quote, taken out of context, advance and solidify, in the minds of those disobedient to the Vicar of Christ, the idea that opposition is not only permitted but that such opposition is principled
Bellarmine...is discussing the course of action which may legitimately be taken against a pope who upsets the political order or "kills souls by his bad example.
I am glad you posted this because isn't the pope's actions of kissing the Qur'an holding interreligious dialogues without any purpose of converting the other side "killing souls by his bad example"?
Doesn't this give the uneducated Catholic the impression there is no difference between one religion and another even if the pope's exhortations, read by the few, include warnings against religious indifferentism?
You mean the Vicar of Sts. Peter and Paul. LOL.
I'm not going to waste my time any longer. You will continue to do what you have been doing no matter what I post.
In general,the soul has the properties of will and intellect (and, some add, memory) The problem soi disant trads have in their opposition to the Church Jesus established and its Divinely-Constituted authority is, not usually, located in the intellect. They have been, repeatedly, informed as to the facts. The locus of the problem is in the will and only the Holy Spirt can redirect that to its proper ends. And,it is also true that Fee Will being what it is, there is the real possibility one's will may never be redirected as the first condition for that, potential,redirection is humility.
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.