Siscoe and Salza on Honorius - Bad ideas, bad sources, bad methods

[YeOldeFustilarians]

Even if you haven't read the book, did you even glance at the OP?  This entire thread's purpose was to vet S&S's arguments viz. Honorius, which includes, in part, the following argument: "Honorius was a manifest heretic analogous to the post-conciliar claimaints, the Church condemned him as a manifest heretic, has never considered him a non-pope, ergo manifest heretics can be popes." 

Yes I did read the OP.  I am asking, is that an accurate assessment of S&S's argument, or is it rather that Honorius was not a manifest heretic, analogous to the post-conciliar claimants.

Yes, that's their contention.  If they ever log back in to the forum, we can even have them verify

On the contrary, it absolutely is.  The whole Jansenist controversy (insofar as their defense of themselves was concerned) was based on the fact that the five condemned propositions in Cum Occasione weren't actually contained in the Augustinus.  Then Alexander VII declared and defined that they were in fact contained in it.

It isn't analogous to Honorius' case, nor to any condemnation of a particular person.

Yes, but there's a third tier: condemnation of propositions, condemnations of persons, and condemnation of publications.

So, the condemnation of the five propositions stands alone whether or not they are contained in the Augustinus.  The truth or falsity of the propositions, and the truth or falsity of the Church's condemnations of them, do not depend on whether or not they are in the Augustinus.

But what the Jansenists were trying to do, of course, is make an end run around the Church by distributing the Augustinus by claiming the condemned propositions weren't in it.  Therefore the Church must be infallible not only in condemning propositions but also condemning books and publications.  And, just as the Church must be infallible in the condemnation of the Augustinus, so it must be in the condemnation of the letter to Sergius.

However, the condemnation of any particular person is not germane to the above.

I would say that she is infallible if and when those condemnations are provincial to dogmatic facts or some secondary object of infallibility.  The dogmatic fact in question is not the condemnation "of a book", the dogmatic fact in question is the inclusion of certain condemned propositions in a book.  It does not follow that the Church is infallible, as a rule, when condemning books and publications.  It depends entirely on the nature of the condemnation and the condemned object.   

Maybe I'm just a little thick today, but I'm not entirely sure of the significance of the discussion at this point, because it's difficult right now for me to tell if we disagree on any matters of great importance, since you seem to agree that Honorius was a) not a heretic in any contemporary theological sense of the word, and certainly not a manifest one b) nor was he condemned by the council as a heretic in any contemporary theological sense of the word, and c) the condemnation of persons, including Honorius, is not a dogmatic fact nor an act protected by the Church's infallibility (it is a penal act).

If you'd like to discuss dogmatic facts in greater detail I'd be interested in that discussion, but maybe we could move the discussion.  Possibly even outside of this subforum.  It'd be nice to keep this about Honorius as much as is possible, and I feel partially responsible for having brought up dogmatic facts way back on the first page.

[An aspiring Thomist]

Even if you haven't read the book, did you even glance at the OP?  This entire thread's purpose was to vet S&S's arguments viz. Honorius, which includes, in part, the following argument: "Honorius was a manifest heretic analogous to the post-conciliar claimaints, the Church condemned him as a manifest heretic, has never considered him a non-pope, ergo manifest heretics can be popes." 

Yes I did read the OP.  I am asking, is that an accurate assessment of S&S's argument, or is it rather that Honorius was not a manifest heretic, analogous to the post-conciliar claimants.

Yes, that's their contention.  If they ever log back in to the forum, we can even have them verify

No that is not their contention at all. Quote where they say that.

[Maximilian]

The Church juridically condemned Honorious as a heretic and the Church has never undid this, so Honorious is still legally a heretic according to the judgment of the Church. Inferiors have no authority over superiors. So all of the theologians and even Doctors of the Church cannot overturn the Church's judgment.

Correct.

So, I would argue that Catholics are free to believe Honorious was a heretic, at least in some way, because this IS currently the judgment of the Church.

Yes, but it is more accurate to say that Catholics are NOT free to believe that Honorius was NOT a heretic. The fact that Honorius was condemned as a heretic is a defined teaching of the Church. As you said above, no opinion expressed by any writer whatsoever can change that fact. Catholics are not free to reject the teachings of ecumenical councils approved by popes.

[Kaesekopf]

Catholics are not free to reject the teachings of ecumenical councils approved by popes.

Heh.

[Nazianzen]

Yes, but it is more accurate to say that Catholics are NOT free to believe that Honorius was NOT a heretic. The fact that Honorius was condemned as a heretic is a defined teaching of the Church. As you said above, no opinion expressed by any writer whatsoever can change that fact. Catholics are not free to reject the teachings of ecumenical councils approved by popes.

Agreed, on that last sentence, but since you haven't been paying attention, let's say it again:  The claim that the Council condemned Honorius as a heretic, and that this was approved by Leo II, is disputed, by approved theologians, including a Doctor of the Church.  The FACT is what's in question.  It's not like Trent or Vatican I, where there can be no dispute about the facts.  It's an ancient council dominated by Greeks, who made a hobby of falsifying all the texts they could get their hands on.

[Maximilian]

The claim that the Council condemned Honorius as a heretic, and that this was approved by Leo II, is disputed, by approved theologians, including a Doctor of the Church.  The FACT is what's in question. 

No, the fact is not really in dispute. There's no real question about the facts. Not only do we have centuries of documentation, the condemnation of Honorius was part of the Catholic liturgy for many centuries. So any "approved theologian" who wants to argue with the Third Council of Constantinople also has to argue with the entire history of the Church.

[YeOldeFustilarians]

Even if you haven't read the book, did you even glance at the OP?  This entire thread's purpose was to vet S&S's arguments viz. Honorius, which includes, in part, the following argument: "Honorius was a manifest heretic analogous to the post-conciliar claimaints, the Church condemned him as a manifest heretic, has never considered him a non-pope, ergo manifest heretics can be popes." 

Yes I did read the OP.  I am asking, is that an accurate assessment of S&S's argument, or is it rather that Honorius was not a manifest heretic, analogous to the post-conciliar claimants.

Yes, that's their contention.  If they ever log back in to the forum, we can even have them verify

No that is not their contention at all. Quote where they say that.

Hi Aspiring Thomist,

I noticed your replies earlier on the thread (page 4) and couldn't but help notice that you were offering thoughts that very clearly were not informed by any serious consideration of the issue, and thoughts that you couldn't possibly have thought were worth offering if you'd read even half of what transpired before you posted them.  I intended on addressing them but Nazianzen sufficiently beat me to it.  If you're confused about what S&S argue then I suggest returning to the OP.

[YeOldeFustilarians]

So, I would argue that Catholics are free to believe Honorious was a heretic, at least in some way, because this IS currently the judgment of the Church.

Yes, but it is more accurate to say that Catholics are NOT free to believe that Honorius was NOT a heretic. The fact that Honorius was condemned as a heretic is a defined teaching of the Church. As you said above, no opinion expressed by any writer whatsoever can change that fact. Catholics are not free to reject the teachings of ecumenical councils approved by popes.

Of course, the accuracy of your comment hinges entirely on properly understanding what is meant when one says "Honorius was condemned as a heretic."

As mentioned throughout the thread and I believe also elsewhere in this subforum recently, the meaning of the expression "heretic" has become more precise and distinguished throughout the Church's history, eventually to the point where any time the term "heretic" is mentioned people ask "formal or material?  Manifest or occult?  Public or private? etc., etc."

In the seventh century and into the middle ages and even beyond to a certain extent, a "heretic" could be anyone who had committed some type of crime against faith.  Simony, omission, etc.

A worst case scenario for Honorius is that he was a private heretic, and that the condemnation of him was just that.  I don't cede either point, and certainly not the second, but that is the absolute worst case conclusion that can be drawn from Honorius' case.  There is no way to look at Honorius and conclude that he was a public heretic, so there's no proper analogy between him and the Vatican II claimants. 

As far as Honorius' condemnation being "defined by the Church," I'm not sure.  It was a penal measure, and the Church does not assume infallibility in penal measures.  But even supposing that it was "defined," that definition must be understood in the proper sense.  And the proper sense is certainly not that the Church condemned him as a manifest heretic. 

Honorius' name has no value for those who would argue that manifest heretics can be popes. 

[Nazianzen]

No, the fact is not really in dispute. There's no real question about the facts.

Take it up with Bellarmine and the rest.  They certainly thought the facts doubtful.  And the popes praised and recommended them as our teachers.  You followers of Francis clearly have a funny and very selective respect for popes.

Not only do we have centuries of documentation, the condemnation of Honorius was part of the Catholic liturgy for many centuries.

Well, it wasn't, but don't let that stop you from explaining to the rest of us how "facts are facts" Max. 

So any "approved theologian" who wants to argue with the Third Council of Constantinople also has to argue with the entire history of the Church.

No, he doesn't.  He has to argue with an oath that was dropped in the eleventh century, and a reference in the Breviary that was dropped in the sixteenth century.  When the Church DROPPED those references, did that mean anything?  Does it mean anything to you?  I call them "facts" but you clearly have a different definition of that word.  Perhaps you could enlighten us with a clear definition of the word "fact"? 

And the papacy of Felix II, that was going to be "dropped" in the sixteenth century as well, from the Breviary, and guess what?  God Himself intervened to make it clear that Felix II was really a pope, and you people who like things to fit your own prejudices would have instead to think a little harder about things and maybe actually sit at the feet of men like Bellarmine, and accept his explanation...

It's no accident that Siscoe and Salza trash Felix and Honorius, despite the fact that they have to employ opposing principles in order to do so.  The Church isn't their guide, anti-sedevacantism is.  It's so obviously Marxist it's amazing that everybody doesn't see it immediately.  They don't have the slightest interest in truth, they're political operatives.  Results, man, results.  That's what counts, and they have a heretic to defend.

[ExiteDeIlla]

So, I would argue that Catholics are free to believe Honorious was a heretic, at least in some way, because this IS currently the judgment of the Church.

Yes, but it is more accurate to say that Catholics are NOT free to believe that Honorius was NOT a heretic. The fact that Honorius was condemned as a heretic is a defined teaching of the Church. As you said above, no opinion expressed by any writer whatsoever can change that fact. Catholics are not free to reject the teachings of ecumenical councils approved by popes.

Of course, the accuracy of your comment hinges entirely on properly understanding what is meant when one says "Honorius was condemned as a heretic."

As mentioned throughout the thread and I believe also elsewhere in this subforum recently, the meaning of the expression "heretic" has become more precise and distinguished throughout the Church's history, eventually to the point where any time the term "heretic" is mentioned people ask "formal or material?  Manifest or occult?  Public or private? etc., etc."

In the seventh century and into the middle ages and even beyond to a certain extent, a "heretic" could be anyone who had committed some type of crime against faith.  Simony, omission, etc.

A worst case scenario for Honorius is that he was a private heretic, and that the condemnation of him was just that.  I don't cede either point, and certainly not the second, but that is the absolute worst case conclusion that can be drawn from Honorius' case.  There is no way to look at Honorius and conclude that he was a public heretic, so there's no proper analogy between him and the Vatican II claimants. 

As far as Honorius' condemnation being "defined by the Church," I'm not sure.  It was a penal measure, and the Church does not assume infallibility in penal measures.  But even supposing that it was "defined," that definition must be understood in the proper sense.  And the proper sense is certainly not that the Church condemned him as a manifest heretic. 

Honorius' name has no value for those who would argue that manifest heretics can be popes.

And that's the critical point: 

Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ's Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242

b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy" (MCC 30; italics ours).

By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.

Even if they were right about Honorius, indeed it gets them nowhere. Honorius didn't put out the light of the lamp on the lampstand for all in the house;  at most, he blew out a candle in the basement.

[Clarence Creedwater]

A thought just occurred to me. The Church juridically condemended Honorious as a heretic and the Church has never undid this, so Honorious is still legally a heretic according to the judgment of the Church. Inferiors have no authority over superiors. So all of the theologians and even Doctors of the Church cannot overturn the Church's judgment. Maybe they are right, but Honorious is still condemended.

So, I would argue that Catholics are free to believe Honorious was a heretic, at least in some way, because this IS currently the judgment of the Church. It may be a fallible judgment, but it is a judgment by the Church. It's not like it is contrary to Tradition or Scripture to believe Honorious was a heretic. To say that Catholics who believe Honorious is a heretic are slandering his good name is to say that the Church slandered his name and never retracted that slander.

I still don't have a definite opinion of the whole matter

Why do people think they need to re-invent the wheel?  I mean, becoming a "Doctor of the Church" in no small honor. When St. Francis de Sales was raised to this honor in 1877 Pope Pius IX said about his work "Catholic Controversies" that it is "a full and complete demonstration of the Catholic religion".  In it, it is clear he says Honorius was not a manifest heretic, but nevertheless was "perhaps" a heretic. Why are we spending so much time on this? It's done. Honorius came the closest to a manifest heretic without being so, and yet all he did was recommend inaction to an Eastern Patriarch in the face of a heresy. Today, what the Vatican II papal claimants have been doing substantially go far beyond that, entering so many errors against faith in the official organs of the Church's liturgy, laws and magisterium. It's really a no-brainer now. When the SSPX can say a pope is 'head of a false Church'....it is NOTHING less than saying he is a manifest heretic. It's like, if I say I am that woman's biological son, it is nothing less than saying she is my mother.

Who claimed he was a manifest heritic?

I didn't see this question before, but I noticed it now.

The thing is, only a manifest heretic pope ceases to be pope automatically. So....if tS&S bring up Honorius as if it is crucial, it seems to imply they think he has something to do with a manifest heretic. If they say he was not a manifest heretic.....then they shouldn't be even focusing on him unless somehow they think what he did is equivalent to what the Vatican II claimants are doing....which is obviously a night and day difference.

[Nazianzen]

S&S were perhaps quite clever in not explicitly saying that Honorius was a "manifest heretic"...

But what they did say was this, among other things:  "Pope Honorius' actions are quite similar to those of the conciliar Popes, who have placed the Catholic religion on the same level as other religions."  See the OP for their main contentions.

I'm still staggered that any priest ever took them seriously.  It's just incredible.  They're such a pair of dolts!

[Clarence Creedwater]

S&S were perhaps quite clever in not explicitly saying that Honorius was a "manifest heretic"...

But what they did say was this, among other things:  "Pope Honorius' actions are quite similar to those of the conciliar Popes, who have placed the Catholic religion on the same level as other religions."  See the OP for their main contentions.

I'm still staggered that any priest ever took them seriously.  It's just incredible.  They're such a pair of dolts!

We have the priests' names who endorsed this book. So, let us contact each of them, and ask them questions. Perhaps, let us ask them if they agree what "ipso facto" means. S&S used it contrary to any definition of the term!

[Nazianzen]

That's a good idea.  I've done a bit of that, which is how I know what Bishop Fellay thinks, and a couple of others.

I'd ask Fr. Reuter whether the book represents the Society's position on everything, or only on some things, and if the latter, which things does he mean?  I know he says that it's not all correct, but I don't know specifically what he is prepared to disown.  It would be good to know.

I'd also ask whether he (and others) noticed the heresy that the Church has a human nature.  It's such a blatant error that it will embarrass them to have it pointed out, and because it's heretical, they will feel a moral pressure to disown it. 

[Clarence Creedwater]

That's a good idea.  I've done a bit of that, which is how I know what Bishop Fellay thinks, and a couple of others.

I'd ask Fr. Reuter whether the book represents the Society's position on everything, or only on some things, and if the latter, which things does he mean?  I know he says that it's not all correct, but I don't know specifically what he is prepared to disown.  It would be good to know.

I'd also ask whether he (and others) noticed the heresy that the Church has a human nature.  It's such a blatant error that it will embarrass them to have it pointed out, and because it's heretical, they will feel a moral pressure to disown it.

There really is a moral obligation on their part to publicly EITHER tell people not to read it because it contains errors, OR enumerate the errors. The first is the easiest, but to do the first, would make people doubt everything in the whole book, and they may not want to go that route. They're in a pickle.