Replies

Scurrilous am I???

You may wish to review the history of Popes Alexander VI, Julius II, and Leo X at www.newadvent.org (a Catholic website I use frequently to study church history). You’ll find that even the Catholic Church doesn’t have very kind words for the practice of selling indulgents. You may also wish to review an old post:

The Resurrection of Indulgences or Is Tetzel really dead?

for a history on this subject.

While you’re reviewing church history I would also suggest you check out Pope Honorius I at newadvent. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680).

As far as which doctrinal standards I review, I review EVERYTHING including Catholic, Arminian and Calvin doctrine. And I go directly to the source, not to someone who will interpret it for me (although I look at opposing views). Where I feel I’m in error I’m willing to modify my views such as switching to a more Calvinistic perspective after 30 years.

Most Catholics on this board seem not to wish to research history and doctrine beyond what is published by the Catholic Church. Or so I've been told.

So you give me a list of popes whose personal behavior was abhorrent and one who was condemned as a heretic for admitting the Monothelite error in a non-ex cathedra statement to prove what? That you can read? That there have been bad popes? I never said the Church was impeccable - there can be bad popes and wretched prelates of all sorts, but the Church can never officially teach error or betray the doctrine of Christ, otherwise the charism of infallibility would be meaningless and the gates of Hell would have prevaled (St. Matthew xvi.18) I will openly admit that the selling of indulgences (an act condemned as "simony" - see Acts. viii.20) was wrong and helped give cause to the Protestant revolt, but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water when a few unsavory Church authorities break the rules. Here are a few more words on Pope Honorius:

"Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote to Pope Honorius I (625-38) telling him of the reconciliation of followers of Monophysism by the use of the formula that there was 'one will and one energy in Christ'; that its orthodoxy had been challenged; and asking for a ruling. Honorius neither defined nor condemned: he insisted that Christ was perfect God and perfect man, and wished any reference to one or two energies (or operations) to be dropped; and admitted that 'there being only one principle of action, or one direction of the will in Christ, therefore there must be one will also.' This was the heresy of Monothelism, unless he meant by 'one will' simply a perfect concord of the human and divine wills. But in any case infallibility is not involved, for he did not make an ex cathedra decision (as given proper definition by the First Vatican Council, Session IV, Chapter 4); his reply was not a clear statement for the acceptance of the whole Church and he wrote, 'We must not wrest what they say into church dogmas.' In the sixth ecumenical council, Monothelism was condemned and Pope Honorius anathematized by name for having followed the heretical lead of Sergius. This anathema Pope St. Leo II confirmed only in the sense of a condemnation of his predecessor for 'hedging' and neglecting to denounce heresy outright when he ought to have done so." (Attwater, Donald. A Catholic Dictionary. 1997)

Of course, I find it hilarious that you are concerned with papal condemnations and yet profess to be a Calvinist. I'm thinking the anathemas issued by the Council of Trent would have encompassed a large portion of his teachings.