Posted on 01/24/2021 6:34:30 PM PST by Its All Over Except ...
Pope Honorious I was declared to be an invalid Pope posthumously over the issue of monothelitism, and later primarily for failure to even try and stop it.
Have other Popes been Anathematized?
Can Popes still be Anathematized posthumously or even in real time?
If a person follows a heretick or adheres to the teaching(s) of a heretick, or for either to one later anathematized, are they also an heretick?
People are wondering.....what it means to be Ananthematized?
A “heretick”? Do they bite?
If a hairy tick bites you, I would get an anathamization shot.
It’s obvious that Pope Francis, and others besides him, cannot be in alignment with everything pre-Council of Trent much less 1 minute post-Trent.
I like the old school spelling. Alas, people often don’t know that which is more than 5 minutes old.
I would take this more seriously if I were you, and open a book every now and then and learn that it can be spelled in two differing ways.
There are also official means by which cardinals can declare a Pope to be a heretic.
Francis talks in somewhat ambiguous ways, and like the Dems he gets protection from the press when he occasionally goes too far. So it is a still an open question whether or not he has actually uttered or promulgated a heresy.
Of course there are those who believe that he has already uttered heretical statements, but they are currently in the minority and are generally traditionalists who are being ignored by the Curia, the Catholic press, and Catholics in general.
There are sedevacantists who believe that the last true Pope was Pius XII, but they are a minority. To them Vatican II was heretical and so John XXIII and Paul VI were both heretics for starting and proceeding with it. Likewise John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis are also heretics for not explicitly abrogating the council.
Pope Honorious was anathematized primarily for failure to even try and stop monothelitism. Can the same be said about Pope Francis on the issue of Pachamama when her worshippers were standing before Francis yet no open rebuke then and there or even subsequent attempts to even try and stop it?
Secondly, has Pope Francis lined up with all church teachings from Ad 33 until now on adultery, marriage/remarriage and the Eucharist?
Has he ever said if one commits adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc, and is not forgiven before death, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God as St. Paul taught and has always been taught?
I was listening to Relevant Radio on the way home today from my (Lutheran) worship service. It was a talk show with Patrick Madrid, and he was discussing the kerfuffle over the Bishops' letter to Biden, and how Pope Francis had written his own congratulations to Biden. Madrid said something that almost caused an accident with me running off the road: "If I were the Pope, I would have written a very different letter." If Catholic radio is saying such things, something is brewing...
Pope Honorious I was partly Anathematized for even believing in heresy, so I guess this would apply to all Popes.
Pope Honorious I was partly Anathematized for even believing in heresy, so I guess this would apply to all Popes.
“...the issue of Pachamama when her worshippers were standing before Francis yet no open rebuke...”
Rebuke? Who would he be to rebuke them? He INVITED them. It would be pretty rude to induce someone to travel from Brazil to Rome and then rebuke them, no?
I think you are missing the poing, the point is the Francis was venerating Pachamama, if he wasn’t indeed worshipping her. He’s the one that needs a rebuke, not some Amazonian pagan.
The point is, and you completed it, is if he won’t even rebuke them, then how can he escape being a schismatic, an idolater, even a coddler of idolaters, and a heretic if he invited them?
Right, and I don’t see how he can be. But, please, what’s the story on Benedict? Why, why oh why, did he resign?
I’m pretty sure we all figured he wasn’t long for this world when he stepped aside, yet he lives to this day. And seems to be generally fine for an old fellow.
So what’s the story, Jerry? As some old TV ad would ask.
Full disclosure: I’m no longer a Roman Catholic. But if I hadn’t left when and why I did, I’m pretty sure Pachamama would have driven me out.
So in the end, Pope Honorius was anathematized essentially for believing in heresy and ascribed to Sergius’ heresy, short of teaching it per se. But if believing in it aline can teach others to believe in it that is bad as well.
If belief in heresy doesn’t make one an heretick, then what does, materially even?
And if Francis believes in heresies or fails to stop them even, or invites idolaters, how can he not be a full-bore heretic, beyond even material heresy?
And I too wonder what drove out Pope Benedict. I doubt he would have pulled these stunts.
The 400 year old church approved Our Lady of Good Success (the Good Event) warned us what would begin right after the middle of the 20th century.
Well whatever happens to Pope Francis it could not have been as bad as the Cadaver Synod. Talk about posthumously condemning a Pope. Pope Stephen VI took Formusos’ body from the crypt and set him on the throne. He then yelled at the dead guy and pronounced him guilty. Stephen then had his first three fingers cut off, removed of his garbs and put shoddy rags on him. Formusos’s body was then thrown into the Tiber River where a fisherman retrieved it and it subsequently placed back in his crypt. That is okay Stephen was later imprisoned and strangled. He didn’t but a year as Pope. His successor lasted a little over three months and his successor lasted three weeks.
Whatever Pope Francis has coming he deserves.
your statements are wrong
1. he was not declared an “invalid” Pope - he was anathemized initially for what people thought he taught (which he didn’t ) and then later for not anathemizing that thing that people thought he taught...
2. The Third Council of Constantinople was thus in error when it condemned Honorius for heresy. But a Council, of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope. The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” [Carroll, 254]
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.