Prove that the See of Peter has been vacant since the death of Pius XII

[Michael Wilson]

The Anathema against Honorius
We have seen that the Council fathers and the emperor held the papacy in the greatest esteem, ascribing to the successors of St. Peter the voice of the Apostle himself, who preserves the Church from heresy through the unerring teaching of the Roman pontiffs. The Council greeted with universal acclaim the letter of St. Agatho, which unequivocally affirmed the infallibility of the faith of the Apostolic See. As the emperor later wrote to the Latin bishops, "We admired the writing of Agatho as the voice of St. Peter, for nobody disagreed save one [i.e., Macarius]." This admiration was principally directed toward Pope Agatho's exposition of the faith, yet the Pope explicitly based the authority of this creed on the fact that it was the faith that had always been taught at Rome. How then, do we reconcile the paeans to papal infallibility with the fact that this same Council anathematized Pope Honorius for heresy?
It is important to recognize that in the first millennium, the attitude of the East toward the papacy was neither that of the modern Orthodox nor that or modern Catholics, but at an intermediate position. The Pope did not exert ordinary jurisdiction over the East, which appointed its own bishops and established its own canons, yet he was sometimes called to resolve disputes in matters of faith among the eastern patriarch. Before this Council, no Pope had ever been accused of heresy by an Eastern bishop save those who ended up condemned of heresy themselves. Thus the faith of Rome was considered unblemished by the orthodox fathers of the East. On several occasions, the Greeks explicitly stated that Rome had never failed to preserve the faith, and referred this singular grace to Petrine succession. The case of Honorius, however, put the limits of papal infallibility to the test. Could a pope err in his teaching, and if so, how could Christ's promise to St. Peter be considered fulfilled?
It is doubtful that the Greek fathers devoted much thought to the impact of the anathema against Honorius to the doctrine of papal infallibility. Popes had been anathematized by the East over political and ecclesiastical disputes, so there seemed nothing unusual to the Greeks about anathematizing a Pope. Also, the pope in question was long dead, so the condemnation of his memory did not in any way impair communion with Rome, whose current pontiff upheld the traditional faith. Further, papal infallibility was never formally defined as a doctrine of the faith, though it had been asserted by popes for centuries, and accepted on some level by the East. Thus it was not clearly what its limits were, whether it admitted of absolutely no exceptions, or whether it sufficed for the papacy to preserve the faith more or less continuously. We have seen that the Greek bishops saw no contradiction in condemning Honorius and yet affirming arguments for Petrine primacy that are familiar to modern Catholics.
The popes, being naturally more protective of their prerogatives, gave more attention to questions bearing on papal infallibility. Pope Agatho took care not to include Honorius among the list of those he condemned. The Council nevertheless added Honorius to the list, and in its acts appears to imply that this was consistent with what Agatho willed, apparently on the assumption that since Agatho condemned Monothelitism, naturally he would want all Monothelites, including Honorius, to be condemned. Pope St. Leo II, in his ratification of the Council, would take care to clarify that Honorius was not guilty of teaching error, but only of negligence in his failure to identify and condemn heresy.
The exact scope of papal infallibility was not formally defined until the nineteenth century, though it was recognized in some form from the earliest Christian centuries. In the modern definition, the Pope cannot err in matters of faith or morals when he is teaching ex cathedra, that is, in his capacity as the successor of Peter and head of the Catholic Church. This doctrine considers that the Pope is infallible not by his personal virtue, but by virtue of being the successor of St. Peter, much as the ancient fathers believed. Further, he acts in this infallible teaching capacity only when he intends to define a matter of faith and morals for the entire Church, not just some particular Church or group of individuals. We will consider papal infallibility in this modern sense when we examine the case of Honorius.
The anathema against Honorius contains two issues that bear upon the modern doctrine of papal infallibility. First, what did Honorius really teach? Did he teach heresy, or at least some error of faith? Second, what was the Council's judgment against Honorius? Was he judged to be a formal heretic, or was he condemned merely for giving material support to the spread of heresy?
In his letter to Sergius, Honorius did not assert that the human will and the divine will are one and the same by nature, but only that Christ's will is morally one, i.e., that it is unconflicted. Honorius' reasoning in support of the formula unam voluntatem speaks of Christ's lack of a vitiata natura to "war against the law of His mind," but does not address the possibility of an essential distinction between the human and divine wills. Honorius shows only that Christ does not have a vicious will in opposition to the law of His mind. Christ has "one will" in the sense that He is of one mind, and not at war with himself. There is nothing heretical in this belief.
One might contend that Honorius has nonetheless made a materially heretical statement by asserting "one will" in Christ and failing to consider the necessary consequence that the two complete natures should each have a fully formed will. However, it is not at all clear that Honorius understood the term "will" to refer to a natural faculty. On the contrary, he uses the term to mean an inclination of the mind, and since both the human and divine faculties of willing were inclined toward the same end, Honorius would recognize only one "will" in the sense of inclination. When the author's intent regarding the use of terms is considered, the text is not materially heretical.
However, we must recall that the Second Council of Constantinople condemned the letter of Ibas, even though it was not heretical when understood in the sense the author intended. It sufficed that the letter contained written expressions that, taken at face value, could have a heretical sense. By this standard, Honorius' letter would be materially heretical, yet the proper course of action would be to condemn the letter and not the person of Honorius, as was the case with the letter of Ibas.
Honorius might be faulted, if not for teaching positive heresy, then at least for forbidding the use of the orthodox expression "two operations". Motivated by a desire to avoid disputes, he allowed heresy and orthodoxy to stand on equal terms. Honorius was unwilling to address the issue of the number of operations in Christ, considering this a matter of theological speculation immaterial to the apostolic faith. We might contend that this belief is itself heretical, for in fact the question of operations is necessarily linked to the Chalcedonian doctrine. Again, we find that the Pope had a different understanding of terminology. Honorius regards "operation" as referring to each of God's ways of acting, so he sees no difficulty in saying that God has innumerable operations. Using this definition of "operation", Honorius is correct to say that the number of operations in Christ is a matter of theological speculation, not of the apostolic faith. However, we may fault Honorius for negligence, for he did not duly inquire into what was meant by Sergius' expressions and thus unwittingly gave material support to his heresy.
The Council certainly condemned Honorius as a heretic, and based this judgment on his choice of expressions. He had endorsed the expression "one will" and disparaged the expression "two operations", though he did not have the same understanding of these expressions as did Sergius. Honorius did not hold any heterodox belief, but his choice of expressions gave material support to the Monothelites, so the Council found it necessary to condemn him. As we noted in our discussion of the fifth ecumenical council, there was not a neat distinction between formal and material heresy at this time. A man could be condemned of heresy merely if the literal sense of his writing was heretical, even if it was not the intended sense.
Pope Leo II recognized that Honorius was not guilty of heresy, but rather of not illuminating the Apostolic tradition, and therefore allowing it to be subverted. The Pope's duty is not merely to not be a heretic, but to actively teach the true faith, and Honorius failed in this duty. This does not impact the doctrine of papal infallibility, for Honorius did not teach false doctrine. Nonetheless, he was negligent in his duty to illuminate the true faith, thereby occasioning the spread of heresy. For this reason, Pope Leo II upheld the anathema against Honorius, though he corrected the Council in its mistaken belief that Honorius had "followed Sergius in all things".
Since Pope Agatho had died before the Council ended, it fell to Leo II to ratify the decrees of the Council, on behalf of himself and all the bishops of the West. Without such ratification, the Council could not be ecumenical, but would have the force of a regional synod of Greek bishops. In his letter to the emperor confirming the Council's decrees, Pope Leo clarified how the anathema against Honorius was to be understood.
Likewise we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is Theodore bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, ambushers of the Church of Constantinople more than prelates, and also Honorius, who did not enlighten this apostolic church with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but allowed the immaculate faith to be defiled by profane treachery, and all who died in their error.
Pope Leo makes a distinction between "the inventors of the new error," namely the Monothelite prelates listed, and Honorius, who is guilty of a different crime. The pope's guilt is twofold: he failed to issue a definition of the apostolic faith, and he endorsed a policy that suppressed orthodox and heterodox expressions on equal terms, thereby giving material aid to the spread of heresy within the Church. Pope Leo regarded Honorius' guilt as sufficient to merit anathema, as he was an accessory to the spread of error. We should note that the oft-cited Latin translation of Pope Leo's letter misrepresents the Greek, saying that he "attempted to subvert" (subvertere conatus est) the faith. The original Greek uses the terms parexoresen, which means "allowed," "permitted," or "supplied the means," and mianthenai ("defiled; stained"). The sense is that Pope Honorius facilitated the spread of the error that other men had devised.
Shortly afterward, Pope Leo wrote to the bishops of Spain, characterizing Honorius' offense in similar terms, accusing his predecessor of helping to spread heresy by his negligence.
I forbid that there should come forth any enemies against the pure apostolic tradition... they were beaten with eternal condemnation, that is, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter of Constantinople, with Honorius who did not extinguish the incipient flame of heretical doctrine, but fanned it by his negligence (sed negligendo confovit).
In his letter to Pope Leo, Emperor Constantine called Honorius "the confirmer of the heresy and contradicter of himself". By his contradictory policy of forbidding both orthodox and heterodox expressions, Honorius helped error to flourish, in opposition to the apostolic faith of which he was the guardian.
Lastly, we see in a letter to Ervig, king of Spain, written by either Pope Leo or his successor Benedict II:
And all the originators (auctores) of heretical assertions the council has decreed condemned, they are cast from the unity of the Catholic Church, that is Theodore bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, formerly prelates of Constantinople; together with them Honorius of Rome, who allowed to be stained (consensit maculavi) the immaculate rule of apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors.
Again, Honorius is distinguished from those who originated or proposed heretical assertions, and faulted only for negligence. Yet even this lesser offense is considered a grave crime meriting expulsion from the Church, and leaving a singular stain on the Apostolic See.
These citations make clear that Honorius was indeed posthumously excommunicated by an Ecumenical Council ratified by a Pope, yet not for teaching positive heresy. His crime was to materially abet the spread of heresy by failing to issue a definition of faith and by suppressing the use of orthodox expressions. If Honorius were an ordinary cleric, his offenses would be minor, but it is precisely because the Pope was expected to be an unfailing exponent of the apostolic faith that his negligence constituted a grave crime against the Church.
There is no evidence of anti-papal sentiment in the Council of Constantinople, save what might be rashly inferred from the anathema against Honorius. Bishops and emperor alike effused praise for Pope Agatho and the special grace of unfailing orthodoxy that the Roman pontiff received from St. Peter himself, invoking the same arguments familiar to modern Catholic defenders of papal infallibility. Never before had a Pope stained the immaculate faith of the Apostolic See in any way, so the bishops at Constantinople were treading on new ground. Perhaps they thought Christ's promise to Peter was sufficiently preserved by Agatho's confession, and that they could restore the unblemished record of the Apostolic See by expunging the memory of Honorius. The popes took a stronger stand regarding their inerrant magisterium, as Agatho deliberately omitted Honorius from those he named for condemnation, and Leo II took care to distinguish his predecessor's crime of negligence from that of proposing positive heresy. Since papal ratification is essential to the ecumenicity of the Council, especially as the entire Latin patriarchate was represented through the Pope, the anathema against Honorius can only be lawfully understood in the sense clarified by Pope Leo.
Neither of the two aspects of Honorius' crime is in contradiction with the modern Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. Neglecting to define true doctrine, while a grievous failing, does not constitute teaching error, nor does Honorius' pragmatic recommendation that discussion of the issue should be suppressed. When we examined the text of Honorius' letter to Sergius, we found that his use of the expression "one will" was in a perfectly orthodox context, and that his refusal to accept the expression "two operations" was based on an entirely different understanding from Sergius as to what "operation" signified. Thus Honorius was not a heretic, either de facto or de jure.

[Michael Wilson]

Epilogue
Although pope, emperor and bishops all received the acts of the Council gladly and with acclaim, there would remain some obstacles to their full acceptance. The first appears to have been accidental. After Emperor Constantine died (685), it came to the attention of his son and successor Justinian II that the original acts of the Council were missing. The acts of the general councils were ordinarily kept in the imperial archive, but those of the sixth Council had been lent out by the judices (judges responsible for fact-finding) and never returned. Fearing that the acts were now vulnerable to falsification, Justinian summoned an assembly (687) of important clerics to verify the acts when they were returned. He explained his actions in a letter to Pope John V, who had attended the Council as a deacon. John V had died, however, so the letter was received by his successor, Pope Conon. The emperor wrote:
I have learnt that the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Synod have been sent back by some to the judices who had lent them to them. I did not, indeed, foresee that anyone would venture to have these Acts without my permission; for God, in His abundant mercy, has appointed me to be the keeper of the unfalsified faith of Christ.
The emperor served as a guardian of the faith, by protecting the original documents of the general councils and the holy fathers in the imperial archive. The temporary loss of the acts of the sixth Council was therefore a serious matter to Justinian. He says that he summoned the papal legate, the patriarchs, the archbishops, and many state officials, before whom the recovered acts were read. They all set their seal on the acts, and Justinian had the documents immediately returned to the archive, so no partisan could tamper with them.
The sixth ecumenical synod, like the one that preceded it, did not have any disciplinary canons. In 692, Justinian summoned another council to draft canons for the fifth and sixth councils. This council, called the Quinisext Council or the Trullan Synod (after the hall in which it was held), was never fully recognized in the West. Its content and canonical status are complicated matters, best reserved for another essay. At any rate, consisting as it did of merely disciplinary canons, it has no bearing on matters of dogmatic faith.
Monothelitism would have one last gasp, however, when the imperial throne was seized in 711 by Philippicus Bardanes. This usurper had been the pupil of Abbot Stephen, the disciple of Macarius. Raised to the throne by the Monothelite faction, he immediately deposed Patriarch Cyrus of Constantinople, replacing him with John VI. All who were condemned by the Council, including Honorius, were restored to the diptychs. A conventicle of bishops was convened to reject the Third Council of Constantinople, and those who refused were exiled. Pope Constantine (reigned 708-715) refused to recognize the emperor or the patriarch.
The reign of Philippicus was short-lived, and in 713 he was deposed, blinded, and exiled. Orthodoxy was restored under the new emperor, Anastasius II. Patriarch John VI wrote a long letter of profuse apology to the Pope, claiming he had served the usurper Bardanes only to prevent greater evils. He recognized papal supremacy over himself, writing: "The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren..." With this act of submission to the Pope, the Monothelite controversy ended, never again to disturb the Church.
The condemnation of Honorius would be reiterated by later ecumenical councils, in accordance with the customary profession of allegiance to preceding synods. The official acts of the Second Council of Nicaea say only this regarding Honorius:
Further we declare that there are two wills and principles of action, in accordance with what is proper to each of the natures in Christ, in the way that the sixth synod, that at Constantinople, proclaimed, when it also publicly rejected Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, those uninterested in true holiness, and their likeminded followers.
The Council declares that it believes in two wills and two operations as proclaimed at Constantinople, and mentions that the previous council rejected Sergius, Honorius, etc., listing all without distinction. It upholds the anathema, but does not elaborate on the reason for it save to say that they were "uninterested in true holiness".
The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) gave a more detailed recapitulation of its understanding of the sixth ecumenical synod. Its official acts declare:
Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod, which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down that in the two natures of the one Christ there are, as a consequence, two principles of action and the same number of wills. So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs Apollinarius, Eutyches and Severus and proclaimed that the flesh of God, while being animated by a rational and intellectual soul, was without a principle of action and without a will, they themselves being impaired in their senses and truly without reason.
Here the offending prelates are distinguished by see: first, those of Constantinople, then Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen. These men are all characterized, apparently without distinction, as following the false teachings of Apollinaris (who denied that Christ had a rational soul distinct from the Logos) and the Monophysites Eutyches and Severus. As the Council clarifies, the Monothelites did not deny altogether that Christ had a rational human soul distinct from His divinity, but they irrationally affirmed that this supposedly rational soul lacked a will and principle of action. To be fair, the Monothelites actually believed that Christ had a single divino-human will, but this would entail a heretical mingling of the two natures.
The Council's assessment of the Monothelite heresy is sound, but we have seen that Honorius did not participate in the claim of which the prelates are accused. He did not deny that Christ's soul had a principle of action or a will. On the contrary, his entire discussion of Christ's will was from the perspective of human souls, and he believed that the "operations", in the sense he understood the term, were innumerable. By carelessly lumping Honorius with the true Monophysites, giving the impression that he made the same assertions as they did, the Second Council of Nicaea appears to assert an error in fact, though not in faith.
Pope Adrian II (reigned 867-872) confirmed the Council's decrees, and said this regarding the condemnation of Honorius:
After his death, Honorius was anathemized by the Eastern Church; but we should not forget that he was accused of heresy, the only crime that would make lawful the resistance of inferiors to the orders of their superiors, and the refusal of their malicious doctrines.
Adrian II evidently believed that Honorius was condemned for heresy, but this could mean either proposing a false teaching or following it. The popes in Adrian's time swore an oath upon election acknowledging the sixth ecumenical council, including the anathema against Honorius, "because he followed the perverse statements of the heretics" (quia pravis haeriticorum assertionibus fomentum impendit). Thus it is likely that Adrian understood Honorius' "heresy" in the sense of going along with the assertions of heretics. Indeed, at the Third Council of Constantinople, Honorius was said to have "followed Sergius in everything". Honorius did not propose Monothelitism, much less proclaim it in a solemn definition of faith, but he allowed Sergius to dictate the terms of the debate, and naively followed the Constantinopolitan patriarch's contention that those who spoke of two wills in Christ were asserting conflict or opposition within Christ. This fault, which consists of negligence and poor choice of expression, sufficed to constitute "heresy" in the sense Adrian understood it. Although Honorius had not taught error, his suppression of orthodox expressions gave material support to heresy, and the bishops of the East would be justified in resisting his policy, though ordinarily they must obey the Pope as their superior.
Although we have seen that Honorius was not in fact a heretic, nor was he juridically condemned for teaching positive heresy, the fact remains that many Greek bishops and possibly even some popes believed that Honorius was indeed a heretic in the formal sense. This bears on the modern doctrine of papal infallibility, for even if we admit that Pope Honorius in fact did not teach error, we must face the fact that many bishops throughout the Church believed that it was possible for a pope to do so. This is unsurprising, as even the greatest Catholic theologians of the Tridentine period maintained that it was theoretically possible for a pope to be a heretic. Some held that a heretic pope ceases to be pope, while others sustained that such a pope, while remaining pope, could be lawfully resisted. The idea that a pope could be a heretic is not in contradiction with the notion of papal infallibility, as long as the heretic pope does not propose his errors for the Church's acceptance in a solemn definition of faith or an act of his ordinary universal magisterium.
Pope Honorius did not issue a definition of faith, but his letter to Sergius certainly does constitute an act of his ordinary universal magisterium, so the grace of infallibility should apply to it. We have seen that there is no error in what Honorius wrote, considered in its full written context, without recourse to the internal disposition of the pontiff, known only to God. The Pope's suppression of the expression "two operations" would have been heretical if he were proposing for belief that all Catholics must deny that there are two operations in Christ, but in fact his explicit purpose was to suspend discussion altogether, rather than decide the issue.
This equivocation, calculated to bring peace, ended up doing the opposite, and we may recall that Sergius' invention of Monothelitism was similarly motivated by diplomacy, in his endeavor to reconcile the Monophysites. We have seen that peace cannot be purchased by suppressing the true faith or by dismissing questions of orthodoxy as idle quibbles. Christians, especially those in positions of teaching authority, must not fear the immediate controversy that will ensue when we articulate the apostolic faith boldly and clearly, for this is the only sure guarantee of lasting unity in the Church. Indeed, this was made clear by Christ Himself, when He explicitly guaranteed the endurance of the Church against "the gates of Hell" by resting His Church on the sure faith confessed by St. Peter.
References Cited
C.J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church.

Mgr. Philip Hughes, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870.
________________________________________
© 2009 Daniel J. Castellano. All rights reserved. http://www.arcaneknowledge.org

[voxxpopulisuxx]

I'm not going to spoonfeed this to you; you have to be willing to do the reading.  But anyway, here is my thesis.

Being that the universal opinion of the Doctors is that a heretic is barred by divine law from the Papacy, and that a Pope who falls into heresy automatically loses office, and that because John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis I have espoused heretical views on Modernism, Ecumenism, and Relativism, as well as a full acceptance by each of them of the heretical Second Vatican Council, these men have not and do not have a legal claim to the Chair of Peter, and are thus antipopes.

Are you certain that you want to include that the Second Vatican Council is heretical in the first degree?

That will be a pretty big piece to chew and I really hope you're not going to reference John Daly's work. 

Also, I'm not asking for your to spoon feed me ... I am asking you to clearly and concisely prove your point in a manner consistent with the academic model - nothing shoddy. 

Pull it all together and expend the energy that is required for such a topic.

If you aren't up to the task - then say so at once.

P^3

considering this is an internet forum and not the library conference room at Notre Dame your requirements are absurd.

[tradical]

I'm not going to spoonfeed this to you; you have to be willing to do the reading.  But anyway, here is my thesis.

Being that the universal opinion of the Doctors is that a heretic is barred by divine law from the Papacy, and that a Pope who falls into heresy automatically loses office, and that because John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis I have espoused heretical views on Modernism, Ecumenism, and Relativism, as well as a full acceptance by each of them of the heretical Second Vatican Council, these men have not and do not have a legal claim to the Chair of Peter, and are thus antipopes.

Are you certain that you want to include that the Second Vatican Council is heretical in the first degree?

That will be a pretty big piece to chew and I really hope you're not going to reference John Daly's work. 

Also, I'm not asking for your to spoon feed me ... I am asking you to clearly and concisely prove your point in a manner consistent with the academic model - nothing shoddy. 

Pull it all together and expend the energy that is required for such a topic.

If you aren't up to the task - then say so at once.

P^3

considering this is an internet forum and not the library conference room at Notre Dame your requirements are absurd.

Oops, sorry I thought that Sedevacantists were rational human beings who could defend their positions without resorting to the simple confirmation bias induced repetition of flawed arguments by people with the same perceptual biases.

My mistake.

[tradical]

@Michael Wilson.

When I brought up the same question about Honorious to my theologian friend he pointed out the following:

1. His condemnation is found in the Acts [of the third council of Constantinople] in the xiiith Session, near the beginning.

2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session.

3. In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc."

4. In the decree of faith published at the xviijth Session it is stated that "the originator of all evil ... found a fit tool for his will in ... Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc."

5. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that "Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome" they had "punished with exclusion and anathema" because he followed the monothelites.

6. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it "has slain with anathema Honorius."

7. The imperial decree speaks of the "unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed" and mentions among them "Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself." The Emperor goes on to anathematize "Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."

8. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.4

9. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the Trullan Canons (No. j.).

10. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.

11. Honorius's name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius's life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)

12. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus5 taken by each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., "smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics."

13. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod.


His heretical utterances were not taught ex cathedra, so do not falsify the teaching of the Church on papal infallibility. Here is the sentence of the council:


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.


The acclamations of  the conciliar fathers were as follows:


[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]

Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian[sic]! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches!O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!

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! To Paul To Peter To Macarius the heretic, anathema! To Stephen To Polychronius To Apergius of Perga To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!

May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!


One finds attempts by Catholic apologists to deny that Honorius was a heretic. Such attempts result from an implicit assumption of views like Pighius's, and from a general ultramontanism, but they cannot be maintained, as they violate the teachings of an ecumenical council concerning a dogmatic fact.

P^3

[tradical]

are truly an idiot. The pious belief IS that a pope will never disappear into heresy as a private teacher. This very thing is discussed in Bp. Gasser's relatio, addressing the Fathers at Vatican I, on the issue of papal infallibility.

You are obviously totally unfamiliar with the subject.

As I said you are setting up a logical problem.

1. Honorious was condemned by an ecumenical council as a heretic for letters he wrote. This is a problem for your little pius belief.
2. If you are right in your 'belief' and you accept the doctrine of the Church on dogmatic facts then ...

logically you will accept that the See Of Peter has not been vacant. Unless of course you persist in your picking/choosing and re-imagining

Also, you need to lay off the name calling.

That pious belief is one adopted by both Bellarmine and Billot. Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church.

You've avoided actually discussing the dogmatic fact. You're about as phony as they come.

Hmmm, and Suarez is not a Doctor of the Church? 

I gave you a reference that I posted early (it was scheduled for later in the month) just for you. 

You still need to stop with the name calling.

P^3

[tradical]

"As a private person, can the Pope fall into heresy?  The theologians dispute about this question.  To us it seems more pious and more probable to admit that God will take care, by his Providence, that never will a Pope be a heretic".

"... This is plain from Bellarmine's own pages where he expounds Pighi's opinion: It is probable, and can be piously believed, not only that the Supreme Pontiff cannot err as Pontiff, but also, as an individual person cannot be a heretic, by pertinaciously believing against the Faith anything false. (De. Rom. Pont., lib. iv, cap vi.).  From the testimony of this passage, it is obvious that the doctrine of the schema is not the view of Albert Pighi nor the extreme view of any school.  It is Bellarmine's view, the very self-same one which he teaches in the place cited by the most reverend orator, and which he calls certissimam  and asserendam or rather, as he says, revising his statement, sententiam communissimam et certam."

Still picking and choosing this opinion vs that of Suarez - another Doctor of the Church.

Really, while Bellarmine believed it impossible that a Pope could not be a heretic, he did not discount it off-hand as you do.

Let's say that logically you follow this opinion and the doctrine of the Church ( I am assuming that you are Catholic at this point)

1. The universal acceptance of the Pope by the Bishops (hey throw in the people if you think they are an organ of infallibility - a modernist notion but I'll grant it to you for the sake of argument)  confirms the legitimacy of the election.  Therefore Popes J23, P6, JP1, JP2, B16, F1 were all legitimately elected.

2. Following Bellarmine's pious opinion they must be protected from the sin of heresy.

3. Ergo all of the aforementioned pontiffs remain(ed) in office until they either died or abdicated.

So ... really you haven't thought this though very well have you?\

Unless you decide to reject an doctrine of the Church in favour of your own opinion.

P^3

[Aeternitus]

Hmmm, and Suarez is not a Doctor of the Church? 

No, he is not.  Your ignorance is astounding. 

[tradical]

Hmmm, and Suarez is not a Doctor of the Church? 

No, he is not.  Your ignorance is astounding.

Ha, you got me...

He only has the title of Doctor Eximius.

I stand corrected.

I think I got him mixed up with St. Alphonsus de Ligouri.

Also, your charity is astounding.

P^3

[Norwich24]

"As a private person, can the Pope fall into heresy?  The theologians dispute about this question.  To us it seems more pious and more probable to admit that God will take care, by his Providence, that never will a Pope be a heretic".

"... This is plain from Bellarmine's own pages where he expounds Pighi's opinion: It is probable, and can be piously believed, not only that the Supreme Pontiff cannot err as Pontiff, but also, as an individual person cannot be a heretic, by pertinaciously believing against the Faith anything false. (De. Rom. Pont., lib. iv, cap vi.).  From the testimony of this passage, it is obvious that the doctrine of the schema is not the view of Albert Pighi nor the extreme view of any school.  It is Bellarmine's view, the very self-same one which he teaches in the place cited by the most reverend orator, and which he calls certissimam  and asserendam or rather, as he says, revising his statement, sententiam communissimam et certam."

Still picking and choosing this opinion vs that of Suarez - another Doctor of the Church.

Really, while Bellarmine believed it impossible that a Pope could not be a heretic, he did not discount it off-hand as you do.

Let's say that logically you follow this opinion and the doctrine of the Church ( I am assuming that you are Catholic at this point)

1. The universal acceptance of the Pope by the Bishops (hey throw in the people if you think they are an organ of infallibility - a modernist notion but I'll grant it to you for the sake of argument)  confirms the legitimacy of the election.  Therefore Popes J23, P6, JP1, JP2, B16, F1 were all legitimately elected.

2. Following Bellarmine's pious opinion they must be protected from the sin of heresy.

3. Ergo all of the aforementioned pontiffs remain(ed) in office until they either died or abdicated.

So ... really you haven't thought this though very well have you?\

Unless you decide to reject an doctrine of the Church in favour of your own opinion.

P^3

No theologian, Suarez included, holds that a pope can be a heretic in his official capacity as pope. The question is always prefaced by "as a private teacher or theologian."

You simply don't understand the issue.

[tradical]

"As a private person, can the Pope fall into heresy?  The theologians dispute about this question.  To us it seems more pious and more probable to admit that God will take care, by his Providence, that never will a Pope be a heretic".

"... This is plain from Bellarmine's own pages where he expounds Pighi's opinion: It is probable, and can be piously believed, not only that the Supreme Pontiff cannot err as Pontiff, but also, as an individual person cannot be a heretic, by pertinaciously believing against the Faith anything false. (De. Rom. Pont., lib. iv, cap vi.).  From the testimony of this passage, it is obvious that the doctrine of the schema is not the view of Albert Pighi nor the extreme view of any school.  It is Bellarmine's view, the very self-same one which he teaches in the place cited by the most reverend orator, and which he calls certissimam  and asserendam or rather, as he says, revising his statement, sententiam communissimam et certam."

Still picking and choosing this opinion vs that of Suarez - another Doctor of the Church.

Really, while Bellarmine believed it impossible that a Pope could not be a heretic, he did not discount it off-hand as you do.

Let's say that logically you follow this opinion and the doctrine of the Church ( I am assuming that you are Catholic at this point)

1. The universal acceptance of the Pope by the Bishops (hey throw in the people if you think they are an organ of infallibility - a modernist notion but I'll grant it to you for the sake of argument)  confirms the legitimacy of the election.  Therefore Popes J23, P6, JP1, JP2, B16, F1 were all legitimately elected.

2. Following Bellarmine's pious opinion they must be protected from the sin of heresy.

3. Ergo all of the aforementioned pontiffs remain(ed) in office until they either died or abdicated.

So ... really you haven't thought this though very well have you?\

Unless you decide to reject an doctrine of the Church in favour of your own opinion.

P^3

No theologian, Suarez included, holds that a pope can be a heretic in his official capacity as pope. The question is always prefaced by "as a private teacher or theologian."

You simply don't understand the issue.

Are you so certain?

Why don't you try to enlighten me ... because the doctrine is clear and the opinion of Bellarmine appears to be clear.

Look either you accept the doctrine and the consequences of your adherence to a pius opinion or you don't.

But stop trying to re-imagine it like the modernists.

The doctrine of the Church as I have quoted numerous times, is that the acceptance of the newly elected Pope by the bishops provides an infallible means of knowing that the election was legit etc.

So this includes every Pope since Pius XII recognized by the Bishop - bar none - has been lawfully elected as Pope.

Now if you believe piously with St. Bellarmine that:

It is probable, and can be piously believed[/b], not only that the Supreme Pontiff cannot err as Pontiff, but also, as an individual person cannot be a heretic, by pertinaciously believing against the Faith anything false.

So if they are all lawfully elected as Pope, as we know infallibly, and they can't err  with pertinacity (as you appear believe) - then it logically follows that none of the Popes lost the office of the Papacy.

Now you may claim that I am missing something, but at this point you have yet to explain it in a coherent manner. 

P^3

[Norwich24]

Really, while Bellarmine believed it impossible that a Pope could not be a heretic, he did not discount it off-hand as you do.

It's just further proves you are an idiot with a blog.

[tradical]

Really, while Bellarmine believed it impossible that a Pope could not be a heretic, he did not discount it off-hand as you do.

It's just further proves you are an idiot with a blog.

oops - double negative got away from me, should have read "impossible that a Pope could be a heretic".

Also, remember that when one accuses another person of a defect, the accuser more often than not bears a defect or equal or greater stature.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

I dont know of the rest but here is my proof for the current bishop of rome and a predessesor...its a twofer:

[tradical]

+JMJ+

So this thread has now made it to 130+ posts and it has devolved to people calling me names.

What are the highlights?

1. Well if the Sede's were to accept the doctrine of Dogmatic Facts  (see links at bottom of post) then that would mean that the See of Peter has NOT been vacant since the death of Pius XII - as each subsequent election would have furnished an occupant (for however briefly following the theory of the heresy of the Sedevacantists).

2. If the Sede's were to hold to both the aforesaid doctrine and the pious belief of St. Robert Bellarmine that " It is probable, and can be piously believed, not only that the Supreme Pontiff cannot err as Pontiff, but also, as an individual person cannot be a heretic, by pertinaciously believing against the Faith anything false."  Then they would have to admit that the See of Peter hasn't been vacant for any longer than the normal inter-regnum

3. If the Sede's don't hold with St. Robert Bellarmine's belief, then they have to demonstrate that the Pope has rejected a dogma (ie de fide) teaching of the Church in a manner that would allow a council of Cardinals (the nexus of the Bellarmine and Suarez opinions) to either judge the Pope because he would no longer be Pope (Bellarmine) or make a declaration of fact that the Pope has left the Church (Suarez - if I remember correctly)  Objectively, the Church has not made such a judgement so the claims of the Sedevacantists are, at a minimum, grossly pre-mature on this matter.

4. Regarding #1 there is a marked tendency to attempt to re-imagine the doctrine of dogmatic facts by applying a confirmation bias that discounts other opinions or meanings that do not coincide with the preferred understanding.

5. Regarding #2, while St. Bellarmine's belief was clear, it is not clear what some Sede's believe it means.  It seems like a case of



Now for the people reading this - please lighten up and stop the name calling.

Cheers!
P3

Ref
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/08/dogmatic-fact-or-fancy.html

http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/09/dogmatic-fact-or-fancy-ii.html

http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/03/sedevacantism-and-manifest-heretic.html