The "Do I have to" as opposed to "Should I" Argument

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You’re not getting the point that this is an affair of the Roman Church, that she was speaking to the Roman Church, and that Pope Benedict was speaking to the Roman Church. Has nothing to do with us. The Church teaches that private revelations are only obligatory to those to whom they are addressed.

I think it would be better to use the word given instead of addressed as a message could be given to one person but addressed to another. It is not binding upon the one who it is addressed to, only on the one it is given to.

Again, you are speaking only to Roman Catholics here and referring to devotions which are specifically Roman Catholic. I don’t even know what Saturday Reparation is. I try to pray and fast and be as good a Christian as I can - the plethora of practices and devotions in the Roman Church is just confusing to me, and detracts from the simplicity of Christian life.

I would say it’s fine if you said all of this - perhaps in a less militant tone than is coming off over the internet - to Roman Catholics. Brother David isn’t one, and neither am I.

While I am not a Roman Catholic, I am a member of a Roman Catholic religious order. The Rosary is not proscribed by the Carmelites even though we are considered a Marian order. We end every community prayer with a prayer to Our Lady, many times it is the Flos Carmeli.

We pray Morning and Evening Prayer in common along with a daily Mass, either with one of the LOTH Prayers or on its own. As I said, we end these with a Marian prayer. We are called to pray on our own as stated in our rule. I chose to do Daytime Prayer and the Office of Readings (I also follow our practice of ending these with a Marian prayer). I also do at least 30 minutes of mediative prayer and Scripture reading. As a Byzantine Catholic I also try to pray the Chotki daily, which is the Jesus prayer on the knots of a prayer rope (a Chotki) and a prayer to Our Lady (usually “O Most Holy Mother of God, pray for us.”) on the beads, one of my ropes has a bead every 10 knots (this is my favorite one) and the other has one bead every 25 knots.

You can say that I do not do enough but I would disagree with that.

I also have a devotion to the Sorrowful Mother and am starting to pray the Rosary of the Seven Sorrows.

Then we add the time I am in ministry and there is really not much other time left during the day except for my private time where I take care of myself which I believe is just as important as prayer especially considering my illness. And when I finish my internship ministry assignment I will be back to my theologate studies for the priesthood. That fills even more time.

I do not say any of this to be boastful in my devotions. I believe that many grow prideful in their devotions and feel a need to proclaim to everyone what they do.

Remember how Jesus told us to pray;

Matthew 6:6 “But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.”

 

[Cecilianus]

Davids religious practice nor yours is in question, I have no doubt you have a deep faith. The “motives” are what I question.

My motives are simply to defend the integrity and autonomy of Byzantine spirituality. I do love and pray the Rosary - not as often as I should - but that was something I had learned when I was a Roman Catholic. If someone had never been part of the Roman Catholic tradition, I wouldn’t expect them to pray the Rosary. If they do, then wonderful. If they don’t, then I’m not going to complain.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Davids religious practice nor yours is in question, I have no doubt you have a deep faith. The “motives” are what I question.

Thats Br David.

As for your judging our motives, that is exactly the thing you have no right to do. As long as a person is following the Church you have no right to judge their motives. All we can judge is actions but I do not think you have any authority to do even that.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, I do believe we are in a better place all the way around. Since Salvation is really the message.

The posts on CAF are much greater than what you and I think for the reason there are Thousands who read them daily. They are who becomes most important. Those who read through and won’t or don’t ask a question. So ultimately what “is” the message we want to leave them with as Christians?

So in essence its not so much the thinking of which is better as an individual practice. For as David has mentioned about the Seven Sorrows as practice. I was born on Sept 15 so the practice is a known to me and a favorite. And there are many ways to place yourself in the Lords atmosphere. Without a doubt the most important being Mass.

So ones practice in Christian/Catholic faith isn’t in question, nor, if, it is in fact right or wrong per say, as exactly what you do practice.

The thought must then go to someone who isn’t rooted in faith and is contemplating the Rosary or maybe the Holy Spirit has led them to Fatima? So what is the message, we as Gods children want to give these Souls?

You don’t have to do that?

In other words when we say “I don’t have to”. Are you thinking only of “you” or the larger picture? You in fact really may not have to, and in fact are most likely fine.

Yet there may be “one” individual who is struggling with his faith, who isn’t yet rooted and fading in and out. Maybe they then heard the Pope speak about Fatima, read a book, seen a video on You Tube or whatever. So they in essense have found a path, they are being led now by an unknown. Which took them to that first step, then the second step here. Well, what do we do, discourage them? Or do we incourage them?

So there is a greater good which is at play, and the will of Holy Spirit through Our Lady of Fatima then comes into play.

Here then its not so much the idea of do I have to, or should I. It really becomes a practice of encouraging a practice which we know leads to salvation and not discouraging it.

Thats where my thought process lies.

Thus the idea of posting on this particular post and then living in the “I”. This is much bigger than us as individuals. Those posting for example on this thread. All have a repetitous practice in faith as David spoke on. Thats right, correct, theres no wrong there. Its in the Lords hands from there. And the idea is never to burden those most burdened with a Cross already. Its to save that one Soul who in fact may be actually thinking about Our Lady of Fatima or the Rosary thus Jesus Christ for they are inseperable

So when one comes upon Our Lady of Fatima, and in Her way, through the Lord, however it is they become facinated, intrigued, or interested. Do we say, You don’t have to do that? No, we give God his. That is the stuggle in this physical realm, for Souls. Theres nothing there in Our Lady that dangers the Soul, very much on the contrary.

So, why not then say, If you could, you most certainly should. And of couse when the question comes up of being required practice in the Catholic Church we need be honest.

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thats Br David.

As for your judging our motives, that is exactly the thing you have no right to do. As long as a person is following the Church you have no right to judge their motives. All we can judge is actions but I do not think you have any authority to do even that.

I disagree, we can’t judge actions, motives are what we do want to question. The “why” of the behavior, not the behavior, thats the end result. If we as individuals can see the why, we can change the result of the outcome.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I disagree, we can’t judge actions, motives are what we do want to question. The “why” of the behavior, not the behavior, thats the end result. If we as individuals can see the why, we can change the result of the outcome.

You have it backwards. You can not judge the motives, the “why” of behavior as you can not know the “why” because you can not know the mind of the individual in question. All can do is judge the actions of individuals as those are what we see.

Again, you can judge the actions, are they sinful or are they not, are they appropriate or are they not. There is no way for you to know the motivations behind those actions so there is no way you can judge them. You can apply motivations to those actions but those are yours a most likely not the motivations of the individual who committed the act.

But to this thread, no judgments should be occurring at all.

When someone commits a sinful action we are called to judge that but when someone is living life as the Church calls them to then we are not to judge that or their motives (which again you can not know unless you are a mind reader and a very special one to be able to do so over the internet).

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I disagree, we can’t judge actions, motives are what we do want to question. The “why” of the behavior, not the behavior, thats the end result. If we as individuals can see the why, we can change the result of the outcome.

You have it backwards. You can not judge the motives, the “why” of behavior as you can not know the “why” because you can not know the mind of the individual in question. All can do is judge the actions of individuals as those are what we see.

Again, you can judge the actions, are they sinful or are they not, are they appropriate or are they not. There is no way for you to know the motivations behind those actions so there is no way you can judge them. You can apply motivations to those actions but those are yours a most likely not the motivations of the individual who committed the act.

But to this thread, no judgments should be occurring at all.

When someone commits a sinful action we are called to judge that but when someone is living life as the Church calls them to then we are not to judge that or their motives (which again you can not know unless you are a mind reader and a very special one to be able to do so over the internet).

Br. David,
you took the words right out of my head!!!

Mr. Taylor, I have a question for you.
I have a terminally ill friend, one who may die at any moment.
I know ***“why”- ***it is because she has cancer and has spent the past few years fighting the “good fight”. Now there is nothing left that medical science can do, she has accepted that, and has been spending what precious little time she has left with her family.

So you see, I know the ***“why”, ***and that is never going to "change the result of the outcome". My friend is going to die.
So can you please explain what you mean by your statement?

 

[Robert_Burns]

Anything which is not a liturgical service is a private devotion, in the Church’s use of the word (even though I have been extending the term “private devotion” to include akathists and molebens, which are liturgical services that are as peculiar to the East as the Rosary is to the West). The fact that it is strongly encouraged and led in public by Popes and saints does not change this fact.

Well when you say : "The fact that it is strongly encouraged and led in public by Popes and saints does not change this fact " then why did Our Lord Establish the PAPACY if what it does and teaches is irrelevant? Why does the Church Elevate SAINTS through canonization if by doing so we are to ignore them and their example? The simple fact that we are not in the Church attending Holy Mass 24/7 doesnt end our obligations as a Catholic. The Church doesnt obligate us to perform Specific acts of Charity either. And yet St Paul says that CHARITY is the most important Virtue even more important than FAITH and HOPE. If that be the case , then I see an issue for your argument. After all - if by saying the Rosary is unimportant and not De Fide etc - then please tell me - why when someone dies we gather together at most wakes and pray the Rosary for the Repose of their Soul? Is this not an act of Charity? And if we are to ignore Charity as the most important of Virtues - how then is Virtue to flourish.

I think that today - people are beginning to use FAITH as an excuse not to do Charity.

Jesus sent the Blessed Virgin Mary to Fatima. She didnt come of her own accord.

Tomorrow is First Friday. There is a devotion to The 9 First Fridays attributed to an Apparition by Jesus himself. Are we to likewise ignore that as Private Revelation when the Lord Jesus Christ appears?

 

[Robert_Burns]

What’s “required” - and I mean logically required in order to attain sanctity, rather than legally required by the Church - is that we pray and fast, regardless of what our prayers are. What Brother David does daily may not be required for you, since you do something else. What you do (the Rosary) is not required of Brother David, because he does something else.

You say that you aren’t pointing out that you don’t need to do our Eastern devotions - but nobody ever suggested that it was required that you pray the chotki and the akathist daily. Whereas someone did say that the Rosary was necessary - please refer back to post number 20. And because people do say this, we have to respond.

If nobody had ever claimed that the Rosary was necessary, we would never need to respond that it isn’t. We never claimed that the chotki is necessary, so you never had a reason to point out that you don’t pray it.

Sound good?

When you say “nobody ever suggested that it was required that you pray the chotki and the akathist daily.” Did a Single POPE ever recommend we do so? If so - then post the proof. On my side of the Discussion I can cite Pope Leo the XIII Who wrote 13 Separate Encyclicals recommending the Holy Rosary.

Thats my point. Demonstrate the same level of support from the Chair of St Peter.

 

[Robert_Burns]

I think it would be better to use the word given instead of addressed as a message could be given to one person but addressed to another. It is not binding upon the one who it is addressed to, only on the one it is given to.

While I am not a Roman Catholic, I am a member of a Roman Catholic religious order. The Rosary is not proscribed by the Carmelites even though we are considered a Marian order. We end every community prayer with a prayer to Our Lady, many times it is the Flos Carmeli.

We pray Morning and Evening Prayer in common along with a daily Mass, either with one of the LOTH Prayers or on its own. As I said, we end these with a Marian prayer. We are called to pray on our own as stated in our rule. I chose to do Daytime Prayer and the Office of Readings (I also follow our practice of ending these with a Marian prayer). I also do at least 30 minutes of mediative prayer and Scripture reading. As a Byzantine Catholic I also try to pray the Chotki daily, which is the Jesus prayer on the knots of a prayer rope (a Chotki) and a prayer to Our Lady (usually “O Most Holy Mother of God, pray for us.”) on the beads, one of my ropes has a bead every 10 knots (this is my favorite one) and the other has one bead every 25 knots.

You can say that I do not do enough but I would disagree with that.

I also have a devotion to the Sorrowful Mother and am starting to pray the Rosary of the Seven Sorrows.

Then we add the time I am in ministry and there is really not much other time left during the day except for my private time where I take care of myself which I believe is just as important as prayer especially considering my illness. And when I finish my internship ministry assignment I will be back to my theologate studies for the priesthood. That fills even more time.

I do not say any of this to be boastful in my devotions. I believe that many grow prideful in their devotions and feel a need to proclaim to everyone what they do.

Remember how Jesus told us to pray;

Matthew 6:6 “But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.”

All Beautiful Devotions. the difference being - no one is diminishing them or saying - Yeah but you dont HAVE to do any of this De Fide to save your soul. Why Would I read this post and have that reaction to it. That is what I am talking about.

 

[GaryTaylor]

First off the actions of an individual are not for us to judge, thats simple Bible.

The motives are different and I will give you a correct analogy since “behavior” is what is in question here.

An man whom is an alcoholic is not an alcoholic because of the final act of drinking alcohol [his actions]. Who are we to judge that man? The act of drinking, is a symtom of the problem. The problem is the “why” which relates back to his motives in what he is trying to accomplish, thus his feelings.

Motives are discussed daily here everywhere, should you chose to believe it or not, whenever the “why” question comes up. It is NOT wrong to ask why someone who does something, behaves in that manner. Especially when it is contrary to greater good of all or the individual. Thats how understanding of “self” comes about.

Many times one will arrive as a youth here. With sexual problem masterbation whatever. While its great to recommend a solution to resolve sin. The greater good is to understand the “why” one constantly arrives in that situation.

If you throw a Rock and break the window. The fact that you threw the rock is really not the issue. Though may deserve punishment. The why you threw the Rock is the question. The anger, hurt etc, thus the motive.

[Which relates to the OP and the original question of Motive. “Why” would anyone want to discourage a practice that leads Souls to Christ?]

Now you can continue to debate this if you so desire, but I would seriously think about it first. Instead of acting off your own feelings and racing to reply.

You will never know the why if you don’t ask. And the individual in question also may never know. What does that accomplish?

You can’t help one who is acting out in fits of anger by judging there behavior. The "why: is where the “understanding of the issue then of self lies”.

 

[Cecilianus]

First off the actions of an individual are not for us to judge, thats simple Bible.

The motives are different and I will give you a correct analogy since “behavior” is what is in question here.

An man whom is an alcoholic is not an alcoholic because of the final act of drinking alcohol [his actions]. Who are we to judge that man? The act of drinking, is a symtom of the problem. The problem is the “why” which relates back to his motives in what he is trying to accomplish, thus his feelings.

Motives are discussed daily here everywhere, should you chose to believe it or not, whenever the “why” question comes up. It is NOT wrong to ask why someone who does something, behaves in that manner. Especially when it is contrary to greater good of all or the individual. Thats how understanding of “self” comes about.

Many times one will arrive as a youth here. With sexual problem masterbation whatever. While its great to recommend a solution to resolve sin. The greater good is to understand the “why” one constantly arrives in that situation.

If you throw a Rock and break the window. The fact that you threw the rock is really not the issue. Though may deserve punishment. The why you threw the Rock is the question. The anger, hurt etc, thus the motive.

[Which relates to the OP and the original question of Motive. “Why” would anyone want to discourage a practice that leads Souls to Christ?]

Now you can continue to debate this if you so desire, but I would seriously think about it first. Instead of acting off your own feelings and racing to reply.

You will never know the why if you don’t ask. And the individual in question also may never know. What does that accomplish?

You can’t help one who is acting out in fits of anger by judging there behavior. The "why: is where the “understanding of the issue then of self lies”.

Nobody is discouraging the Rosary - it’s just that among Eastern Catholics, we encourage our own devotions and practices instead. And we don’t judge even Roman Catholics who don’t pray it. It’s not an absolute part of the Faith - it’s relative to one Rite.

 

[Cecilianus]

When you say “nobody ever suggested that it was required that you pray the chotki and the akathist daily.” Did a Single POPE ever recommend we do so? If so - then post the proof. On my side of the Discussion I can cite Pope Leo the XIII Who wrote 13 Separate Encyclicals recommending the Holy Rosary.

Thats my point. Demonstrate the same level of support from the Chair of St Peter.

Yes, I have read Papal documents mentioning the Akathist in documents about the Rosary (as side notes, using words to the effect like “or, for Catholics of the Eastern Rite, the appropriate Marian devotion promulgated by their ordinaries, such as the Akathistos” instead of the Rosary). I wish I could remember the name of the document; I read it about seven years ago and I can’t remember the name of everything I’ve read that far back.

Since the Pope has given us a plenary indulgence for saying the Akathistos, I’ll take that as support from the Chair of St. Peter.

Also, the Pope usually leaves Eastern Catholics to ourselves, without governing us as directly and immediately as he does in his capacity as Patriarch of the West. We have a slightly different relationship to him than the West does. If he did start campaigning for the Akathist and chotki most Eastern Catholics would resent his interference, as many Eastern Catholics do with the Vatican promulgation of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. We are sui juris churches that unlike the West have developed the ability to fight heresy and preserve the Faith without constantly appealing to Rome. Again, you are not thinking about Eastern Catholics as if we were Roman Catholics.

 

[GaryTaylor]

All Beautiful Devotions. the difference being - no one is diminishing them or saying - Yeah but you dont HAVE to do any of this De Fide to save your soul. Why Would I read this post and have that reaction to it. That is what I am talking about.

There it is. Now if we take it a step farther. St Bridget was a mystic, as was the Picture of Our Lady crying tears an apparition at the Jesuit Chapel, thats how the Seven Sorrows came about, she was a visionary. Why would one promote one Saints experience in the Mystic realm over another such as Fatima? They are all valid and lead to salvation?

The understanding the why, “IS” understanding where your are at in your mind:shrug:

 

[Robert_Burns]

Yes, I have read Papal documents mentioning the Akathist in documents about the Rosary (as side notes, using words to the effect like “or, for Catholics of the Eastern Rite, the appropriate Marian devotion promulgated by their ordinaries, such as the Akathistos” instead of the Rosary). I wish I could remember the name of the document; I read it about seven years ago and I can’t remember the name of everything I’ve read that far back.

Since the Pope has given us a plenary indulgence for saying the Akathistos, I’ll take that as support from the Chair of St. Peter.

Also, the Pope usually leaves Eastern Catholics to ourselves, without governing us as directly and immediately as he does in his capacity as Patriarch of the West. We have a slightly different relationship to him than the West does. If he did start campaigning for the Akathist and chotki most Eastern Catholics would resent his interference, as many Eastern Catholics do with the Vatican promulgation of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. We are sui juris churches that unlike the West have developed the ability to fight heresy and preserve the Faith without constantly appealing to Rome. Again, you are not thinking about Eastern Catholics as if we were Roman Catholics.

Is it the same level of Support was the question? A Yes or B no.

I am prepared to cite the overwhelming support in a virtual plethora of examples from the Chair. Can you do the same.

Now dont get me wrong. I am not saying that the Eastern Catholic Devotions dont have Merit. But what I am saying is that the Chair of St Peter has made it abundantly clear that it supports the devotion for the holy Rosary and holds it in High Esteem and by the numerous Popes and Plethora of Examples it isnt merely on par with every other Devotion. It is a preferred devotion.

Pax

 

[Robert_Burns]

There it is. Now if we take it a step farther. St Bridget was a mystic, thats how the Seven Sorrows came about, she was a visionary. Why would one promote one Saints experience in the Mystic realm over another such as Fatima? They are all valid and lead to salvation?

The understanding the why, “IS” understanding where your are at in your mind:shrug:

Amen - Love this point

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

First off the actions of an individual are not for us to judge, thats simple Bible.

You clearly misunderstand the Scriptures on this one but that is a topic for another thread.

There it is. Now if we take it a step farther. St Bridget was a mystic, as was the Picture of Our Lady crying tears an apparition at the Jesuit Chapel, thats how the Seven Sorrows came about, she was a visionary. Why would one promote one Saints experience in the Mystic realm over another such as Fatima? They are all valid and lead to salvation?

So you can not understand how one private devotion and message may speak to a person’s soul more so than another?

Some how Fatima is at the top and the rest are beneath it? That is hardly what the Church Teaches.

The understanding the why, “IS” understanding where your are at in your mind:shrug:

You can never understand the why unless a person opens up to you personally and tells you (that is if they even understand their motivations) or if you are a mind reader. Regardless you are not to judge what is in someone’s mind nor the state of their soul (this is what the Scriptures are talking about). You can judge their actions, as you are called to do when you are called to jury duty.

Scripture also talks about this when it tells you to talk the person first, then take it to another, then to the Church.

(I know I said this was a topic for another thread but the grave misunderstanding required some sort of response.)

As for my saying that something is not required. Again (I do not know how many times I have to say it here before it sinks in, I am guessing that you guys only skim our posts and reply on what you want to rather than what we are actually saying) I only say that something is not required when someone else comes around and says that it is required (Fatima and the Rosary seem to be the two favorites of devotees trying to say that they are required, just read this thread).

 

[LilyM]

Well when you say : "The fact that it is strongly encouraged and led in public by Popes and saints does not change this fact " then why did Our Lord Establish the PAPACY if what it does and teaches is irrelevant?

What the Papacy says and does isn’t irrelevant, but neither, on non-infallible matters, is it by any means the be-all and end all.

If it were not so, we might all be Arians along with Pope Honorius, who privately (but never officially) lapsed into that particular heresy. We might all be bound to believe that the solar system revolves around the Earth rather than the Sun along with whichever Pope condemned Galileo.

We might believe all manner of things that Popes have said on a non-infallible basis over the years. To hold to everything that every Pope has ever privately or unauthoritatively said or written would result in a confused not to say downright contradictory set of beliefs.

Why does the Church Elevate SAINTS through canonization if by doing so we are to ignore them and their example?

As with the Popes but even more so, they are NOT the be-all and end-all. There are numerous among the saints, even among the Doctors of the Church (including the luminaries St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas and St Catherine of Siena being three) who wouldn’t have countenanced the idea of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception, for example, alongside their saintly brothers who vehemently defended and promoted the doctrine.

So who to be guided by? On that particular issue we have infallible guidance to help us, as the dogma has been proclaimed. Our Catholic brothers and sisters who lived prior to the mid-1800s had no such guidance and were free to believe as they liked, hence St Thomas and the others not being denounced as heretics - they lived well before this time.

 

[Robert_Burns]

What the Papacy says and does isn’t irrelevant, but neither, on non-infallible matters, is it by any means the be-all and end all.

If it were not so, we might all be Arians along with Pope Honorius, who privately (but never officially) lapsed into that particular heresy. We might all be bound to believe that the solar system revolves around the Earth rather than the Sun along with whichever Pope condemned Galileo.

We might believe all manner of things that Popes have said on a non-infallible basis over the years. To hold to everything that every Pope has ever privately or unauthoritatively said or written would result in a confused not to say downright contradictory set of beliefs.

As with the Popes but even more so, they are NOT the be-all and end-all. There are numerous among the saints, even among the Doctors of the Church (including the luminaries St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas and St Catherine of Siena being three) who wouldn’t have countenanced the idea of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception, for example, alongside their saintly brothers who vehemently defended and promoted the doctrine.

So who to be guided by? On that particular issue we have infallible guidance to help us, as the dogma has been proclaimed. Our Catholic brothers and sisters who lived prior to the mid-1800s had no such guidance and were free to believe as they liked, hence St Thomas and the others not being denounced as heretics - they lived well before this time.

Ram: I completely disagree with your premise that we need follow the Pope ONLY in De Fide Matters. In Vatican I - the Fathers Wrote and I Quote:

Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

cont…

 

[Robert_Burns]

Ram: I completely disagree with your premise that we need follow the Pope ONLY in De Fide Matters. In Vatican I - the Fathers Wrote and I Quote:

Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

cont…

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
2. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].
3. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
4. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]
5. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
6. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
7. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
8. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

That seems to fly in the face of what you wrote and in addition was defined quite a few years AFTER “Honorious” which weakens that aspect of your argument since this in an Ecumenical Council , the very council that Defined Papal Infallibility.

As for Galileo - He was never condemned for his Science - he was condemned for Obstinently Teaching it as LAW and not Theory after being told not to. And BTW - he died in Full communion with the Church and it wasnt Pope Paul the V who “condemned him” the Pope actually commuted the sentence to house arrest (With full access to his laboratory BTW) More Catholics need to study history and not buy into Protestant fabrications about either Galileo or Copernicus IMO.

And with all due respect to St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas and St Catherine of Siena None of them were guided by the Holy Ghost while Teaching Ex Cathedra from the Chair of St Peter.