Papal Heresy and the Infallible Faith of Peter and His Successors

  • Thread starter Thread starter ioannes_pius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MasterHaster said:
Yes of course He could. In fact one day He will do essentially that (rid the planet of all bad things) when He returns. You are making my point. God can appear and “fire” the Pope. Probably unlikely but certainly not impossible and it is another way to get rid of a Pope besides death and resignation. This is not complex. I don’t understand your opposition. I have nothing more to say on the matter.
Click to expand...
It is not a third option. It is not just unlikely, it will not happen. Keep your feet on the ground. The only two ways to remove a Pope is death or resignation.
 
thistle said:
Canon Law only makes provision for death or resignation.
There is nothing in Canon Law that allows a group of Bishops/Cardinals to remove the Pope.
Click to expand...
OK …

And AGAIN…

The OP is not concerning itself with Removal of a Pope.
 
Yes, a Pope can say and do things which do not fall into the category of “infallible.” But the Holy Spirit still guides the Roman Pontiff in his non-infallible teaching, so I find it hard to see how the Pope could teach the Church heresy or theological error in his non-infallible teachings.

I might like to add that infallibility does not just mean freedom from error; it means freedom from the possibility of all error.
 
Here is what St. Robert Bellarmine said about Honorius:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Pope Saint Leo II (+ 682 – 683) confirmed the decrees of the Third Council of Constantinople, he declared the anathema on Pope Honorius (“anathematizamus Honorium”), stating that his predecessor “Honorius, instead of purifying this Apostolic Church, permitted the immaculate faith to be stained by a profane treason.” (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 563)

The above comes from:

Vico said:
Certainly Pope Leo II altered the condemnation of Honorius saying it was not for heresy.
Click to expand...
According to the quote from the article, this is does not seem to be the case. I’m not expert however.

I guess the question is this, can a Pope overrule what a council has decreed?

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
“Honorius, instead of purifying this Apostolic Church, permitted the immaculate faith to be stained by a profane treason.” (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 563)
Click to expand...
Right, Honorius was anathematized for failing to be diligent enough in keeping heresy from spreading, not for teaching or supporting heresy.
ziapueblo said:
I guess the question is this, can a Pope overrule what a council has decreed?
Click to expand...
If bishops, apart from the Pope, declare or teach something at an ecumenical council, a Pope can certainly overrule it. For a council to be ecumenical, the Pope at least has to approve of its acts.
 
MasterHaster said:
God can appear and “fire” the Pope. Probably unlikely but certainly not impossible and it is another way to get rid of a Pope besides death and resignation.
Click to expand...
This would be a “private revelation” that seeks to overturn the public revelation that was concluded with the last of the Apostles.

In the event that God did appear with a new revelation, this would be a new religion replacing Catholicism, part of the new heaven and new earth we have been promised.
 
ziapueblo said:
Pope Saint Leo II (+ 682 – 683) confirmed the decrees of the Third Council of Constantinople, he declared the anathema on Pope Honorius (“anathematizamus Honorium”), stating that his predecessor “Honorius, instead of purifying this Apostolic Church, permitted the immaculate faith to be stained by a profane treason.” (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 563)

The above comes from:

Bishop Athanasius Schneider: On the Question of a Heretical Pope - OnePeterFive
40.png
Vico:
Certainly Pope Leo II altered the condemnation of Honorius saying it was not for heresy.
Click to expand...
According to the quote from the article, this is does not seem to be the case. I’m not expert however.

I guess the question is this, can a Pope overrule what a council has decreed?

ZP
Click to expand...
The Pope confirms the decisions, may veto.

Catholic Encyclopedia states:
To the Spanish bishops he explains his meaning: “With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence.” That is, he did not insist on the “two operations”, but agreed with Sergius that the whole matter should be hushed up. Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils without special remark; also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: “Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions” (Liber diurnus, ii, 9). It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a “private heretic”, for he admittedly had excellent intentions.
Click to expand...
Chapman, J. (1910). Pope Honorius I. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
MasterHaster:
God can appear and “fire” the Pope. Probably unlikely but certainly not impossible and it is another way to get rid of a Pope besides death and resignation.
Click to expand...
This would be a “private revelation” that seeks to overturn the public revelation that was concluded with the last of the Apostles.

In the event that God did appear with a new revelation, this would be a new religion replacing Catholicism, part of the new heaven and new earth we have been promised.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be a private revelation but if Jesus were to appear to the Pope and tell the pope he was no longer pope or he was replacing him soon, that would be a kind of a firing and not be the start of a new religion.

I’m sure you know this is kind of what happened with Saul in the OT. It wasn’t Jesus, though, but Samuel who told Saul he would soon no longer be king.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
Yes, it would be a private revelation but if Jesus were to appear to the Pope and tell the pope he was no longer pope or he was replacing him soon, that would be a kind of a firing and not be the start of a new religion.
Click to expand...
This would lead to the resignation of the Pope, either formally by letter or informally by deferring to Jesus. That is not the same as God appearing and firing the Pope as I understand the original description. IOW God could convince a Pope to resign, but if God convinced everyone the Pope is not a pope, that would be a new revelation and so a new religion.
MagdalenaRita said:
I’m sure you know this is kind of what happened with Saul in the OT. It wasn’t Jesus, though, but Samuel who told Saul he would soon no longer be king.
Click to expand...
And I am sure you know that this was before the revelation in Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit spoke through prophets in those times as part of the revealing of Jesus. That revelation was concluded with the last of the apostles because now all God’s people are guided by the Holy Spirit.
 
Dovekin said:
This would lead to the resignation of the Pope, either formally by letter or informally by deferring to Jesus.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but it could be that it would be a fortelling of a situation coming soon that would render him no longer pope, without resigning.
Dovekin said:
God could convince a Pope to resign, but if God convinced everyone the Pope is not a pope, that would be a new revelation and so a new religion.
Click to expand...
Hmm, probably have to disagree on that. I’m not sure the person saying this originally meant for God to convince everyone something but just perhaps some type of revelation. Even if the pope died after the revelation it would still be a type of firing and not the start of a new religion.
Dovekin said:
And I am sure you know that this was before the revelation in Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit spoke through prophets in those times as part of the revealing of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is why I said it was Samuel who spoke to Saul.
Dovekin said:
That revelation was concluded with the last of the apostles because now all God’s people are guided by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Yes and we do still have appearances of Jesus and Mary providing us with messages.
 
Last edited:
ioannes_pius said:
For a council to be ecumenical, the Pope at least has to approve of its acts.
Click to expand...
What about the Lateran council of 649? It was believed by the Pope of Rome to be more than just a local Roman synod, at least according to Pope Theodore I, speaking of the council of which he planned to convene, “in the nature of a general or ecumenical council” (Ekonomou, 2007, p. 117.), but it is not considered to be on of the ecumenical councils, even though he planned it to be.

ZP
 
I think it’s safe to say that the Church has always recognized papal primacy, but has gradually come to a deeper understanding of its role…including its role in regards to councils.
 
ziapueblo said:
“Honorius, instead of purifying this Apostolic Church, permitted the immaculate faith to be stained by a profane treason.” (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 563)
Click to expand...
Just as it says above from the council, his errors were of omission. He didn’t publicly teach heresy. His major failing, worthy of anathema, was that he didn’t declare ex cathedra the Catholic faith on the dispute at hand. This was unlike the patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria. During his pontificate they all publicly taught heresy.
 
Genesis315 said:
Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:
Click to expand...
Isn’t Pope above the law though? No other canons actually bind him. This one is not a clear exception. If this canon just explains Divine Law, it changes everything though.
twf said:
I think it’s safe to say that the Church has always recognized papal primacy, but has gradually come to a deeper understanding of its role…including its role in regards to councils.
Click to expand...
Inerrancy of Rome was also understood like this.

Also guys, isn’t Vatican I definition explicitly that First See can not be judged? Not exactly Bishop of the First See? I understand clergy of Rome (Cardinals) can not promulgate anything validly without their Bishop (other than his election heh) but this should therefore apply to decisions of the First See (such as Papal documents or Vatican II etc…) not exactly person of the Pope. Or am I missing something?
 
Interesting read. I’m wondering, what do the councils themselves say? Is there need to seem approval from Rome?

I find this interesting form the thread you posted:

“However, other than one Palestinian (who was appointed papal vicar in the East), it was only attended by Western bishops without sufficient representation from the rest of the Cartholic Church due to various crises in the East” (my emphasis)

I’m wondering, if this is the case, why are there so many ecumenical councils within the Catholic Church?

In his opinion, at least from my take of what he posted, one of the reasons the Lateran council of 649 would not be considered ecumenical is because there was no Eastern representation, “without sufficient representation from the rest of the Catholic Church . . .” (for various reasons the East could not attend). Yet many of the Catholic Churches 20 some councils do not have sufficient representation because the East was not present yet they are considered “ecumenical”?

ZP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top