I just finished making my way through about half of a video of the Argument of the Month Club debate between Christopher Ferrara and Mark Shea on the question:
Has the modern Catholic Church effectively abandoned the Great Commission?
I have to say, even though I don’t see eye-to-eye with Mark Shea’s position overall, it looks like he did a pretty decent job of stating his case, and if nothing else, he deserves kudos just for accepting the challenge.
Seriously; you couldn’t drag me into a public debate against Chris Ferrara at gun point!
In any case, the point I wish to raise here is simply this:
When our churchmen are no longer willing to proclaim the Social Kingship of Christ, not just by way of mere inference, but loudly, clearly and unambiguously such as it is expressed in the Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, then there can be no doubt whatsoever that they have effectively abandoned the Divine Commission.
This being the case, the question posed to Messrs. Ferrara and Shea could just as easily been stated:
Has the modern Catholic Church effectively ceased to proclaim the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
Even Mark Shea would presumably concede that the teaching expressed in Quas Primas is nowhere to be found in “modern Church” preaching, most notably such as it comes to us from the lips of the popes.
In the book, They Have Uncrowned Him, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre recounted a conversation that took place between himself and Bishop Ambrogio Marchioni (Apostolic Nuncio to Switzerland, 1967–1984) as follows:
Archbishop: “But the social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, what are you doing about this?”
Nuncio: “You know, that is impossible now; perhaps in the distant future?… Right now, this Reign is in individuals; we have to open ourselves up to the masses.”
Archbishop: “But the encyclical Quas Primas, what do you do with that?”
Nuncio: “Oh… the Pope would not write that any more, now!”
The witness of the past fifty-plus years indicates that the Nuncio was absolutely correct. In fact, it seems rather evident at this point that the unwillingness of our popes to preach the doctrine transmitted in Quas Primas is because they no longer believe it to be true!
And why is it that they no longer believe it to be true?
Simple – they are sons of the Council.
As such, our churchmen are fully committed to the pluralistic version of religious liberty put forth in Dignitatis Humanae, wherein the Council Fathers insist that governments are to grant a civil right to religious freedom to those who reject Jesus Christ and oppose His reign, and this apart from upholding the obligation to seek the true religion and adhering to it once it is found.
This constitutes an unprecedented betrayal of the Church’s mission, the likes of which has never been seen before.
The best that even the most intransigent devotees of the fatally flawed “hermeneutic of continuity” approach to the conciliar text can do is labor to demonstrate that the Council somehow implies that Christ reigns over the nations.
Even if that were true, in order for Dignitatis Humanae to be considered anything close to a good faith attempt to carry out the Divine Commission, one must first believe that Our Lord really meant to say:
Go therefore to all nations and drop hints as to my all-encompassing authority so that gifted theologians may one day come along to connect the dots for the precious few who actually give a hoot…
As it is, in order to carry out the mission that Our Lord gave to His Church, it is imperative for our churchmen to explicitly and consistently proclaim His Kingship to one and all; especially those who exercise civil authority.
Think about it…
Imagine that your neighbor owns a farm with herds of livestock, acres of crops, an on-sight slaughter house, a packaging facility, and a busy market where all of his goods are sold to the benefit of the entire community.
One day this neighbor tells you that he is going away for a few months, and so he commissions you to instruct his staff on all aspects of running the farm until such time as he returns.
What’s more, he lets you know that these instructions are not mere suggestions. If they are heeded, all concerned will thrive beyond their wildest dreams, but if they are ignored, the entire operation will most surely fail and all of the people who depend on it will needlessly suffer.
Upon attempting to carry out this mission, what is the first thing you’re going to tell the staff?
Obviously, you’re going to begin by letting them know that you speak on behalf of he who has all authority over the entire farm, its goods and its employees; from the lowliest all the way up to the chief supervisor. In fact, given the influence that the supervisors have over the others, you’re going to make certain that they more than anyone else understand the source of your instructions.
Apart from announcing this crucially important detail, why should any of them listen to you?
Clearly, they won’t, nor should they; in fact, you would do well to escape without a beating. This would be the case even if you tiptoe in like a humble little servant bearing the good news, Hey guys, listen up, here’s how you are guaranteed to avert disaster and thrive!
Our Lord knew this. That is why He gave the Divine Commission as follows:
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe everything whatsoever that I have commanded…
In other words:
I am the King of kings who reigns over all nations and all things – both spiritual things in the heavenly realm and temporal things right here on earth. Go therefore and let it be known that my teachings are truly nothing less than Divine commands.
You see, apart from the Social Kingship of Christ and the reality that all authority in heaven and on earth belongs to Him, the Church has no right to teach the nations anything, and to the extent that our churchmen have ceased to proclaim the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King, surely they have effectively abandoned the Divine Commission.
The power and authority and duty of the successors of Peter and the other apostles is wholly defined, circumscribed and determined by, and dependent upon, the objective, unchangeable content of the Sacred Deposit of Faith, given to us by Our Lord and Saviour, directly or indirectly.
All one has to do is ask when was the last time any post-concilliar pope or bishop called anyone to convert to the Catholic Church. It doesn’t happen.
The most you can hope for is a generic Billy Graham style call to convert to Jesus with maybe a little Mary thrown in.
With Francis, you don’t even get that.
The neo-Catholic lay folk come closest among the V2 crowd, and there “call” never reflects the reality that eternity is at stake. Their call is the “your religion is great, but ours is really great.” As I think Mr. Ferarra put it once, the Catholic faith is presented as “Protestantism Plus.”
The bottom line with all of em is tiny have a distorted ecclisiology (sp?), an erroneous view that presents the Catholic Church as a subset of the Church of Christ. The ol subsist vs is deal.
Should be “they” not “tiny” there.
If you’re reading the Remnant, then you are in a nursing home. If you’re reading Mark Shea, then you’ll read anything. How does that affect the rest of us?
“If you’re reading the Remnant, then you are in a nursing home.” That’s a strange statement. How many young Catholics join the Remnant on pilgrimages? I personally know many young people and young families who read The Remnant regularly and look forward to each issue. That doesn’t mean that The Remnant should not be read in nursing homes. I hope it is! I think you “rushed into your comment” without thinking. That is an extremely broad statement. Perhaps you could explain the source of this statement.
Even Pope Paul VI gave warnings concerning the mission of the Church. He was fairly explicit that the end game of “dialogue” was not friendly chatter but towards conversion of souls to the one true religion. It makes for interesting reading because of its warnings against those who would water down doctrine for the sake of unity at all costs.
[Quotations from: Ecclesiam Suam, Encyclical Letter on the Ways in which the Church Must Carry Out its Mission in the Contemporary World Promulgated on August 6, 1964 by His Holiness Pope Paul VI ]
“Men committed to the Church are greatly influenced by the climate of the world; so much so that a danger bordering almost on vertiginous confusion and bewilderment can shake the Church’s very foundations and lead men to embrace most bizarre ways of thinking, as though the Church should disavow herself and take up the very latest and untried ways of life. …
Was not the phenomenon of modernism, for example, which still crops up in the various attempts at expressing what is foreign to the authentic nature of the Catholic religion, an episode of abuse exercised against the faithful and genuine expression of the doctrine and criterion of the Church of Christ by psychological and cultural forces of the profane world? Now it seems to us that to check the oppressive and complex danger coming from many sides, a good and obvious remedy is for the Church to deepen her awareness of what she really is according to the Mind of Christ, as preserved in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition, and interpreted and developed by the authentic tradition of the Church. The Church is, as we now, enlightened and guided by the Holy Spirit, Who is still ready, if we implore Him and listen to Him, to fulfill without fail the promise of Christ: “The Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send on my account, will in His turn make everything plan, and recall to your minds everything I have said to you.”
…the Church has a true realization of what the Lord wishes it to be, then within the Church there arises a unique sense of fullness and a need for outpouring, together with the clear awareness of a mission which transcends the Church, of a message to be spread. It is the duty of evangelization. It is the missionary mandate. It is the apostolic commission.
…An attitude of preservation of the faith is insufficient. Certainly we must preserve and also defend the treasure of truth and of grace which has come to us by way of inheritance from the Christian tradition. “Keep safe what has been entrusted to thee,” warns St. Paul. But neither the preservation nor the defense of the faith exhausts the duty of the Church in regard to the gifts which it possesses.
…The duty consonant with the patrimony received from Christ is that of spreading, offering, announcing it to others. Well do we know that “going, therefore, make disciples of all nations” is the last command of Christ to His Apostles. By the very term “apostles” these men define their inescapable mission. To this internal drive of charity which tends to become the external gift of charity we will give the name of dialogue, which has in these days come into common usage.
72. The dialogue of salvation was opened spontaneously on the initiative of God: “He (God) loved us first;” it will be up to us to take the initiative in extending to men this same dialogue, without waiting to be summoned to it.
73. The dialogue of salvation began with charity, with the divine goodness: “God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son;” nothing but fervent and unselfish love should motivate our dialogue.
74. The dialogue of salvation was not proportioned to the merits of those towards whom it was directed, nor to the results which it would achieve or fail to achieve: “Those who are healthy need no physician;” so also our own dialogue ought to be without limits or ulterior motives.
…88. But the danger remains. The apostle’s art is a risky one. The desire to come together as brothers must not lead to a watering-down or subtracting from the truth. Our dialogue must not weaken our attachment to our faith. In our apostolate we cannot make vague compromises about the principles of faith and action on which our profession of Christianity is based.
An immoderate desire to make peace and sink differences at all costs is, fundamentally, a kind of skepticism about the power and content of the Word of God which we desire to preach. Only the man who is completely faithful to the teaching of Christ can be an apostle. And only he who lives his Christian life to the full can remain uncontaminated by the errors with which he comes into contact. …
107. Then we see another circle around us. This, too, is vast in its extent, yet it is not so far away from us. It is made up of the men who above all adore the one, Supreme God whom we too adore.
…Obviously we cannot share in these various forms of religion nor can we remain indifferent to the fact that each of them, in its own way, should regard itself as being the equal of any other and should authorize its followers not to seek to discover whether God has revealed the perfect and definitive form, free from all error, in which he wishes to be known, loved and served. Indeed, honesty compels us to declare openly our conviction that there is but one true religion, the religion of Christianity. It is our hope that all who seek God and adore Him may come to acknowledge its truth. …
But we must add that it is not in our power to compromise with the integrity of the faith or the requirements of charity.
pax fratribus et benedictionem
Michael F Poulin
Bishop de Galarreta:
“For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus,” St. Paul declares (1 Corinthians 3:11). And St. Peter says, along the same lines, that the stone which was rejected by the builders has become the cornerstone. For there is no salvation in any other camp, in any other person than in Our Lord Jesus Christ. And there is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved but the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (Cf. Acts 4:11-12).
When St. Paul in the Epistle to the Ephesians attempts to establish a firm basis for our hope, he reminds us of how God the Father displayed His authority and the power of His might by raising Our Lord from the dead, by seating Him at His right hand and placing under His authority every principality, power, dominion, and throne. As well as everything that can be named in this world and in the world to come. God subjected everything to Him in this world and in the world to come. He appointed Him Head of the Church, which is His body. The Church is the fullness of Him who is all in all. Christ is all in all in the Church. And God subjected everything to Him (cf. Ephesians 1:20-23).
In the First Epistle to the Corinthians the Apostle is even clearer in saying that He subjected everything to Him, that He left nothing that was not subjected to Him. He left nothing outside of His empire, His kingship, and therefore oportet illum regnare, He must reign (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:25). Here is where we find the ideal of the priest, of the priesthood: to found everything upon Our Lord Jesus Christ, to establish everything, to restore everything in Christ, but also to unite everything, to recapitulate everything, to order everything to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Everything is yours, you are Christ’s and Christ is God’s. That is God’s plan from all eternity: to restore everything, to unite everything in Christ. And apart from His priesthood and His kingship, man’s life is a nightmare from which there is no awakening. We see it clearly in the society in which we live; there is neither truth nor virtue and, alas, neither salvation nor redemption nor justice. All that comes to us through Our Lord, through His priesthood, through His kingship: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).
And therefore, dear confreres, dear ordinands, the priest’s life is precisely to subject every reason to Our Lord Jesus Christ who is the truth, and every will to Our Lord Jesus Christ who is the life, and to offer all men the only way of salvation, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
You’ve written for the Remnant? Nothing wrong with that of course.
The Modernist Church could not possibly believe in the Social Kingdom of Christ because it would go against its devious mission, which is totally opposed to the Divine Commission.
At this point, there’s no Quas Primas, no Catholic society — but also, no religious freedom, no human dignity (Dignitatis Humanae) — only martyrdom, wet or dry, in the modern catacombs. And St. Peter, instead of being crucified upside down, is yukking it up with reporters on Alitalia.
Dah? Right? I can’t believe that you have to explain this to people like me, but you do. “Social Kingship of Christ”. Basic 101. Obvious. Except for those of us who were born and raised Vatican 2, like me.
Dahhh…yeah, right, right…Jesus, God, who made everything, yeah, He King of all. Yeah, I see dat now.
I’ll never forget the first time (about 8 years ago) that I ran into a Baltimore Catechism-the first grader version. I was blown away by page 1. I was like, what the heck is this?? Stupid and naive and stuff, I ran it over to my super modern, nice people church and told the kind older lady and priest how AWESOME this little book was and that they should be teaching to the students with it. What an amazing discovery I made! I couldn’t get why they weren’t grabbing it from me. Smile. Right? Our Lord shows His Mercy on me. So yeah Louie, keep giving me The Truth…I’m thirsty for it. Thanks.
I absolutely love how you keep explaining this so clearly and simply. Sadly, we so need to be hearing this basic fact today. Your mission is Great!
To be honest, that’s my opinion of Remnant videos, not the paper.
I still don’t get it, but if that is your opinion, so be it.
P.S. I guess I’m one of the few—NOT in a nursing home–who believes the videos are very well done, important and relevant.
Indefectability means that the scenario given is impossible. The Church cannot fail to carry out her divine mission. I know you don’t want a post about sedevacantism, but it’s claims like these that show why it must be true. I’ll leave it at that. It’s not possible unless the Church is defectable. Shea has a … more Catholic position?
The indefectibility of the Church is a gift from Christ to the Church by which she is preserved to the end of the age as the “institution of salvation”. She can neither perish from the world nor depart from “her teaching, her constitution and her liturgy”. (Ott, 296) This gift of indefectibility is essential to Christ’s purpose in establishing His Church as the means of continuing His saving work to all the nations and peoples of the world until the end of the age. Regarding this purpose, Pope Leo XIII wrote, “What did Christ the Lord achieve by the foundation of the Church; what did He wish? This: He wished to delegate to the Church the same office and the same mandate which He had Himself received from the Father in order to continue them.” (Satis cognitum, 4)
Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening
Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village, though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.
My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.
He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound’s the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
“That’s a strange statement” I totally agree. Maybe what he or she meant was that orthodox Catholic media are for the Elect only and the main stream Catholic media are for the Reprobate. So the Reprobates who are destined to damnation would never cooperate with God’s grace in doing something good for their souls, for example reading true Catholic materials.
are you making a case that there is chance that Paul VI was not a manifested heretic?
Truth Seeker if I may ask 2 questions 1) do you believe Pope Honorius was a valid Pope? And if he was, was he a heretic as declared by the Church? 2) Let’s say Our Lord will not come back in the next ten year or so how do you find validly ordained Cardinals to elect a valid Pope?
Who is Robert Frost? Is he a Catholic? You know this is a Traditional Catholic blog, right? I remember you quoting heretics like Jose Maria Escriva here before.
Is the Social Kingship of Christ a defined dogma of the Church or it is a doctrine under Universal and Ordinary Magisterium?
1) I think honorius was condemned for aiding heretics. If he actually was a heretic Catholic theology makes no sense, because it is certain that someone who is not a member of the Church cannot lead it. All it takes to lose membership is to believe heresy.
2) If the world doesn’t end either God will miraculously restore the Church or it may mean that there is no true Church, because indefectability and apostolic succession are both not possible. At this point we are in total darkness and the only we can hold onto is hope in Christ’s promises and the prophecies saints and the mother of God have made.
Sermon on St Thomas Aquinas (realted to the post) 17mins by fr chad ripperger
Thanks for the link to Father Ripperger on St. Thomas. Funny isn’t it, that when one is a glutton one can’t pray, and when one is lustful one can’t think. This point is brought out time after time. So that’s why our Church hierarchy teaches error, or doesn’t teach at all: they are gluttonous, and lustful.
I agree with Louie – to go up against Chris Ferrera is truly a bold act. I’ve listened to many talks on a variety of subjects given by Mr. Ferrera. He is always well prepared, forthright with no wishy-washy nonsense and rests with confidence in Truth.
Agreed! Here’s the latest by Chris Ferrera:
Can’t argue with Truth.
“If he actually was a heretic Catholic theology makes no sense” So let’s assume your statement is 100% correct then the conclusion would be at least two Ecumenical Councils in union with the Popes got the theology 100% wrong. Would it open the door for the chances of Ecumenical Councils in union with Popes got other theology wrong? For example the dogma of the Trinity? A heretic does not need to be the originator of heresy. Being a Roman Pontiff should be condemned as heretic if he does not suppress heresy or suppress heresy and sound doctrine at the same time in his decree.
Chris is definitely an outstanding traditional Catholic author and courageous in defending the true Faith. But I have to side with Fr. Hesse on the invalidity of the Second Vatican Council while Mr. Ferrara has repeated many times that Vatican II was a valid Church Ecumenical Council. The theology of the validity of an Ecumenical Council has to be addressed at some point when you show people all the errors, heresies and blasphemies in the V2 documents. So Mr. Ferrara and Fr. Gruner (whom I owed much of my understanding of the Faith along with Fr. Hesse ) is that V2 was a valid but evil Council and Fr. Hesse’s position is that V2 was an invalid Council and it was evil.
Excellent link, john6.
One step beyond others in your understanding once again, Mr. V.
Your [correct] recognition that Indefectibility is a necessary attribute of the Church is leading you to the error of dogmatic sedevacantism because you are using private judgment to decide both the Church’s limits of infalliblity in teaching & discipline and whether or how they’e been broken.
So you say that the Church that everyone in the world recognizes as the Catholic Church (because it factually IS still the same visible, hierchical Church Christ founded) is not the Church because you say it has defected. Here’s your first insurmountable problem: You’ve just denied the visibility of the Church, an attribute as necessary as is indefectibility. Whatever Church you may claim is the Catholic Church is most definitely not visible. This is why every sede that asserts that the Church (that is, the real, visible, Catholic Church) has failed the test of indefectibility inevitably also holds a *Protestant* definition of Church as an invisible collection of believers. They are now material heretics.
In point of fact, nothing the diabolical disorientation of Vatican II has foisted upon the Church has bound Catholics to error. You name anything you care to that you believe proves otherwise and I will explain to you why you are wrong. I can do that by demonstrating that nothing you could name is, in fact, a teaching of faith or morals the Church has promulgated with the charism of infallibility, demanding the assent of faith.
Some teachings of the Church to keep in mind regarding this subject:
— Disciplines are only protected by the charism of infallibility in their *doctrinal* components
— Regarding sacramental rites, the Church is free to change any form she herself has instituted – anything not specifically defined by Christ. (This explains why rites of, of example, ordination have always differed so strongly among Western & Eastern Churches, etc.)
There is no doubt whatever that none of the documents of Vatican II promulgated any teaching that bound the faithful. Outside of the fact that the Church told us this explicitly there is the insurmountable obstacle that there isn’t even one new, formally-specified (a necessary attribute of something binding) teaching in them. Neither was the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass (which can be used to confect a valid Mass, flawed and intentionally defective as it is, showing the protection of the Holy Ghost) ever promulgated properly (as several sede leaders acknowledge, contradicting others, as we see constantly in the movement).
Here’s one more of the dogmatic sedevacantist one-shot kills: 4th Constantinople. This ecumenical council declared an anathema on any Catholic who would separate themselves from a validly-elected prelate. And guess what? Validly elected means elected or appointed by the visible Church, period. (Fr. Cekada tried to talk himself out of this one with the ridiculously circular argument that it doesn’t apply to the popes he’s decided aren’t popes. “The Church’s anathema against private judgment in deposing prelates does not apply to the prelates I’m deposing because I’ve declared them deposed.” He simply chooses to consider it a fact that they are deposed, merely begging the question and directly and clearly engaging in exactly the activity that the Council’s anathema was meant to apply to.
Then there’s the fact that any theologian, such as the sede favorite Bellarmine, who spoke of loss of office made it clear that only the Church can determine obstinate heresy in the public domain. Formal judgement by the Church is absolutely necessary according to those theologians most favorable to the sede position. But, sedes are constantly contradicting not only each other but even themselves in terms of what weight they give to what theologian, etc. The articles you can view at trueorfalsepope under the sede watch section make that quite clear.
Sedevacantism is a circus. Each faction or individual varies in which popes it delcares true and which false, and why. Bishop Sanborn rejects John XXII merely because (he has decided) Pope John possessed “bad will” in calling the council. Fr. Cekada recognizes but resists (refusing to follow his liturgical innovations) Pius XII. They – espeically Derkson & Fr. Cekada and especially lately – will do or say absolutely anything, contradicting themselves up & down the line, to hold on to their followers. It is sad, and I don’t mean that sarcastically.
In point of indisputable fact, the Church is still the Church. There is no possible way in which the Catholic Church could “be” one day and then not be the next – be visible, that is; be the Church that everyone in the world except sedevacantists realize is the Catholic Church.
Here is one recent article that may help a bit:
Sedevacantism appeals to the will, not the intellect. Perhaps this is why diehard sedes (like, say, diehard fundamentalist Protestants) are generally so loathe to honestly examine material that contradicts their worldview.
FYI, I’m not going anywhere. I’m going to be on a little mission here in Louie’s comboxes to debunk this sede nonsense. If you would like to debate, you could start by explaining how the invisible Church you believe in is congruent with the necessary attribute of visibility.
Indeed! See above.
Montini was a wicked man – a heretic, a schismatic, a revolutionist against the papacy and the Church. He was fundamental in creating the heretical Novus Ordo counterfeit.
Well, if you’ve read up on this in sedevacantist websites you would see that during the Vatican I proceedings that they claimed that a pope has NEVER been a heretic.
I’m pretty much not allowed to try to prove sedevacantism in these comboxes. But Vatican II and most of what has come for the last 50 years is in fact binding because it is part of the ordinary, universal magisterium. As for Church visibility, was the Catholic Church visible to ALL people for all of history, like say the tribes in South America? Nevertheless it was a visible society. I don’t know where the Church is; I just know where it isn’t.
If you don’t want to look through sedevacantist material and study the evidence, at least look through Novus Ordo teachings on papal heresy
“during the Vatican I proceedings that they claimed that a pope has NEVER been a heretic.” So now you are saying that Vatican I was contradicting the Councils that declared Pope Honorius heretic? Am I understanding you right? So the original line of logic seems to stand, one can not trust the theology of an Ecumenical Council because they sometimes contradict one to another?
It should be noted that he calls Honorius “the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself”, again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius’s contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban.
The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.
If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.
(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago; underlining added.)
“again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius’s contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban” I totally understand where you stand. But after a couple posts exchange, the argument stands, what you or the Cardinal you quoted saying is the Ecumenical Councils in union with Popes got their theology wrong. That they made a mistake because Pope Honorius did not invent the heresy merely not suppressed it or suppressed it with true doctrines the same time. So clerics and laity have the authority to reject the decisions not one but two Ecumenical Councils in union with the Popes concerning heresies and heretics because the Popes got their theology wrong. Would that open the door to question dogmas defined by other Councils in union with Popes. Do we have confidence in Trent or Vatican I?
You deny the visibility of the Catholic Church – something *every single theologian* – and thus it is you who are the schismatic and material heretic.
“I’m pretty much not allowed to try to prove sedevacantism in these comboxes.”
Almost every post of Louie’s for the past 18 months or more is peppered with the same sede links ad nauseam from the same individuals here. Exactly what is it that you claim you’re not allowed to do?
“But Vatican II and most of what has come for the last 50 years is in fact binding because it is part of the ordinary, universal magisterium.”
This is – no offense – a ridicuous sede error. No Catholic theologian who ever lived defines the OUM as the sedes prefer to do. Now we get to the heart of how the sede leaders pull in unsuspecting, but often good-willed, followers. In fact, the very defining characteristic of that belonging to the OUM is that it is congruent with Tradition – that it has been believed universally in time & space. Novelties, by very definition, are excluded. Consult any manual of dogmatic theology you wish on this point – but please don’t believe that Speray, Cekada, and Lane are giving you the full story.
“As for Church visibility, was the Catholic Church visible to ALL people for all of history, like say the tribes in South America? Nevertheless it was a visible society. I don’t know where the Church is; I just know where it isn’t.”
You are conflating visibility with catholicity (universality). The latter has two degrees: by right & fact. The former of these means that the Church always had the aptitude to spread throughout the world, and the latter that it *did, in fact, do so*. Van Noort, among others, notes that *once the Church became universal in fact (spread throughout the world) this characteristic became a permanent, necessary quality of the it*. Thus, your objection that the Church was not immediately visible to all the people of the world from the moment of its founding does not mean anything. According to the theologians – all of them of note whoever spoke on the matter – once the Church (visible as she always has been and always will be) became spread throughout the world, her visible universality became a permanent property. That, is, once it became spread throughout the world, it became impossible for the visible Church to suddenly become invisible (or for the entity the entire world recognizes as the Catholic Church to not “really” be the Church because some armchair theologian says so).
So,saying you don’t know where the Church is IS AN IMMEDIATE REFUTATION OF YOUR POSITION, since the visibility of the Church once she had attained universality in fact is a perpetual, necessary attribute of it. What actual theologians would you cite to support your position?
“If you don’t want to look through sedevacantist material and study the evidence, at least look through Novus Ordo teachings on papal heresy.”
You believe you can conclude that I’ve simply not examined the sede evidence? Based on what? As in the way Fr. Cekada simply removes portions of quotes he doesn’t like – right out of the middle – or cites a theologian in one case, then claims the same theologian should be ignored in another, or claims Archbishop Lefebvre was a sede (preposterous) when it suits him, but has an article on his website stating the opposite – need I go on? I would bet my retirement fund that it’s you that is not familar with the material on the other side.
To that, how about this: You take any article posted at trueorfalsepope.com and refute it. Look at any one, carefully, and I say that if you’re intellectually honest you’ll be forced to conclude that whatever point whatever dogmatic sede is arguing is false.
This is my personal challenge to you. And, don’t forget, at the Judgment we’ll each give an account of every thought, word, and deed. If you do not have moral certainty of the dogmatic sedevacantist position, after having studied all material available to you, you should think very carefully about continuing to promote it publicly.
I do understand how people of good will can be led to accept the sede error. But it is an error – or a system of errors – and, to an extent not previously seen, Salza & Siscoe are exposing the sede leaders as the charlatans they are.
You lie. I do not and, as a Catholic, could not deny the visibility of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Anyone with eyes knows and sees that the Novus Ordo Institution is neither ‘one’ (witness the R&R versus the liberals), nor ‘holy’ – witness the disciplines introduced into the seminaries and the scandals that result from the Novus Ordo heresiarchs and their Assisi and their terrible N.O. ‘mass’, nor Catholic – it rejects the true ecclesiology of the Catholic Church and promulgates ‘frankenchurch’, nor Apostolic – the N.O. episcopal rites are most certainly invalid. The formula is taken from a rite to install an eastern Bishop as Patriarch who has already had a valid consecration.
The visible Bride of Christ is no longer found in the fabulous brick and marble that Pius XII inhabited. It is in exile. It is found in the faithful who have one faith, sanctification, Catholic continuity and Apostolic rites.
Here is but one example of the visible Church:
Schismatics either break away from the Faith, like VII did, or try to install a pope by without authority to do so – like is happening in the Novus Ordo -heresy has no authority in Christ.
Catholics who follow the truth that the chair is empty and the occupiers non-Catholic have neither broken with the authentic Holy See nor the Faith promulgated by it.
On the contrary, sedevacantism is simple Catholicism.
As a wise Catholic friend recently said, ‘sedevacantism leaves Catholic Doctrine on the Papacy untouched, whereas recognise and resist reinvents it’. One could say that R&R actually revolutionizes what the papacy is supposed to be and how the faithful are supposed to regard it.
“You lie. I do not and, as a Catholic, could not deny the visibility of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
I “lie”? Honestly? You’re sure I’m not, maybe, mistaken? You know my heart? Well, that is not surprising. More pertitently, your statement makes no sense whatsoever. Where is the visible Church you say you recognize? You have no possible answer than some rough collection of individuals (mostly or all sedes?) you’d point to. Visible people do not make a visible Church: Your definition is exactly the same as the heretical Protestant definition of the ecclesia as the collection of all true believers. But, in fact, the visible, hierarchical, apostolic Church that was the Catholic Church before whatever date you’d pick it ceased to be the Church is still the Church. That’s a dogmatic fact, without which the Church’s teachings about Itself have no meaning.
“Anyone with eyes knows and sees that the Novus Ordo Institution is neither ‘one’ (witness the R&R versus the liberals), nor ‘holy’ – witness the disciplines introduced into the seminaries and the scandals that result from the Novus Ordo heresiarchs and their Assisi and their terrible N.O. ‘mass’, nor Catholic – it rejects the true ecclesiology of the Catholic Church and promulgates ‘frankenchurch’, nor Apostolic – the N.O. episcopal rites are most certainly invalid. The formula is taken from a rite to install an eastern Bishop as Patriarch who has already had a valid consecration.”
Actually, it is only those with poor understanding of the limitations of the active, narrow charism of infallibility and inability to distinguish properly between churchmen and Church who cannot understand that a Church containing prelates that do bad things is still the Church. The Church was still the Church when Pope Liberius persecuted St. Athanasius, was still the Church throughout the embarrassing, pathetic spectable of Formosa and its aftermath, was still the Church through popes who engaged in simony, fornication, and murder, and is still the Church now. If you sitting at home could declare prelates deposed based on behavior you see that you (correctly) deem immoral and anti-Catholic the Church would not have survived any internal trial.
The fact – and these things are easy enough to learn – is that no pope has bound the faithful to any doctrinal error. Regarding discipline, only aspects directly related to docrine are protected from error (naturally, since faith & morals is the object of the faith). Nor was the new Mass (defective and pathetic that it is) promulgated authoritatively, nor the Tridentine abrogated (as numerous sede leaders acknowledged). Nor, despite what you may think, are the new episcopal rites “most certainly invalid”. Fr. Cekada’s arguments on that score, as usual, display either shockng ignorance or startling pride (in purporting to define exactly what is the meaning of specifc words and phrases *to the Church*, etc). The Church has always had the ability to modify the form of any sacrament she herself has defined. Only the substance of the sacraments are immutable along with the forms Christ specifically ordained – that is what the theologians have always taught. That is why these rites have always varied greatly among the various churches. It’s why Cardinal Ottaviani, who had no qualms calling out the Novus Ordo for what it was, approved the new rite with no reservations. (I may post details on this topic later.)
“Schismatics either break away from the Faith, like VII did, or try to install a pope by without authority to do so – like is happening in the Novus Ordo -heresy has no authority in Christ.”
Actually, the definition of schism is refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff, which you and all sede vacantists do, after deciding for yourselves which validly-elected popes you will decide are not actually popes, in direct contradition to Canon 10 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church which addressed exactly and specifically this very question. Where did your definition come from, exactly? A prelate is deposed of his public office only when the Church declares so, not when you, Derkson, Fr. Cekada, or Steven Speray (who also declares several ancient popes the Church has never deposed to be anti-popes!) do. And that is, once again, what every theologian, including St. Bellarmine, who ever spoke on the topic taught.
That’s only true if one’s premises are completely and totally wrong. You yourself here have demonstrated again & again that the only understanding of Catholic theology you have is what you’ve gotten from your sedevacantist teachers. Unfortunately they don’t know what they’re talking about. They are led by their wills, not their intellects; they again & again display naive and simplistic understanding of Catholic teaching (things one can find in any manual of theology), twist the words of whomever they’re quoting to fit what it is they’d like to believe (often trimming and misquoting in directly dishonest ways), engage in subjective judgment of both people and things like the meaning of words (the arbiter of which is the Church), and so on.
I could go on & on & on, and I have (above), and am going to keep doing so here, but here’s a little excerpt from a recent article that displays a bit of what I’m talking about concerning the author you reference above. Let’s let the reader decide who’s honest and who understands Church teaching:
“Derksen: Staying with this “Passion” analogy, Salza is arguing, then, not that our Lord was disfigured and mocked and beaten from the outside, but that our Lord was actually Himself the perpetrator: feeding poison to His flock, offering them damnable doctrines, leading them to false worship that is odious to God. Salza is arguing, in effect, that our Lord, instead of healing the crippled and giving sight to the blind, actually crippled the whole and blinded the seeing! In short, Salza asserts that our Blessed Lord led His people to damnation. WHAT BLASPHEMY!
Salza/Siscoe: This type of argumentation shows what kind of sophist Mario Derksen really is. Because the analogy is so damaging to the Sedevacantist position (true leaders persecuting the Body of Christ), Derksen is forced to pervert the analogy, and come up with the most grotesque of perversions, as if we ever accused Our Lord of doing such evils (does Derksen really believe that individual members of the Church are literally Christ himself?). For Derksen to accuse us of such things reveals the morbid state of his own mind, and also that he cannot truly engage at the theological level.
It also reveals the bitter spirit of Mario Dersken. He is blinded by his errors, and thus cannot see the parallel between the leaders of the Old Covenant disfiguring Christ’s physical Body, and the leaders of the New Covenant doing the same to His Mystical Body. What is truly blasphemous is Derksen’s own accusations of blasphemy, as if any Catholic would ever say that Christ was responsible for the sufferings of the modern Church, although He no doubt willed to permit them, just as He willed to permit His Passion and other crises that have shaken the human element of the Church. For Derksen to make such an outrageous argument shows that he doesn’t know what other arguments to make. His desperation grows with each ridiculous piece he publishes. But this is helping those of good will see that Sedevacantism is a rotten true that produces nothing but rotten fruit.”
Honestly, who could believe that Mario Derksen is both intellectually honest and understands basic Catholic theology when he apparently believes that every action of every pope is or must be directly attributable to Christ Himself, etc.? It’s either complete sophistry, or he has no idea which end is up, or both. This is a child’s – or Protestant’s – understanding of the papacy and the Church.
If you read Louie’s comments a few articles ago, he said he might ban posters who turn his comboxes into “soapboxes” for sedevacantism.
I don’t think you read the sede material because you quote popular recognize and resist talking points that mischaracterize the sede position. For example, read this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium
Where do you read the claim that the ordinary universal magisterium is universal in TIME? I only see criteria for space. Are you also saying those members of the pre-V2 hierarchy who claimed that the true Church would go underground during, say, an interpretation of the Apocalypse are material heretics? Is the apparition of La Salette (approved by the Church) filled with errors concerning the visibility and inevitability of the Church?
* Not inevitability, indefectability.
No, they are saying that the pope’s faith cannot fail. He cannot believe heresy and remain a pope. Honorius still believed in the Catholic faith, despite helping heretics.
“Sedevacantism leads Catholic doctrine on the papacy untouched” – would that be their child’s understanding of the papacy, where the pontiff must be akin to a perfect daddy who will be rejected the moment he fails that test?
The fact is they generally don’t understand or deal with the reality of the papacy at all. That’s why Speray, and others, declare numerous popes of antiquity to be anti-popes because he believes (sometimes rightly) they fostered or even taught heresy. He doesn’t understand the limits of papal infallibility nor what a formal judgment of pertinacity entails (i.e., the willed rejection of the Church as the rule of faith and, more importantly, two warnings from the Church or direct formal judgment of same). When confronted with a pope whose actions he can’t understand, he declares them not really a pope – done.
Fr. Cekada recognizes but resists (ignoring his validly-promulgated liturgical changes) Pius XII while declaring his successors anti-popes based on his own judgement. Bishop Sanborn declares John XXIII to have lost his office merely due the “bad will” the bishop judges him to have had. Honestly, it ought to be obvious – and it is – that this is a system of nonsense.
Pope Francis, as bad as he is (and he’s clearly the worst yet), is the pope: That is a fact. The theologians have declared that the mere public acceptance of a canonically-elected pontiff as such confirms his office. This is a dogmatic fact without which, again, the Church would be reduced to every-man-for-himself Protestantism. We have an ecumenical council that anathematized any Catholic who would separate themselves from a bishop (based on heresy was the context) without a judgment from the Church. We have Bellarmine, who the sedes think is on their side, stating that a pontiff must receive two warnings from the Church to be considered a formal heretic. There is no historyin the Church whatever for the sede position, which is why there is no record of the faithful or the bishops ever declaring a pope deposed based on their own authority, no matter what they did. Not even St. Athanasius declared Liberius to have lost or never held his office, because he was a Doctor of the Church who no doubt understood he had no authority to do so.
“Honorius still believed in the Catholic faith, despite helping heretics.” Exactly your above statement indicates that “the Popes and the Councils were wrong in their basic theology”. Am I understand you right? Or you think the Pope Honorius was not a heretic but in the mean time the Popes and Councils were wrong to condemn him as a heretic. Have you heard the law of non contradiction? It can not be true that both the Popes and the Councils condemned Honorius were right and Pope Honorius was not a heretic at the same time. So it seems to me you are saying that Popes and the Councils in union with the Popes were wrong. I hope I am not putting words in your mouth.
If that is how you understand it, you are the one accusing councils of contradicting each other. I see no contradiction here. Honorious never BELIEVED in heresy. He aided heretics. So while not a heretic himself he was one in practice. I’m not defending him, I am defending the claim that popes must be Catholic.
Please read the entire Catholic Encyclopedia article from start to finish and see if it makes sense to you.
“you are the one accusing councils of contradicting each other”
No actually both Councils in union with the Popes came up with the same conclusion, Pope Honorius was declared a heretic and anathema by the Church. So a Pope could be anathema by the Church but yet remained a valid Pope while he was in the office(till he died in the case of Honorius) so there were valid Cardinals and bishops appointed by him who in turned elected the next Pope and the next Pope who in turned together with a Church Council declared him anathema on the account of being a heretic.
I think you have mentioned before that it is God’s place to read hearts. What you wrote is an objective lie. If on your part it is ignorance or misunderstanding that does not change the fact of the objective lie.
CT. Do you know the Catholic Faith? To you assent to all its doctrines and precepts? Does the VII/Novus Ordo conform with Catholic Doctrine, discipline and worship? We know the answer is ‘no’. Do the the Catholic clergy conform to the full degree to Catholic Doctrine, discipline and worship? We know the answer is yes.
Also, you misrepresent the Arian crisis. The heretical bishops and their followers were no longer part of the Body of Christ. And Liberius in exile though he may have signed a document excommunication Athanasius and supporting ‘semi-Arianism’, he did so under duress and never preached or promulgated the evil.
St Athanasius said, ‘even if the Church be reduced to a handful, that will be the Church of God.’ Likewise only the true intransigent Catholic faithful are the Church in this time. God permits this crisis, and we must sanctify ourselves, and trust in His providence. St Athanasius said, ‘if the whole world should become Arian, then it will be Athanasius against the world.’ Likewise we must say, ‘if the whole world become modernist, then it will be I, intransient Catholic, against the world.’
‘If you would be Catholic, you must cut from the Novus Ordo’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeBO1YWQgSg
The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Truth Who infuses in us the supernatural faith, He inspires the Prophets and Evangelists, He guides the Pope and Bishops in the infallible propagation of the faith, because He is the Soul of the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo is a false Church. It officially teaches doctrines which are contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. It teaches heresy concerning religious liberty. It teaches the exact thing (Modernism) that was condemned by Pope Pius IX, Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Leo XIII with their Apostolic authority. It explicitly teaches the heresy that other religions are a means of salvation. In the preface of the New Missal it teaches a heresy concerning the Mass, stating that it is only ‘an Assembly’. It is a false Church with false rites. The new ‘mass’ is akin to the Lutheran or Anglican service. There is a purposeful deletion of Catholic Dogmas of the faith from prayers in the N.O. mass. The Novus Ordo is false because it has evil laws which are conducive to hell: intercommunion with Protestants, for example (and evil disciplines – Assisi-scandals that mock and deny the first commandment). It is necessary to cut from the Novus Ordo and treat it in the same way you would avoid the Lutheran, Anglican churches etc. Traditionalists who remain in communion with the Novus Ordo are acting as modernists. Their private preference is the old Mass. Assisting at a Traditional Mass that is in communion with the Novus Ordo is a rejection of the Catholic Church and of God. The Novus Ordo is an institution of conceding preferences under the banner of a heresiarch. It is not Catholic. All former Catholic parishes have defected to the Novus Ordo, just as the great Cathedrals and Churches in the reformation passed into heresy and are no longer Catholic. The Novus Ordo is a sect – it is an umbrella that contains various faiths and preferences of worship and they falsely claim the name Catholic.
The Novus Ordo is a typical schism – it sectionalises – liberal, conservative, traditionalist, etc.
Catholic reality check: 1: By the power of the Holy Ghost, the Roman Catholic Church is the infallible teacher of mankind. 2: The Roman Catholic cannot, therefore, be associated with an Institution that teaches error to mankind. 3: But the Church of which Montini, and Wojyla, and Ratzinger, and now Bergoglio have been and are the ‘heads’ has taught and continues to teach error to mankind – officially teaching error and heresy. 4: Therefore it is impossible to associate the institution of which these men are leaders with the Catholic Church. It is logically and doctrinally impossible. 5: A true Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church – you cannot separate the Roman Catholic Church from true Pope. 6: If Bergoglio were Pope, that which he is the head of must be the Catholic Church. Yet by the above proofs we know this is not so. It is blasphemy to identify the Holy Ghost with the spirit of heresy and schism.
Conclusion: We must mentally and psychologically break from the Novus Ordo church. It has only an appearance of the Church by virtue of occupying the buildings now given to heresy and by the appearance of the heretics appearing in clerical garb. We must never refer to these heresiarchs as ‘the pope’, or ‘the bishop’; to do so is to publicly state that you believe these men are Catholic and what they teach is Catholic. This is blasphemy. These men are ‘Stalins’ of the soul – sending millions of souls to hell. We must never support Novus Ordo appeals. Never have masses said by Novus Ordo ‘priests’. Reject all Novus Ordo ‘purgatorial’ societies. The Novus Ordo mass, priestly and episcopal rites are all invalid. We must treat the Novus Ordo liturgy as a Protestant liturgy. Novus Ordo annulments are meaningless. We must witness that the Roman Catholic Church and the Novus Ordo are as opposite as light and dark, Truth and lies, Christ and belial. Never enter a Novus Ordo church to pray, use the ‘holy’ water, never genuflect – they are desicrated buildings, however beautiful (only passive attendance in the case of a wedding or funeral is tolerated or to view the building.)
The New Church – the Novus Ordo – has an appearance of Catholicism, yet it is but a corpse of Roman Catholicism.
The Body of the Roman Catholic Church consists of the members, the hierarchy, and the buildings as extensions of the members. The Soul of the Roman Catholic Church is the Holy Ghost – it is God and His authority that makes the Roman Catholic Church the one true Church, giving the Church vitality and direction. It is the Authority of God that makes the Roman Catholic Church the only Church of God. If you take the Body of the Catholic Church and exile the Authority of God – the Soul – you have but a corpse. The Novus Ordo is the corpse of the Roman Catholic Church – that is its only resemblance and it fools a lot of people. Frankenstein’s monster is a good analogy. A dead thing cobbled together and artificially animated.
The heresiarchs rule a corpse and have no authority from God. ‘Cardinal’ Ratzinger proposed a ‘great union of churches’ – resulting in ‘one Church of Christ’ where there will be no authority, only ‘honour’. He went on to say that what the Church of the future will be cannot be predicted = heresy. God is changeless, Christ is changeless, His Church is changeless.
The living Body of the Church is in exile, and the Soul, God with His Authority is still with us in the perpetual magisterium, the True Rites, a True Priesthood and True bishops who keep the faith handed on to them and by the instruction of the Holy Ghost through true Catholic Tradition. And the names of heresiarchs are anathema – it is blasphemy to offer them up as ‘popes’ and ‘bishops’ in the Mass.
It is the ‘spirit’ of heresy that ‘animates’ the monster of the Novus Ordo.
All manner of Antichrists can call themselves ‘Catholic’. Easy for the father of lies to find Antichrists who will do this. One thing the father of lies cannot do is change Christ’s Bride. The devil can more achieve making concord with Christ than the Novus Ordo with the true faith.
The Church can never ever be a contradictory sectionalist universalist Christ-abdicating non-Apostolic whore.
If you call Bergoglio ‘pope’ and are in communion with the Novus Ordo, you are testifying that the Bride of Christ is a contradictory sectionalist universalist Christ-abdicating non-Apostolic whore.
I have nothing more to say to you until you read the Catholic Encyclopedia article and think what it means for the pope to have unfailing faith.
I did read it (I also I read it before) so not let me put words in your mouth are you arguing that the Popes and Councils were wrong in declaring Pope Honorius anathema? because the Popes and Councils had no authority?
No they weren’t wrong. They declared him anathema for failing in his duties if you read the section concerning the sense in which Honorius was condemned. It does not contradict what was stated during Vatican I. The pope has to be Catholic. If he ain’t Catholic he ain’t a pope. That’s why honorious is still considered a true pope, despite being condemned. He still had the Catholic faith, even though he failed in his duty. How can you read the section concerning the sense in which he was condemned and still think Vatican I contradicted that? It is certainly not I who is questioning the integrity of the councils. This is my last post to you because you either do not understand that there is no genuine contradiction here or you actually do want to put words in my mouth.
I leave you with this quote from St Alphonsus:
Not alone the heretical, but even some Catholic writers, have judged, from these expressions of Pope Honorius, that he fell into the Monothelite heresy; but they are certainly deceived; because when he says that there is only one will in Christ, he intends to speak of Christ as man alone, and in that sense, as a Catholic, he properly denies that there are two wills in Christ opposed to each other, as in us the flesh is opposed to the spirit; and if we consider the very words of his letter, we will see that such is his meaning. ‘We confess one will alone in Jesus Christ, for the Divinity did not assume our sin, but our nature, as it was created before it was corrupted by sin.’ This is what Pope John IV. writes to the Emperor Constantine II., in his apology for Honorius: ‘Some,’ said he, ‘admitted two contrary wills in Jesus Christ, and Honorius answers that by saying that Christ—perfect God and perfect man—having come to heal human nature, was conceived and born without sin, and therefore, never had two opposite wills, nor in him the will of the flesh ever combated the will of the spirit, as it does in us, on account of the sin contracted from Adam.’ He therefore concludes that those who imagine that Honorius taught that there was in Christ but one will alone of the Divinity and of the humanity, are at fault. St. Maximus, in his dialogue with Pyrrhus, and St. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, make a similar defence for Honorius. Graveson, in confirmation of this, very properly remarks, that as St. Cyril, in his dispute with Nestorius, said, in a Catholic sense, that the nature of the Incarnate Word was one, and the Eutychians seized on the expression as favourable to them, in the same manner, Honorius saying that Christ had one will (that is, that he had not, like us, two opposite wills—one defective, the will of the flesh, and one correct, the will of the Spirit), the Monothelites availed themselves of it to defend their errors.
We do not, by any means, deny that Honorius was in error, when he imposed silence on those who discussed the question of one or two wills in Christ, because when the matter in dispute is erroneous, it is only favouring error to impose silence. Wherever there is error it ought to be exposed and combated, and it was here that Honorius was wrong; but it is a fact beyond contradiction, that Honorius never fell into the Monothelite heresy, notwithstanding what heretical writers assert, and especially William Cave, who says it is labour in vain to try and defend him from his charge. The learned Noel Alexander clearly proves that it cannot be laid to his charge, and in answer to the great argument adduced by our adversaries, that in the Thirteenth Act of the Sixth Council it was declared that he was anathematized—replies that the Synod condemned Honorius, not because he formally embraced the heresy, but on account of the favour he showed the heretics, as Leo II. (Optimo Concilii Interpreter as N. Alex, calls him) writes to Constantine Pogonatus in his Epistle, requesting the confirmation of the Synod. In this letter Leo enumerates the heretics condemned, the fathers of the heresy, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, successors in the See of Constantinople; he also anathematizes Honorius, not for embracing the error, but for permitting it to go on unmolested . . . He also writes to the Spanish bishops, and tells them that Theodore, Cyrus, and the others are condemned, together with Honorius, who did not, as befitted his Apostolical authority, extinguish the flame of heretical doctrine in the beginning, but cherished it by negligence. From these and several other sources, then, Noel Alexander proves that Honorius was not condemned by the Sixth Council as a heretic, but as a favourer of heretics, and for his negligence in putting them down, and that he was very properly condemned, for the favourers of heresy and the authors of it are both equally culpable. He adds that the common opinion of the Sorbonne was, that although Honorius, in his letters, may have written some erroneous opinions, still he only wrote them as a private doctor, and in no wise stained the purity of the faith of the Apostolic See; and his letters to Sergius, which we quoted in the last paragraph, prove how different his opinions were from those of the Monothelites.”
CT, the First Vatican Council discussed the issue of a heretic pope and affirmed that it had NEVER happened. We are living in unprecedented times. This about antichrist men running an antichrist institution under the false title of Catholicism. It is people’s rejection of what the Church teaches about heresy and Indefectibility that allows the world-wide evil to continue.
The First Vatican Council acknowledged that there has never been a ‘heretical pope’. They also pondered what to do if a successor of Peter ever became a public heretic (all the ‘pertinacity’ business belongs to the crime of heresy – the ‘sin’ of public heresy unrepented automatically removes all authority). The Catholic clergy who conclude sedevacantism have concluded correctly.
If any one is truly seeking Catholic truth, take some time to read this: