Just last week, I published a post exploring whether or not Cardinal Burke may have taken the formal act of correction off the table.
At the conclusion to that post I wrote, “Perhaps His Eminence will be asked about this directly in a future interview (which, if history is any indication, cannot be very far removed from today).”
Well, we didn’t have to wait very long at all.
On August 14th, the Wanderer published Part 2 of an interview with His Eminence wherein he indicated that the formal act of correction is not only on the table, it may in fact be the precursor to something far more significant.
Here, I’d like to delve into the relevant parts of the discussion concerning the correction, but before we get that…
Perhaps you may have noticed that Cardinal Burke’s interviews often contain thinly veiled insults aimed directly at Francis. Well, this one was no different. In response to an invitation to recall the life of Cardinal Meisner, he said:
He was a wonderful pastor and was never one to say that those who supported the Church’s teaching were legalists and do not care about people, that they were throwing stones at them. He was a very loving pastor who understood that a good shepherd of the flock must teach the truth to the faithful in its entirety.
Here’s the translation (even though I am certain very few actually need it):
Francis is not a wonderful pastor. He says that those who support the Church’s teaching are legalists and do not care about people, that they are throwing stones at them. Nor is Francis a loving pastor who understands that a good shepherd of the flock must teach the truth to the faithful in its entirety.
This, I suppose, is how the game is played in Rome…
Returning to the main topic at hand, the interviewer asked:
Setting aside the question of timing, please explain how the process for the execution of a “formal correction” would proceed should a response to the five dubia not be forthcoming? [Sic] How is a formal correction officially submitted, how is it addressed within the Church’s hierarchal structure, etc.?
First, let me say that I am unaware to what extent, if any, the interviewer had to agree to avoid certain topics going in, but apart from this, why on earth would he set aside “the question of timing”?
I mean, the dubia is about to have a birthday for crying out loud!
In any event, it seems as if the answer to that question is, if not given, at least suggested later in the interview. We’ll get to that in a moment.
Let’s take a look at Cardinal Burke’s reply piecemeal:
The process has not been frequently invoked in the Church, and not now for several centuries. There has been the correction of past Holy Fathers on significant points, but not in a doctrinal way.
NB: His Eminence is saying that this is not a matter of discipline (as the proponents of Amoris Laetitia like to contend); it is a matter of doctrine.
It seems to me that the essence of the correction is quite simple. On the one hand, one sets forth the clear teaching of the Church; on the other hand, what is actually being taught by the Roman Pontiff is stated. If there is a contradiction, the Roman Pontiff is called to conform his own teaching in obedience to Christ and the Magisterium of the Church.
In other words, as things currently stand, Francis’ teaching is not in conformity with that of Christ and the Magisterium of the Church, and so he will be called upon to conform.
At this, we arrive at one of the most crucially important parts of the interview as Cardinal Burke continues:
The question is asked, “How would this be done?” It is done very simply by a formal declaration to which the Holy Father would be obliged to respond.
NB: Once a correction is issued, Francis will be obliged to respond.
In my previously mentioned post concerning the correction, I pointed out how inconsistent, and even contradictory, Cardinal Burke has been at times when commenting upon the matter. Herein lies yet another example.
In a January 2017 interview with the Italian publication, La Verità, Cardinal Burke said of the dubia:
There is no ultimatum to the Pope, but we must go forward: the faith is in danger
As I stated at the time, the dubia has always been an “ultimatum;” a proposal that essentially demands, “Do this, or else suffer the consequences.”
Now, Cardinal Burke is plainly admitting that this is the case.
Again, in the interviewer’s defense, perhaps he was forbidden to ask it, but the next logical question is obvious:
You state that he would be ‘obliged.’ What consequences will he face for failing to do so?
Though it wasn’t asked, it was in my estimation answered, and in this case, Cardinal Burke is demonstrating consistency.
Before we get to that answer, let’s consider “the question of timing.”
Cardinal Burke went on to say:
Pope Francis has chosen not to respond to the five dubia, so it is now necessary simply to state what the Church teaches about marriage, the family, acts that are intrinsically evil, and so forth.
As we have come to learn, one cannot put too much stock in any one thing the cardinal states. Even so, one might take note that he did not say “it will be necessary” to proceed to the correction; he said “it is now necessary.”
The implication is that it is coming soon.
If I was foolish enough to place a bet on where this merry-go-round is headed, my money would be on some time shortly after September 19th – the one year anniversary of the dubia’s issuance.
As for the form of the correction, Cardinal Burke stated:
So then, the next step would be a formal declaration stating the clear teachings of the Church as set forth in the dubia. Furthermore, it would be stated that these truths of the Faith are not being clearly set forth by the Roman Pontiff. In other words, instead of asking the questions as was done in the dubia, the formal correction would be stating the answers as clearly taught by the Church.
Regular readers of this space may recall my multi-part series with Robert Siscoe concerning whether or not Francis is a formal heretic. I argued that he is; Robert that he is not. We both agreed, however, that the sacred hierarchy has a duty in such cases to make a formal declaration.
Such a declaration is not a matter of judging, properly speaking, since a pope (if you will allow in this case) is judged by no man, rather it is a matter of announcing to the Church what he himself has revealed.
The purpose of the declaration, as described by 18th century theologian, Fr. Pietro Ballerini, is as follows:
So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him.
This is essentially what Cardinal Burke is talking about:
…a formal declaration stating … that these truths of the Faith are not being clearly set forth by the Roman Pontiff.
Granted, Cardinal Burke chose to employ less precise wording than Fr. Ballerini.
No surprise there. After all, if the interview didn’t amount to a certain number of puzzle pieces for the reader to assemble one would have to wonder if it was “fake news”!
Perhaps the most noteworthy part of the interview pertains to Cardinal Burke’s response to a question about the CDF.
He was asked:
During his tenure as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Gerhard Cardinal Mueller was a steadfast defender that confusing statements in Amoris Laetitia must be interpreted in line with the Church’s traditional teaching on reception of Holy Communion by civilly divorced and remarried Catholics. Do you foresee any possibility of a reversal in this teaching from the CDF in the aftermath of his non-renewal as Prefect?
Pay close attention to Cardinal Burke’s response:
It is not possible for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to declare otherwise. If it did, it would be out of communion with the Church. What Cardinal Mueller has set forth is exactly what has always been taught by the Church. In more recent times, paragraph 84 of Pope St. John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio has pronounced the Church’s constant teaching. So then, that type of reversal is simply not possible.
When the pieces are assembled, it would seem that this is His Eminence’s answer to the unasked question:
You state that Francis would be ‘obliged’ to respond to the formal correction; presumably, in conformity with what has always been taught by the Church. What would be the consequences of his failure to do so?
The answer: He would be out of communion with the Church.
In this, there is consistency.
Recall Cardinal Burke’s December 2016 interview with Catholic World Report wherein he was asked:
Some people are saying that the pope could separate himself from communion with the Church. Can the pope legitimately be declared in schism or heresy?
To which Cardinal Burke replied:
If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen.
As I suggested, no one knows where this merry-go-round is headed. What we have before us is a series of puzzle pieces that, once put together, may or may not tell the tale.
Even so, it seems that the formal act of correction, which now appears likely, is not the end game, but rather just might be (please, God) a step in what may lead to Francis being openly declared an anti-pope.
Yes, all of this speculating is growing tiresome, but these are the cards we’ve been dealt.
In any event, it looks like the next month or so (as October 13 approaches) is going to be very interesting indeed.
Mr. V., you call it “thinly veiled insult” and I call it cleverly worded correction. I can’t see Cardinal Burke being insulting to even his worst enemies, even behind closed doors.
Dennis, without ignoring the terrible crisis of the Church, I agree with your comment.
For real insults, please ask: Walter Kasper, Bruno Forte, Lorenzo Baldiseri, Jorge Bergoglio, Rodriguez Madariaga, Pio Vino Tinto, Cupich, Cocopalmiero, and some other modernist good shepherds.
I wound strongly advise that Cardinal Burke avoid all nail guns, bath tubs, pillows, and car rides in the mean time. Accidents will happen.
Where do we find it necessary in Catholic doctrine that a pope or anyone has to formally profess a heretical doctrine to be in heresy? Honorius was condemned a heretic by pope Saint Leo II and a council on the evidence of a private letter supporting monothelism.
A person falls into heresy by embracing heresy. It may never be publicly professed. It is a matter of what the person believes. The Church may never identify the person as a heretic. A Physician may never issue a diagnosis of some disease. It is not the diagnosis that determines the patient is sick. The sickness is present diagnosed or not. If Francis is a heretic he is not a successor of Peter as taught by Pope Paul IV, Ligouri, belarmine, Aquinas, doctors of the Church.
Maybe Francis privately went to confession last night. How can you be sure?
While we do not know when the dubia cardinals will move forward, I hope the formal correction is made public early in the morning on September 16. Not only will Pope Francis and several cardinals be irate, but H.E. Cardinal Caffara will be celebrating a Pontifical High Mass at the Altar of the Chair of St. Peter in St. Peter’s Basilica for the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage with H.E. Cardinal Burke in attendance for a buffet after the Pontifical High Mass. I couldn’t think of a better way to represent the timeless truths of the Catholic faith than by concluding that monumental day with the Mass of All Time in St. Peter’s Basilica.
May I offer a solution to the Dubia dilemma?
Approach the Dubia Cardinals and other ‘like-minded’ clerics (perhaps Bishop Athanasius Schneider, et. al.) on a preannounced date and time publicly and solemnly offer Holy Mass for the following intention:
“That Christ the King will swiftly rebuke His enemies and deliver His Bride, Our Holy Mother the Church, from those who violate her.”
I cannot fathom any cardinal, bishop, or cleric (even the Dubia Cardinals and/or Bishop Athanasius Schneider), objecting so such an intention which points the finger at and accuses no one of heresy or wrong-doing, et cet. and publicly pleads for Christ the King to sort it out.
There is no offense given. Even Pope Francis speaks of the Church in turmoil and torn.
Saying that the Mosaic covenant is not superseded, some souls are not immortal, atheists are ok if they follow their consciences (faith is not necessary), Luther was right, is heresy. Going to confession does not cure heresy. It must be renounced as it was publicly declared. The heretic must recant.
Pope Paul IV taught that if a heretic is elected to the papacy the election is invalid. Belarmine, Aquinas, Ligouri all doctors and saints taught if a pope falls into heresy he loses the office and the see is vacant. A heretic is not a Catholic and can not be the head of the Church. IF Francis is a heretic he is not Catholic or pope.
Burke stipulates Francis would have to be in “formal” public heresy to question his legitimacy in office. Burke made that up. The evidence against Honorius that led to him being condemned as a heretic was a private letter. Burke admits there is an apostasy and a defacto schism. He opposes it becoming a public schism. Schism is schism whether it is openly recognized or ignored. Ignoring it is being in denial, blinding oneself to reality to painful to face. A patient has cancer whether or not he is diagnosed or admits to himself he is sick. The Hierarchy is polarized, in schism. The division or separation is from those who came before us in faith.
So should Cardinal Burke issue the correction or not?
The suggestion of September 19th or shortly after falls into my considered time frame of on or shortly after/before Sepember 23rd if so it would coincide with the great sign that will take place on that date and would be an extremely significant action accompanied by a sign from God that reflects our lady of fatima.
When i read the relevent and corrosponding passages from revelation 12 i get the sense that if it is the case the correction or “more” happens around then we will see a major conflict take place in the church the result of which will see many priests bishops cardinals either follow the wrong path or perhaps get excommunicated but that in the end the one who accuses the faithfull (we pharisees know who that is ) will be hurled out of the church into the secular world and then what appears to be a great persecution of the faithfull takes place.
It is also seems highly significant that cardinal burke who it seems is leading this “dubia” has on a number of occasions very recently openly and publically called for the specific consecration of russia according to our ladies wishes… The hand of God seems to be at work and his plan seems to be coming ever closer to fruition
Interesting observations, Mea Culpa. I just pulled up and was reading that same remnant article yesterday after it had dawned on me that this Monday’s solar eclipse event is on the vigil of the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We know the significance of Her Immaculate Heart pertaining to Fatima, and this being the 100 year anniversary. Also, Our Lady’s interesting word choice when She spoke in La Salette, “The Church will be in eclipse.” For many God does not make Himself known in subtle ways. He is with us. Live Our Lady’s Fatima message like She told us to. It is our hope!
A correction would consist of the answers to the dubia the cardinals want from Francis. The answers are yes or no. The correction would consist of five words. Burke said if Francis did not answer the cardinals would. If they muster the courage to answer their own questions Francis will continue to ignore them. That is a certainty. What will they do then. Burke opposes a formal schism. Until Francis is challenged in the legitimacy of his supposed papacy which would be a public declaration of a schism Burke is toothless. He is looked to by many Catholics as their hero. They hope he will confront the crisis with bold truth. They will be disappointed. The best that will come of it is too little too late. He will continue to be polite and respectful and confront or correct nothing.
He is not a Cardinal. He is not even a priest. He is a well intentioned layman who accepts Vatican II.
Thank you, Louie, for this information about Cardinal Burle.This terrible crisis IN The Church is something that Our Lady of Good Success directly warned about 400 years ago. She told us that She would Triumph both in Quito, and at Fatima. It is amazing how God, in His Mercy, would give us His Mother, of all things, as our comfort. She is always with us, always there even during this horrible crisis. Just as She was with Her Son during His crucifixion, so She is with The Church during Hers. She is always with us, The Church, never abandoning us no matter how ugly things actually are, She is our hope, our comfort and strength, our protection. Our Lord only knows how horrific all this is, and so He sends His Mother to those who are willing to abandon themselves to Her and ride out the storm. You just can’t make it alone. This time it is only through our trust in Our Lady. In the end Her Immaculate Heart will triumph.
After reading what you wrote, Louie, I have hope and will pray for Cardinal Burke and others in the hierarchy. There WILL be a holy prelate, as Our Lady of Good Success promised who will be with The Church during its complete restoration. This will be a very holy man who is very dear to her Son, Our Lord. She told us to pray hard so that God sends him more speedily. I am hopefully awaiting his arrival in this midst of this storm. I pray for wisdom to recognize him and courage to follow him, all while trusting in My Lady to lead me. So far I am not aware of his presence. After the restoration there will be a time of peace. Not seeing that yet either, so continue to pray for his arrival. It will be late, but in the end Her Immaculate Heart WILL triumph. She’ll clean up this mess in The Church.
Good Saturday morning grandfather,
It is exquisitely important to note that the authentic Vatican Council (I) did not condemn Pope Honorius “as a [an] heretic”. Rather, VCI condemned him for not having done enough to stop heresy. That understood, the arguments of Saint Robert Bellarmine stand in stark contrast to the Council, which remains perfectly Catholic for this contrast to have occurred and to continue in existence, as the Council in union with a valid Pontiff simply cannot err in matters of Faith and Morals. The matter of Pope Honorius is not a matter of Faith and Morals and therefore the valid Council can err in matters of historical fact, and in this specific case, as they relate to the detailed history of Pope Honorius, which is brilliantly edified by Saint Bellarmine. In the spirit of avoiding the writing of a lengthy argument here, which attempts to establish the beautiful, precise, and perspicacious arguments of the Church Doctor and Saint, Robert Bellarmine, please refer to the Saint’s treatise, “De Controversiis On the Roman Pontiff”, Book IV, chapter 11, “On Pope Honorius I”. In caritas.
My memory is slipping with age. If I recall Honorius was condemned by name along with the patriarch of Constantinople as monothelites, both by Pope Saint Leo II and the third Council of Constantinople. I have not read Bellarmine’s writing on the matter.
The matter of Honorius is certainly a matter of faith and fundamental at that. It concerns the person of Christ. Monothelism is a christological heresy. Honorius was a monothelite. The evidence of it is in his own writing. May God have mercy on Honorius.
Constantinople III was the sixth ecumenical council. It was called for the purpose of dealing with the controversies or disputes of the time in matters of faith, the energies and wills of the person of Christ.
Good Sunday afternoon grandfather,
It must be noted that your assessment of Pope Honorius having opposed the Faith, One and True, is simply in error. In an attempt to avoid an exhausting application of the true, the beautiful, and the good work of the Doctor and Saint, Robert Bellarmine, his treatise on the subject of the Holy Roman Pontiff was sited above and particular to this discussion, the matter of the good Pope Honorius. The Pope was not a Monothelite, as he did not embrace this heresy of the singular operation and will of Christ. In “his own writing”, to which you refer, and as you suggest that there was evidence of his embrace of this Monothelite heresy, according to you, “in his own writing”, again is a patently false conclusion in fact. Now to quote the work of Saint Robert Bellarmine, Book IV, CH XI: “On Pope Honorius I”, page 515 of the English translation 2016, by Ryan Grant:
“To the second I say, no error is contained in these epistles [read as private letters] of Honorius. For Honorius confesses in these epistles, what pertains to the matter of two wills and operations in Christ, and he only forbids the name of one or two wills, which then were unheard of, and he did it with prudent counsel. That he confessed the matter itself is clear from the words of the second epistle: ‘ “We ought to confess both natures in the one Christ, joined in a natural unity, working in harmony with the other, and also confess operations. And certainly the divine operation, which is of God, and the human operation, which is of God, carrying it out not in division, nor confusion, informing the other but not changing the nature of God into man, nor the human into God, but confessing the different natures whole, etc.” ‘ This confession is very Catholic, and altogether destroys the Monothelite heresy.”
Thus, you can see grandfather, that your supposition stands in diametric opposition to the Doctor and Saint. We have all been infected by the poison of the Mystery of Iniquity, which Saint Paul allowed for our knowing, inerrantly in 2 Thessalonians 2, as he professed that this Mystery was already present, at work, in the Apostolic Age. The 20 Authentic Councils of Holy Mother Church are not protected from the errors of “fact”, as they are protected with certitude from errors in discerning and teaching the Truth, preserving through the charism of the Holy Ghost, the integrity of the exegesis of dogma and authentic Catholic morality, outside of which there is no salvation, as the deFide teaching, “extra ecclesia nulla salus”, evidences. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Grandfather, Honorius was never declared a heretic. While
A Council tried to declare him so, Pope Leo II would only declare him negligent. Please read the link to the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia.
“And in like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”. Pope Saint Leo II
From the Council
THE SENTENCE AGAINST THE MONOTHELITES.
(L. and C., Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 943.)
The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarationsof the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema.
And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1010.)
[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]
Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches!O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!
Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate!
To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul the heretic, anathema!
To Peter the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!
May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!
Sent from my iPhone
Exactly what the Catholic Encyclopedia said. The Council called him a heretic, but Leo II did not.
Good early Monday morning grandfather,
Councils can err in fact and that is one of the possibilities which the holy Saint and Doctor of Holy Mother Church posits in his treatise which has now been referred to twice. He also notes with historical veracity the fact that several Councils in that time were “corrupted by rivals”. Now to quote from this work of Saint Robert Bellarmine once again, from page 518:
“I say to the second: without a doubt, the name of Honorius was inserted among those who are condemned by the Sixth Council by rivals of the Roman Church, and likewise whatever else is said against him. I prove this, a) because Anastasius the Librarian witnesses this in his history drawn from Theophanus the Isaurian, a Greek; and b) it was nearly an ordinary custom of the Greeks to corrupt books. For (as we said) in the Sixth Council itself, act 12 and 14, many corruptions were discovered made by heretics in the Fifth Council. And Pope Leo sought from the Greeks why they had corrupted his epistle to Flavian even though he was still living? Pope Gregory asserted that at Constantinople they had corrupted the Council of Chalcedon, and he suspected the same about Ephesus. And he adds that the codices of the Romans, by far had greater veracity than those of the Greeks: ‘ “Because the Romans, just as they do not have frauds, so also they do not have impostures.” ‘ …”
“Thirdly, the Council could not condemn Honorius as a (sic) heretic, unless it opposed the epistle of St. Agatho, nay, more even itself; plainly it asserts the contrary. For Pope Agatho in Epistle I to the Emperor, which was read in that very Council (sess. 4P, says: ‘ “This is the rule of the true faith, which vigorously remains steadfast in good times as well as bad. This spiritual mother defended the affairs of your most peaceful empire, namely, the Apostolic Church of Christ which through the grace of almighty God is proved never to have erred from the course of Apostolic tradition, nor succumbed to the depravities of novel heretics; from the beginning of the Christian faith she has secured by means of the authoritative Princes of the Apostles of Christ, with the unimpaired goal remaining in her power, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior himself, which was confessed by the Prince of the disciples in the holy Gospels, Peter, saying ‘ ‘Peter, behold, Satan has asked to sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail, and thou, when thou has been converted, strengthen thy brethren.’ ‘ Let your tranquil mercy consider that the Lord and Savior of all, whose faith it is, who promised the faith of Peter was not going to fail, admonished him to strengthen his brethren which the Apostolic Pontiffs, the predecessors of my scanty [Pontificate] have always done, and has been acknowledged by all.” ‘
Here, note that Agatho not only says the faith in the see of Peter did not fail, nor could fail, and hence the Pope cannot, as Pope, settle something against the faith, but even that all his predecessors, one of which is Honorius, always resisted heresies and strengthened the brethren in faith. And further on, after Agatho enumerated the Monothelite heretics, Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter and Theodore, he said: ‘ “Hence, the holy Church of God must be delivered and freed from the supreme endeavors and errors of such teachers, in order that the Evangelical and Apostolic rectitude of the Orthodox faith, which was founded on the firm rock of this Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles and of the Church, which remains inviolate by his grace and protection fro every error, every number of Prelates, Clergy, and people will confess and preach with us.” ‘ The whole council in the Eighth action, and in the 18th approved this epistle, where the Fathers not only said that Agatho spoke, but that St. Peter spoke through Agatho.
Therefor, from these testimonies I argue: If Honorius was a Monothelite heretic then how could Agatho, disputing in the face of this very heresy, write that none of his predecessors ever erred? And when the other Churches were stained by the errors of their Prelates, only the Roman Church remained intact? Then, if the Council affirmed that Peter spoke through Agatho, and said: ‘ “the Roman Pontiffs always confirmed their brethren in faith, and never succumbed to heresy,” ‘ with what temerity would the same Council in nearly each action say anathema to the heretic Honorius? Therefore it must be that either the Council was falsified; or the epistle of Agatho, or that the Council is opposed with itself and with Agatho. Now this last one nobody has ever asserted, not even the heretics; on the second there was never any suspicion; therefore it is necessary to hold the first.”
In closing grandfather, as we are now living the time of the Great Apostasy, as Saint Paul wrote of as the “revolt” in 2 Thess 2, which would occur in the midst of the Holy Father as “…he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way”, as his being “taken out of the way”, would allow for the Mystery of Iniquity with all the power of Satan, to bring forth and make manifest in time and space the person of the Antichrist. Saint Paul also prophesied that most would receive the “operation of error” in this time, such that they will believe the lie as though it was the truth. It is this very operation of error which has allowed for the occurrence of the Great Apostasy in our very midst and although everyone is culpable (by virtue of the reception of the operation of error) for being in Apostasy, thus everyone in Apostasy is willfully in it, and yet they do not even know they have left the True Church of Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God. The “conciliar church” is in truth, the church of the Antichrist, as the “abomination of desolation” itself. May Almighty God allow for our continued reception of His mercy in these, our times, the darkest this world has ever known. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Wow, that is interesting thanks for the heads up
I think Our Lady of Good Success is a reflection of what is contained in the 3rd secret of fatima… the two are clearly linked.
I have Read many of our ladies warnings and i am sure they all add up to much of the information that is contained in the 3rd secret.
I have found this book to be very comprehensive
If Councils can err in their determinations, that which they propose to teach or proclaim as dogma or doctrine provide no certainty to the faithful. What they assert might be correct, true, and it might not. Popes are held to be infallible only when they make pronouncements ex cathedra, under certain conditions. If Councils can err their determinations are debatable. There can be no settled matter, doctrine remains in flux, changeable. Theologians, saints and doctors are not infallible. They do err. The Orthodox say the determinations of recognized Councils are infallible. Catholics say Councils convened by a pope attended by a papal representative are infallible. If they are not their teaching is mere human opinion, educated guesswork. We can not rely on them.
Good Monday afternoon grandfather,
Understanding the difference between fact, which is an historical reality, in contradistinction to Divine Revelation and the infallible Universal Magisterium protected with the charism of Ecclesial infallibility, as it effects its exegesis of dogma and morality with the charism of infallibility afforded as a gift of the Holy Ghost, is the essence of this argument, grandfather. Let the record show that you are in disagreement with the Saint and Doctor of Holy Mother Church, Robert Bellarmine, and in that opposition you are asserting to know the realities of the infallible nature of an authentic Council, as it relates its exegesis of dogmatic and moral reality, better than Saint Robert Bellarmine, as that is precisely what your argument suggests. Either you did not read or did not comprehend what was quoted by Saint Bellarmine of Pope Saint Agatho, who followed many years after the Pontificate of Pope Honorius. It was Pope Agatho who professed the reality that a Pope had not failed up until his time, nor could a Pope ever fail, and hence a Pope, as Pope, has never and can never settle something against the Faith, which is of course, heresy.
You center a logical fallacy in your argument, as it relates the infallibility of an authentic Council. This fallacy is the non-sequitur whereby you are suggesting that an error in fact is equal to an error in the Council’s exegesis of dogmatic and moral reality. Your argument implodes thus, under its own weight of error in logic. Councils do not possess infallible protection for what you call, “their determinations”. This comment of yours lacks any sense of intellective rigor. The infallible protection rests in their union with an authentic Holy Roman Pontiff and strictly as it relates to their exegetical understanding of dogmatic and moral reality as reality. For a Council to suggest that an Holy Roman Pontiff was heretical, which cannot in truth occur as Pontiff, according to Pope Saint Agatho for one, as written by Saint Robert Bellarmine, has precious nothing to do with that same Council’s exegesis of dogma and morality, which is the only aspect of the Council given the charism of infallibility. Thus grandfather, as you had this to say, “that which they propose to teach or proclaim as dogma or doctrine provide no certainty to the faithful.”, is simply and again in error, as to suggest someone to be an heretic, is not the exegetical work of a Council’s interpretation of dogma and morality. I pray this helps. In caritas.
I can’t find my gnat strainer. Is the historical evidence of a pope disagreeing with or correcting a Council? The opinons of theologians aside, whatever their credentials, is their any such precedent. I am asking. I don’t know. I suspect there is not.
Hello again grandfather,
What you query about, regarding an historical precedent of a Pontiff “disagreeing with or correcting a council” simply cannot have being in ontological reality, as it relates to a Pope and his Council disagreeing on those matters of Faith and Morals which have been previously established and settled, as those matters bear the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, there being then no possibility of disagreement in Truth. That understood, there is always opportunity for debate and discussion around the development of the final formulation of dogmatic reality within the operation of a Council, with the final formulation then accepted by the Pontiff in union with his bishops. There can be lively debate until that point of permanent closure, if you will, whereby the dogmatic question is settled and then final in perpetuity, never again to be addressed in debate. Again, these are not questions of fact, rather of dogmatic reality. A Council could err in fact and then later be corrected by another Council or the Roman Pontiff, but not in dogmatic or moral teaching. This is an example of the diabolical/preternatural involvement of the mind of Giovanni Batista Montini, as the false pope Paul VI. A true Pontiff could not have opened the question of birth control as this false pope did in his so called, “Humanae Vitae”, which was preceded by years of theological debate and discussion around an ontological reality that had always been settled in the Church, as to separate the both/and realities of the conjugal act, the principal having always been understood as the procreative, is as it can only ever have been and continue to be in perpetuity, an intrinsic evil, which by its very nature contains no remedy from within its immanence to somehow ever make the act of the separation of these two realities a good. I pray this helps. In caritas.