Catholicism vs Orthodoxy

glaucon

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
There's only one difference: it's called annulment.
I am a Catholic and I give Rome deference and the benefit of the doubt because I myself am still learning these things and I genuinely don't know the answer. What I do know is the Catholic Church does have a living magisterium. Meaning this current Pope cannot "overwrite" what other Popes have already spoken about infallibly over centuries. So things like the Death Penalty, contraception, gay marriage, homosexuality, can literally never be changed, regardless of what the current Pope says. If the Pope, however, spoke about something like Intellectual Property, then that would be binding. Because no other Popes have said anything about it.

In terms of Amoris Laetitia I am still researching this encyclical because it did something for divorced and remarried Catholics that I genuinely don't even know and was curious if other Catholics could explain to me what Francis was trying to do with that.
 

Creepy-ass Cracker

Catholic • Pre-Vatican II • Sedevacantist
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
D8C8CF99-19FA-4FB7-9C65-192CB982360E.jpeg
E1CFB40C-C157-4A15-A75E-8DFB5004D65B.jpeg
Amoris Laetitia was added to the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (“Acts of the Apostolic See”) which automatically makes it part of the Authentic Magisterium. If Bergoglio is your Pope, you MUST accept his authentic teaching! You MUST receive, as coming from Christ Himself, the doctrines contained in Amoris Laetitia and in the Document on Human Fraternity. You MUST believe that adultery is OK and that God wills a plurality of religions. The real question is: how can you accept the authentic magisterium of “Pope Francis” without rejecting the authentic magisterium of all the other Popes? Or are you denying Francis the authority to make Amoris Laetitia part of the authentic magisterium? The upshot of all this is a very simple Catholic truth I have repeated here time and again: The Papacy has consequences. Recognizing a man as the Pope of the Catholic Church who is in fact a manifest anti-Catholic heretic or even apostate, has dire consequences because the office of Vicar of Christ is more than just a title. The Pope is a teacher, legislator, and administrator with genuine authority given him directly by God. The Papacy has consequences, and one of these consequences is that a true Pope cannot do what Francis has done.

GAME OVER.
 
Last edited:

Creepy-ass Cracker

Catholic • Pre-Vatican II • Sedevacantist
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Any Catholics in here want to explain to me in simple terms Amoris Laetitia and the consequences that had on Divorce and Remarriage?
Bergoglio’s New “Marriage Mess”

Divorce Bergoglio Style


Also, how is an annulment any different than a divorce?
There is all the difference in the world between the two positions. A civil divorce claims to break the bonds of a valid marriage, bonds which the Catholic Church rigidly declares to be unbreakable. A decree of nullity (annulment) does not break the bonds of a valid marriage at all. It declares that the marriage was never a true marriage and that there is no bond to break. It declares that the reputed marriage was null and void as a contract from the beginning. Had it been valid, the bond could not be broken except by the death of one of the parties.
 
Last edited:

Creepy-ass Cracker

Catholic • Pre-Vatican II • Sedevacantist
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
“Significant canonical irregularities have been identified with regards to the putative resignation proffered by Pope Benedict XVI in February of 2013" - Barnhardt
The Bergoglian Antipapcy
It is truly amazing to see the lengths to which people will go in order not to have to conclude that the Vatican II Sect is a fraud and its apostate hierarchy is not the hierarchy of the Catholic Church! Looking back on it, Benedict XVI’s semi-resignation in 2013 was utterly brilliant; it allows for those who can’t stomach his successor, Francis, to still stay attached to the Vatican II Sect, whereas otherwise they might long have abandoned it for real Catholicism. It’s a wonderfully convenient way out of the Francis chaos without having to swallow sedevacantism. All this blathering about whether we have one Pope, two Popes, or two half-Popes, is meant to distract from the mounting evidence that we have no Pope at all. Tragically, it is easier to deceive people than to convince them they’ve been deceived. Don’t fall for this “Benedict XVI is the real Pope” red herring; people who turn to Benedict XVI in order to escape Francis are merely exchanging one Modernist heretic for another. Whether it be the Bergoglio variant or the Ratzinger variant, it’s still the same Vatican II virus!
 

Angryguy

Same angryguy new look
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
I converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism shortly after Pope Francis was elected
Lol what. I hope you meant in spite of pope Francis. If you converted because of that fag please hang yourself.
 

Creepy-ass Cracker

Catholic • Pre-Vatican II • Sedevacantist
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
50543148-015B-4F8B-8881-A55A2DBA0C25.jpegThe same agents who infiltrated the Catholic Church at Vatican II are agitating for you to believe that Eastern “Orthodoxy” is the true haven of Christianity. False dichotomy designed to get you to apostatize!
 

Templar

Active member
Cave Beast
⏰☕
Lol what. I hope you meant in spite of pope Francis. If you converted because of that fag please hang yourself.
I copied the content of an article, because people apparently dont read links anymore. Even worse, people don't even read what is right before their eyes. Otherwise you would know what he meant.

Amoris Laetitia was added to the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (“Acts of the Apostolic See”) which automatically makes it part of the Authentic Magisterium.
Technically, "divorced and remarried" can mean: divorced, remarried, original spouse died, can this person have communion? Probably, after a good confession.

Remember, the wording is: "in some cases". Of course, it is dubious. Dubiousness can be judged as heresy, by a council. Pope Honorius was thus judged to be a heretic. So, a Pope can be heretic, yet still remain Pope.

Please, read this article:

Or, if you are more of an auditory type:

 

Templar

Active member
Cave Beast
⏰☕
I am a Catholic and I give Rome deference and the benefit of the doubt because I myself am still learning these things and I genuinely don't know the answer. What I do know is the Catholic Church does have a living magisterium. Meaning this current Pope cannot "overwrite" what other Popes have already spoken about infallibly over centuries. So things like the Death Penalty, contraception, gay marriage, homosexuality, can literally never be changed, regardless of what the current Pope says. If the Pope, however, spoke about something like Intellectual Property, then that would be binding. Because no other Popes have said anything about it.

In terms of Amoris Laetitia I am still researching this encyclical because it did something for divorced and remarried Catholics that I genuinely don't even know and was curious if other Catholics could explain to me what Francis was trying to do with that.
  • When it comes to what the Magisterium means, we have to be careful, because that is the first thing the sedes (sedevacantists) distort. I dont always like wikipedia, but it has good info in this case, easy to understand.
You find the chapter "Levels" in the article. There you can see, that Amoris Laetita is NOT infallible teaching. Therefore we are free to resist it.
  • The sede is right, annulment is the finding out that the marriage was invalid to begin with. Before the new 1983 Canon Law, this was restricted to rare and specific cases - such as the spouses finding out that they are in fact half-siblings or whatever. Since 1983, more-or less everything is grounds for annulment. More on this:
  • If you are interested in knowing more about the Catholic faith, I highly recommend the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia, it has worthy info in most cases.
 

Creepy-ass Cracker

Catholic • Pre-Vatican II • Sedevacantist
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
@Templar
“Amoris Laetitia is NOT infallible teaching; therefore we are free to resist it” FALSE. Totally inaccurate, not to mention that it’s a red herring, because it’s ultimately about authority, not infallibility per se. Infallibility is a red herring and irrelevant. What you REALLY want to say is that when the Pope doesn’t define Ex Cathedra then he can teach error or heresy in the ordinary/authentic Magisterium.

On Dec. 31, 1930 Pope Pius XI issued his landmark encyclical Casti Connubii on Christian marriage. In it, he reminded Catholics that it is not permissible to prefer one’s own judgment over that of the Church on matters of Faith and morals. A Catholic is not allowed to accept from the Church only what seems correct to him, nor can he decide to withhold his assent from teaching that is not presented infallibly:
Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104)
Reminder: The papal office was instituted as the sure norm of orthodoxy at every point in time in Church history, guaranteed by Christ Himself. This does not mean that every papal magisterial act is infallible, but it DOES mean that every papal magisterial act is authoritative, thus binding on consciences and, by the providence of Almighty God, always SAFE to follow. This means that souls cannot be led astray by any pernicious error if they follow the teaching of the Pope. That safety is guaranteed and caused by Christ Himself.

Don’t take my word for it. It’s is simply the general Catholic teaching from before Vatican II, one you will not find in any literature of the recognize-and-resist “traditional Catholics”, however. The following quote is taken from Cardinal Johann Franzelin in a book printed by the Holy See’s own publisher:
The Holy Apostolic See, to which the safeguarding of the deposit of faith and the attendant duty and office of feeding the universal Church for the salvation of souls have been divinely entrusted, can prescribe theological pronouncements — or even pronouncements to the extent they are connected with ones that are theological — as teachings to be followed, or it can censure them as teachings not to be followed, not solely with the intention of infallibly determining truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also necessarily and designedly apart from that aim, either without qualification or by way of limited supplements, to provide for the safety of Catholic doctrine (cf. Zaccaria, Antifebronius vindicatus, vol. II, diss. V, chap. 2, no. 1). Although infallible truth of doctrine may not be present in declarations of this kind (because, presumably, the intention of determining infallible truth is not present), nevertheless, infallible safety is present. I speak of both the objective safety of declared doctrine (either without qualification or by way of limited supplements, as mentioned) and the subjective safety of declared doctrine, insofar as it is safe for everyone to adopt it, and it is unsafe and impossible for anyone to refuse to adopt it without a violation of due submission towards the divinely established magisterium.

(Cardinal John Baptist Franzelin, Tractatus de Divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd ed. [Rome: Ex Typ. S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1875], Thesis XII, Principle VII. The entire work is available in English, translated by Ryan Grant, as On Divine Tradition [Sensus Traditionis Press, 2016].)
This is the age-old belief of Catholics about the Papacy, something TradLARPers in the Novus Ordo Church will have none of because it conflicts with their dearly held belief that it just “cannot be” that Francis (or any of his Modernist predecessors) are not true Popes. Thus they prefer a failed papacy, which is a clear contradiction of Catholic dogma and therefore an intrinsic impossibility, over a vacant papacy. In other words they would rather a Pope to refuse submission to, than not have a Pope to render submission to.
 

Templar

Active member
Cave Beast
⏰☕
Amoris Laetitia is NOT infallible teaching; therefore we are free to resist it” FALSE. Totally inaccurate, not to mention that it’s a red herring, because it’s ultimately about authority, not infallibility per se. Infallibility is a red herring and irrelevant. What you REALLY want to say is that when the Pope doesn’t define Ex Cathedra then he can teach error or heresy in the ordinary/authentic Magisterium.
Wrong, infallibility is relevant, because it is ultimately not about authority, but about truth. Authority is subservient to truth. That is why St Paul corrected St Peter in his face, altho Peter was the undisputed leader of the whole Church.

What you are saying is the theological equivalent of "the boss spoke, now shut the fuck up and get back in line". No, St Paul did not shut up, although St Peter had the authority, vested in him by no less than Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Papal errors and lapses had happened before. That is why pope Honorius was proclaimed heretic, he had dubious teachings. Still, he remained pope, wasnt retroactively stripped of his title.
 

Creepy-ass Cracker

Catholic • Pre-Vatican II • Sedevacantist
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
  • When it comes to what the Magisterium means, we have to be careful, because that is the first thing the sedes (sedevacantists) distort. I dont always like wikipedia, but it has good info in this case, easy to understand.
Forget (((Wikipedia))). If you are really serious about wanting to know the mind of the Catholic Church on any given subject, then you will go and read from the approved pre-Vatican II Catholic sources. Go and do that first, then get back to me. A very common error in our day is the idea that papal teaching is not binding, not authoritative, unless it is proclaimed ex cathedra, in which case it is protected by infallibility due to the special assistance of the Holy Ghost. This error has its root in another mistaken notion, namely, the idea that the believer’s obligation to assent arises from the Church’s inability to err. But this is false. The obligation to assent arises from the Church’s authority as the divinely appointed teacher, even aside from matters of infallibility: “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me” (Lk 10:16). What is the origin of this widespread error about the binding nature of papal teaching? Where are people getting the idea that only infallible Church dogma must be assented to? Whatever their source is, it is most certainly not from a traditional Catholic theology book (i.e. not one from an approved theology work published before the death of Pope Pius XII).

I suggest you start here: The following three essays, clearly written not only for theologians but also for educated laymen, are a good example of the true traditional teaching expounded at a time when no one yet knew of a “Vatican II” or Novus Ordo anything:
In 1950, Pope Pius XII published the landmark encyclical Humani Generis, an absolutely critical document that refuted many theological errors renascent at the time, including the idea that the ordinary teaching of the Pope is little more than an opinion one can choose to take or leave. The Pope shot this down when he stated clearly: “Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority…” (Humani Generis, n. 20).

At the 6th Annual Convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America in 1951, Fr. Edmond Darvil Benard (1914-1961) gave a lecture on this very topic, the transcript of which, including an appended “digest of discussion”, I’ll link to below. Fr. Benard’s presentation is entitled “The Doctrinal Value of the Ordinary Teaching of the Holy Father in View of Humani Generis” and has been made available at the web site of Boston College. It can be accessed for reading online at the following link: https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/2316/1894

Hopefully this essay will enlighten you, and many other souls by extension, by reminding you that traditional Catholic teaching (for example, on the Papacy) is to be sought not in the works of Trad Inc. outfits like Timothy Flanders, OnePeterFive, Taylor Marshall, and least of all Wikipedia, but first and foremost in the approved theological works before the Vatican II Sect came into being. Traditional Catholic doctrine can never be replaced by theological ideas proposed in our day which often are merely custom-tailored to account for the apostasy that has taken place while at the same time carefully aiming to avoid the highly undesirable conclusion of Sedevacantism.

As Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position, our position in regard to the Vatican II apostasy, the nature of the institution that has emerged with it, and the status of the papal claimants after Pius XII’s death, must be the consequence of the pertinent Catholic doctrine taught, believed, and held by the Church before the entire mess began. Hence, consulting and trying to understand that very doctrine is of the utmost importance. Those accepting Francis as Pope while trying to adhere to the traditional Catholic Faith should ask themselves how Francis fits into Pope Pius XII’s description of the papal office in Humani Generis: “…this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith — Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition — to be preserved, guarded and interpreted….” Thus, if it is admitted that Francis’ magisterium is not “the proximate and universal criterion of truth” for the Catholic (and it obviously isn’t) then either traditional Catholic doctrine is false, or Francis isn’t a valid Pope. Now which of these two alternatives is compatible with traditional pre-Vatican II Catholicism?
 

Templar

Active member
Cave Beast
⏰☕
Thus, if it is admitted that Francis’ magisterium is not “the proximate and universal criterion of truth” for the Catholic (and it obviously isn’t) then either traditional Catholic doctrine is false, or Francis isn’t a valid Pope. Now which of these two alternatives is compatible with traditional pre-Vatican II Catholicism?
You can throw at me as many Encyclicals and papal statements as you want. yes, we have to follow these teachings, unless we have good reasons to do otherwise (it is even written in these documents LOL). That is why did St Paul corrected St Peter in his face, who was the living-breathing Magisterium at that time: he had good reasons to do so.

He should have just shut the fuck up, and fall back in line, according to sedes. Fortunately, he spoke up.

sedevacantism is the ultimate protestant/orthodox caricature of the Catholic faith: we are all puppets on the pope's strings. Never mind truth, never mind reason, never mind logic, fuck all that! And when the sedes cannot deny reality anymore, they conclude: the pope is not pope. Never mind Honorius, never mind John XXII (he taught that the dead dont have the Beatific Vision until judgement day), never mind other popes who taught errors.
 
Last edited:

Creepy-ass Cracker

Catholic • Pre-Vatican II • Sedevacantist
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Wrong, infallibility is relevant, because it is ultimately not about authority, but about truth. Authority is subservient to truth. That is why St Paul corrected St Peter in his face, altho Peter was the undisputed leader of the whole Church.

What you are saying is the theological equivalent of "the boss spoke, now shut the fuck up and get back in line". No, St Paul did not shut up, although St Peter had the authority, vested in him by no less than Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Papal errors and lapses had happened before. That is why pope Honorius was proclaimed heretic, he had dubious teachings. Still, he remained pope, wasnt retroactively stripped of his title.
Yawn. You’re wrong on both counts.

1) The worn-out “St. Paul resisted St. Peter to his face” objection doesn’t work, and that argument has already been destroyed HERE.

1F0B52AD-EE4B-40C0-A144-23BEA23506B5.jpeg
In summary: Yes, it was right for St. Paul to correct him, but he was correcting St. Peter's bad example (a venial sin, according to St. Augustine), he was not opposing St. Peter in his teaching office. A Pope can display immoral behaviors in his personal life. This has nothing to do with the teaching authority of his Magisterium. Please see the necessary documentation for that (linked above).

2) As for your dredging out the tired old “Pope Honorius was a heretic” canard, that’s also been thoroughly disproven so many times already it’s astonishing that anyone claiming to be Catholic is still seriously pointing to Honorius and calling him "heretic pope." It's just false. In fact, Pope Honorius perfectly orthodox, was was not a heretic and never condemned as a heretic, instead condemned for neglect. Read St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff Book IV, Ch XI, Pages 516-525, Ryan Grant’s translation. The Doctor of the Church clearly proves Honorius was not a heretic. He says it was a mistake by the Council. Honorius was not a heretic and, of course, nobody thought he was while he was alive. From St. Bellarmine: “Lastly, almost all Latin historians such as Bede, Anastasius the Librarian, Blondus! 'Nauclerus, Sabellicus. Platina and others have it that Honorius was a Catholic and holy Pope.” C8F0ECCA-B81B-4F47-A329-78F837628E0A.jpeg
5D7941E1-8198-4F12-8291-D2DEC1AEDFF3.jpeg

Theologian Monsignor Van Noort explains in his Dogmatic Theology manual with 1956 Imprimatur that Pope Honorius was not a heretic, against false traditionalists who slander this Pope like in order to keep their followers in the Vatican 2 Sect:
A27D4BE4-5FE8-44D6-90A7-856D0E0B4672.jpeg
F4BD7FC9-3E82-4962-8CDC-CF74EF7F58DC.jpeg

The Fathers of Vatican I considered the question of a heretical pope as well. It actually was debated up and down at Vatican I and the assembled theologians and Council Fathers finally came to this conclusion: that Pope Honorius NOT a heretic, nor an antipope; moreover, that in fact there had never been any heretical popes at that time:
That’s per St. Robert Bellarmine AND all the theological experts at Vatican I. I’ll take their word over yours. The matter is settled.
 
Last edited:

Templar

Active member
Cave Beast
⏰☕
Yes, it was right for St. Paul to correct him, but he was correcting St. Peter's bad example (a venial sin, according to St. Augustine), he was not opposing St. Peter in his teaching office.
1) Yes he was. St Peter effectively taught that gentile Christians are second-grade Christians. Challoner is wrong, he was only a bishop, he was not infallible in any way. St Paul was opposing St Peter in his teaching office.

2) Honorius was heretic, because he was condemned as heretic. If a (valid) council condemns you as heretic, you are a heretic. Bellarmine only debates (if you can read), whether he was material heretic, or only a formal one. spoiler: being only formal heretic is still being a heretic. your other source thinks Honorius was condemned for being a helper of heretics. Question is: was he a willing helper or unwitting helper? Van Noort leans towards the latter. Guess what: even if he was an unwitting helper, he was still legitimately condemned as heretic.

He says it was a mistake by the Council
Where does Bellarmine say that?

3) novusordowatch LOL. you know how many years have i been debating with sedes? sorry i should have told you before.

"I shall begin by showing that the documents in question, that is to say the letter of Sergius to Honorius, the two letters of Honorius to Sergius, and the acts of the Sixth Council, are authentic ("To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!"); then I shall show that Honorius, nevertheless, did not fall into heresy, and that the Sixth [Ecumenical] Council did not condemn him as a formal heretic, but only as guilty of negligence." - then why did the Council say: "to Honorius, the heretic, anathema?" Why did not they say: to Honorius, guilty of negligence, anathema"? So, yes he was a heretic. If you are declared a heretic by an Ecumenical Council, then you are a heretic. The documents are authentic, the cardinal himself confirms it. Of course, the clowns at novusordowatch are too stupid to notice this. Are you, too?

Listening to you papists argue back and forth is making most of our arguments for us.
Very true, since protestantism is fucking nothing in itself. But rest assured: i have destroyed prot, ortho, benevacantist arguments so far, now it's the sedes' turn.
 
Last edited:

Creepy-ass Cracker

Catholic • Pre-Vatican II • Sedevacantist
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Never mind Honorius, never mind John XXII (he taught that the dead dont have the Beatific Vision until judgement day), never mind other popes who taught errors.
Yawn. Another day, another anti-Papal canard from a supposed “traditional Catholic” (Trad LARPer) here blithely accusing an unquestionably true Pope of the past of teaching heresy (or at least grave doctrinal error). Here’s a thought for you: instead of simply believing whatever you see posted on a blog or Youtube video somewhere, the safer course is to simply look the stuff up. It’s not like these questions never came up before or that no clear answer was ever put forward. Where to look it up? Look it up where any Catholic priest would have looked it up before Vatican II: in the most recent dogmatic theology manuals approved by the Church. Why most recent? Because the most recent Church-approved manuals will include the most recent doctrinal pronouncements and clarifications from the Magisterium and also take into consideration any of the latest historical research to shed light on questions pertaining to Church history insofar as it relates to doctrinal matters. Let’s take a brief look famous case of Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) who, as you alluded to, is accused of teaching that the souls of those who die in the state of sanctifying grace cannot see God in the fullness of the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment, since this issue is continually brought up to discredit the sedevacantist position andlegitimize”, as it were, Francis’ claim to the Papacy. The following succinct summary of the John XXII controversy comes from the treatise On the Last Things (De Novissimis) of vol. 4 of the extensive Jesuit dogmatic theology compilation Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which was originally published in Latin in 1956 and was recently released in English for the first time.
St. Bernard [Doctor of the Church, 1090-1153] often taught that deceased just persons immediately after death will obtain immense happiness, but not the beatific vision until the resurrection [of their bodies].

John XXII, the Supreme Pontiff, followed him almost to the letter, and the Friars Minor followed him, as is generally reported. He held that immediately after death some reward is given to the just, like seeing already the humanity of Christ in heaven, and that the wicked are punished in hell in some way; but before the final judgment that neither the face-to-face vision of God is granted to the blessed nor the punishment of fire to the damned.

However, he taught this as a private teacher, not as Pontiff, and he held it theoretically or for the sake of debate, thinking that he could be deceived in these matters and permitting others to think differently until the question should be decided authoritatively. Hence he took care to have the matter studied by the Doctors, and frequently summoning debates in his presence on this point, he was prepared to abandon his opinion if it was shown to be against the faith. Indeed, on the day before his death he ordered a declaration of the true doctrine in the presence of all the Cardinals, etc. He said that previously he thought differently about this matter by pondering it and speaking about it. In this way he prepared the way for his successor, Benedict XII, to proclaim a definition of the true teaching [see Denziger 530-531].

(Fr. Joseph F. Sagüés, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVB: On the Last Things, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. Original Latin published by BAC, 1956; English published by Keep the Faith, 2016.
Pope Benedict XII’s ex cathedra definition of the true doctrine concerning the fate of the departed was issued on Jan. 29, 1336. (Apostolic Constitution Benedictus Deus; Denziger 530-531)
Thus we can see that the case of Pope John XXII is in no way comparable to that of “Pope” Francis:

Pope John spoke (1) as a private teacher (2) on a matter not yet settled (3) in order to ascertain the truth of the matter so it could be defined, (4) meanwhile permitting others to differ from him. In other words, the Pope did not exercise his Magisterium; he did notcommit heresy; and although his view was erroneous, it was permissible for him to hold at the time. The Church historian Fr. Reuben Parsons explicitly states that in holding his theory, Pope John was “in the full exercise of his right” (Studies in Church History, Volume 2, 2nd ed.)

Contrast this with the apostasy of “Pope” Francis, who (1) issues magisterial documents (such as Evangelii Gaudium and Amoris Laetitia) and has explicitly stated that he intends to speak magisterially even in interviews; (2) therefore as (putative) Pope; (3) on matters long settled and defined, even directly revealed by God (cf. Ex 20:14); (4) for the sake of changing established church teaching and practice.

On Dec. 3, 1334, one day before he was to die , Pope John XXII issued a formal retraction of any errors he may have held, in the bull “Ne Super His”, which was published by his successor, Pope Benedict XII (Pope John XXII, Bull “Ne Super His”; Denzinger-Hünermann 990-991; available online in Latin here.)

Let no one, then, appeal to the case of Pope John XXII as historical precedent permitting refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff! The traditional Catholic teaching on the Papacy remains as true today as it was when enunciated by Pope Pius IX in 1853: “Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees” (Encyclical Inter Multiplices). Pseudo-traditional “Catholics” who think they can find precedent in the Church’s past for resisting the Magisterium of a “heretical” Pope, forget that all these issues were debated extensively at the time of the First Vatican Council (1869-70) as the Pope and the bishops were preparing a dogmatic constitution on the primacy of the Pope and the extent of the infallibility of his Magisterium. The following anecdote was related by Abp. John Purcell of Cincinnati, who had attended the council:
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.

(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII
Further information on the supposed “heretical” Popes of the past can be found in the following articles:
- The Question of a Heretical Pope considered by Vatican I
- The “Heretical” Popes, Part 1: Pope Adrian VI
- The Case of Pope Honorius I
- The Truth about Pope Liberius

Historically those accusing Popes of magisterial error or heresy have typically been the enemies of the Church and of the Papacy (specifically Eastern “Orthodox”, Protestants, Gallicans, and Modernists), whereas those who have defended the Popes from such charges have enjoyed a great reputation for orthodoxy. The only reason why accusing Popes of the past of heresy or other magisterial aberrations is popular these days among self-professing “traditional Catholics” is the simple fact that Francis’ manifest apostasy combined with an irrational but dogmatic refusal of Sedevacantism leaves such people no other choice but to seek some kind of similar case in history to which they can point and say, “See, this Pope was just as heretical as Francis is, and the faithful resisted him, and no one said he wasn’t the Pope.” Such dishonorable efforts are guaranteed to fail because they aim at finding in Church history a theological absurdity (which is an utter impossibility). As I already pointed out here many times, insisting that Jorge Bergoglio is a valid Roman Pontiff does incalculable damage to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Papacy.
It is tragic to see how many would sooner jettison the true Catholic teaching on the Papacy than recognize that Jorge Bergoglio isn’t a valid occupant of the office. Sadly, “Recognize-and-Resist” Trad LARPers ironically prefer having a Pope to the very meaning of the Papacy itself. For them, it is more important to have the papal office occupied than to preserve the correct understanding of what the papal office is. They have traded the Papacy for a “Pope” so to speak, consequently they now have neither: they have no true Pope and they no longer have the correct understanding of the Papacy either.
 

Creepy-ass Cracker

Catholic • Pre-Vatican II • Sedevacantist
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
1) Yes he was. St Peter effectively taught that gentile Christians are second-grade Christians. Challoner is wrong, he was only a bishop, he was not infallible in any way. St Paul was opposing St Peter in his teaching office.
“Challoner was only a bishop” LOL and what are you?
 

Creepy-ass Cracker

Catholic • Pre-Vatican II • Sedevacantist
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
1) Yes he was. St Peter effectively taught that gentile Christians are second-grade Christians. Challoner is wrong, he was only a bishop, he was not infallible in any way. St Paul was opposing St Peter in his teaching office.

2) Honorius was heretic, because he was condemned as heretic. If a (valid) council condemns you as heretic, you are a heretic. Bellarmine only debates (if you can read), whether he was material heretic, or only a formal one. spoiler: being only formal heretic is still being a heretic. your other source thinks Honorius was condemned for being a helper of heretics. Question is: was he a willing helper or unwitting helper? Van Noort leans towards the latter. Guess what: even if he was an unwitting helper, he was still legitimately condemned as heretic.


Where does Bellarmine say that?

3) novusordowatch LOL. you know how many years have i been debating with sedes? sorry i should have told you before.

"I shall begin by showing that the documents in question, that is to say the letter of Sergius to Honorius, the two letters of Honorius to Sergius, and the acts of the Sixth Council, are authentic ("To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!"); then I shall show that Honorius, nevertheless, did not fall into heresy, and that the Sixth [Ecumenical] Council did not condemn him as a formal heretic, but only as guilty of negligence." - then why did the Council say: "to Honorius, the heretic, anathema?" Why did not they say: to Honorius, guilty of negligence, anathema"? So, yes he was a heretic. If you are declared a heretic by an Ecumenical Council, then you are a heretic. The documents are authentic, the cardinal himself confirms it. Of course, the clowns at novusordowatch are too stupid to notice this. Are you, too?



Very true, since protestantism is fucking nothing in itself. But rest assured: i have destroyed prot, ortho, benevacantist arguments so far, now it's the sedes' turn.
"Those who think Honorius fell into heresy are certainly deceived" - St. Alphonsus Liguori, Bishop and Doctor of the Church

"Except he was and it's true" - random forum user, source "trust me bro"
 

Templar

Active member
Cave Beast
⏰☕
"John XXII, the Supreme Pontiff, followed him almost to the letter, and the Friars Minor followed him, as is generally reported. He held that immediately after death some reward is given to the just, like seeing already the humanity of Christ in heaven, and that the wicked are punished in hell in some way; but before the final judgment that neither the face-to-face vision of God is granted to the blessed nor the punishment of fire to the damned.

However, he taught this as a private teacher, not as Pontiff"


How do we know that? How can we know if a pope speaks as a private person and not as pope? Whoever "Fr. Joseph F. Sagüés, S.J" is, I don't take him as infallible.

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.

(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII


I know about this quote. The archbishop wrote it 40 years after the council, in his recollections. Sometimes our memory can fail us. do you remember what you did 40 years ago?
"he would cease to be pope" - yeah some cardinals might think this amongst each other. other cardinals and theologians think otherwise. See the five opinions of Bellarmine for example.

Yes, Honorius was condemned as heretic, therefore he was heretic. If an Ecumenical Council pronounces you heretic, then you are a heretic. An Ecumenical Council is infallible, unlike novusordowatch.org.

"Except he was and it's true" - random forum user, source "trust me bro"
In the Third Council of Constantinople, the monothelites were anathematized by name "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things" in the XIII session. Citing his written correspondence with Sergius, Honorious was subsequently accused of having confirmed his impious doctrines; the XVI session reaffirmed the condemnation of the heretics explicitly stating "to Honorius, the heretic, anathema!",[7][8] and concluding with the decree of the XVII session that Honorius had not stopped provoking scandal and error in the Body of the Church; for he had "with unheard of expressions disseminated amidst the faithful people the heresy of the one will", doing so "in agreement with the insane false doctrine of the impious Apollinaire, Severus and Themistius".[9] The Roman legates made no objection to his condemnation.[1]

Pope Leo II's letter of confirmation of the Council commended it for it had "perfectly preached the definition of the true faith"[10] and made reference to the condemnation of his predecessor:[11]

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.[9]

Now this IS infallible teaching.

"Those who think Honorius fell into heresy are certainly deceived" - St. Alphonsus Liguori, Bishop and Doctor of the Church
1) Where did he say that? 2) He may not have fallen into heresy, but he helped/harbored heresy to fester. And that was enough for the Ecumenical Council. (By the way: the post Vat2 popes have been doing exactly the same). Even in Secular Law, if you help or aid a criminal, lets say a robber, you are judged according to the crime of the robbery (how much he stole, etc), even though you didn't rob the place. Helping/aiding/abetting a criminal makes you a criminal, too, even though you did not commit the crime yourself, and you may not even profit materially (financially) from it. So, yes, Honorius was a heretic.

An infallible Council supersedes St Alphonsus Liguori. It supersedes Abp Purcell. It supersedes Fr. Joseph F. Sagüés, S.J. It even supersedes novusordoClowns.org.

Wherever this thread goes so be it. I'd prefer it though if people didn't just copy/paste a bunch of stuff.
I always prefer the absolute minimum, though in practice people don't read the linked articles. So I am forced to copypaste the content.

All in all, I am glad that finally we can debate these issues. sedes are my favorite targets, I used to debate them all the time.
 

Creepy-ass Cracker

Catholic • Pre-Vatican II • Sedevacantist
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
You’re grasping for straws. Give it up!

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church, writes
writes that those that judge that Honorius fell into heresy “are certainly deceived.” St. Alphonsus grants that Honorius himself erred “when he imposed silence [because this] is only favoring error.” He continues, however: “It is a fact beyond contradiction, that Honorius never fell into the Monothelite heresy, notwithstanding what heretical writers assert.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, The History of Heresies and their Refutation, Vol I 2ndEdition, trans. Mullock, James Duffy, Dublin, 1857. 181.)

Theologian Dr. Ludwig Ott:
There is no doubt but that Pope Honorius I (625-638) was personally orthodox. However, through his prohibition against speaking of two modes of operation [“two wills” in Christ] he unwittingly favoured the Monothelite error [“one will in Christ”]. The Sixth General Council wrongly condemned him as a heretic. Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed his anathematisation but not for the reason given by the Council. He did not reproach him with heresy, but with negligence in the suppression of the error.
(Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Roman Catholic Books, Fort Collins CO, 1854 edition. 160.)


From the way you sanctimoniously invoke the authority of the “infallible” Sixth Ecumenical Council, you are clearly ignorant ignorant of the fact that Catholic theology holds that it is entirely possible for conciliar decrees to contain errors – unless and until they are approved by the Roman Pontiff. The Roman Pontiff is not obliged to approve all of a councils decrees in their totality, but is rather free to reject or modify certain parts, as is clear below. It is only at that point that the Church has the guarantee that the given council and decrees are free from dangerous error. This approval may occur with the Pope present, or by him ratifying the decrees of another council, even if it was originally a regional synod. It is itself a necessary part of what makes a council ecumenical and infallible. Theologian Mgr. Joseph Fenton, S.T.D. (1906-1969) explains:
In order that an assembly may fulfil the requisites for an ecumenical council, it must be called by the Holy Father, presided over by him, either personally or by his delegates, and finally, most important of all, its proceedings must be approved and ratified by the Holy See. […] Not all of the twenty councils recognized within the Catholic Church as ecumenical actually possessed all of the ecumenical attributes.… Furthermore, even among the acts of the twenty councils, only those decisions are valid which have been approved and promulgated by the Holy See…

…[Those councils that were mere local synods] were recognized as ecumenical and given the status of general councils solely through the positive will of the Roman Pontiff. If this [papal approval] is lacking [then] the act of the council cannot be accepted as the solemn teaching and judgment of the Catholic Church […] Where this approval is withheld, as it was from the twenty-eighth canon of the council of Chalcedon, the rejected teaching has no doctrinal value.
(Joseph Clifford Fenton, What is Sacred Theology? Cluny Media, Providence RI, 2018, 154-5. Originally published as the Concept of Sacred Theology, 1941.)
Once you’ve grasped that, the key question is not whether a council of bishops at Constantinople condemned Honorius for heresy. On the contrary, the question is whether St Leo II, the pope who approved the council, approved or modified such a condemnation, if it occurred. Theologian Fr. Hartmann Grisar – like many authorities – holds that St Leo II did not confirm the “council’s” condemnation of Honorius simply as he found it. The final, approved condemnation – the one that matters for theology – was harsher in some ways, but clarified it such that Honorius was condemned for negligence and favoring , but not for affirming it as a heretic himself. He states:
There are no dogmatic errors in either of Honorius’s letters. As for the expression: ‘We confess a will,’ etc. the context clearly shows that it has no heretical sense […] Nor is there any basis for saying that Honorius ‘thought rightly, but expressed himself heretically.’
He affirms that, although the letters were used to favor heresy, “the doctrine of Honorius is so little monothelite, that indeed in it we find all the elements to refute monothelitism.”
(Hartmann Grisar SJ, Analecta Romana, Vol I, Desclée Lefebvre e C. Editori, 1899, 396.
Available at https://archive.org/details/analectaromanadi00gris/page/396/mode/2up)
These authorities are representative of many more. If they are correct, then the other anti-Honorius conclusions are . Honorius’s case cannot be used to prove, for example, that popes have been heretics, or that the papal magisterium can teach error, if his letters do not actually contain error.
 

Creepy-ass Cracker

Catholic • Pre-Vatican II • Sedevacantist
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Even in Secular Law, if you help or aid a criminal, lets say a robber, you are judged according to the crime of the robbery (how much he stole, etc), even though you didn't rob the place. Helping/aiding/abetting a criminal makes you a criminal, too, even though you did not commit the crime yourself, and you may not even profit materially (financially) from it. So, yes, Honorius was a heretic.
Irrelevant. Not interested in your goofy armchair-expert “hot takes” based on “secular law”, or whatever. What does Catholic Moral Theology say?

P.S. Where did you get your J.D.? Because in the “Secular Law” (whatever that means…?), at least in Criminal Law in THIS country, you would be charged with aiding and abetting or with perhaps being an accessory to the commission of the crime of robbery. You wouldn’t be actually be “judged according to the crime of robbery.” Helping/aiding/abetting a criminal makes you a criminal too (source?) but it certainly doesn’t make you guilty of aiding/abetting a crime; it doesn’t make you guilty of the crime you were accessory to. Not “even in Secular Law”. Anyway it’s still completely irrelevant to the subject of Honorius even you actually knew what you were talking about and weren’t just pulling things out of your ass. Nice try, numb nuts. 😂
 
Last edited:

Templar

Active member
Cave Beast
⏰☕
From the way you sanctimoniously invoke the authority of the “infallible” Sixth Ecumenical Council, you are clearly ignorant ignorant of the fact that Catholic theology holds that it is entirely possible for conciliar decrees to contain errors – unless and until they are approved by the Roman Pontiff.
Can you read?

Pope Leo II's letter of confirmation of the Council commended it for it had "perfectly preached the definition of the true faith"[10] and made reference to the condemnation of his predecessor:[11]

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.[9]
So yeah, it was confirmed by the pope, (=official), ecumenical and infallible. Honorius was infallibly condemned as heretic. An infallible Ecumenical Council supersedes both St Alphonsus and Ludwig Ott and even Hartmann Grisar SJ in authority and importance. All these people were theologians, and sedes, in their infinite hubris/chutzpah, fail to recognize that infallible Councils are above (!) the opinions of theologians.

Honorius’s case cannot be used to prove, for example, that popes have been heretics, or that the papal magisterium can teach error, if his letters do not actually contain error.
Honorius' case is the prime example, that even dubious teaching can be counted as heresy, based on that, all the post vatican2 popes are guilty. Yet they are still popes, just as Honorius remained pope. Honorius was a heretical (as in: helping heresy to fester and condemned for it) pope without a doubt, and so are the ones (more-or-less) after 1958. But this was foretold (La Salette and other Apparitions) and just as we withstood pope Honorius, we will withstand these as well. This modernist plague is about to be cleansed anyways. We already see the light at the end of the tunnel, the war in Ukraine is the beginning of the end.
 
Last edited:

Templar

Active member
Cave Beast
⏰☕
Regarding the question of Heretical popes, Bishop Athanasius Schneider explains it better than me. The reason I bring him up is that now in the 2020-s, we have the Historical hindsight that St Alphonsus, Ott, Grisar etc did not have. Their (well-meaning) mistake was to think that Honorius was a one-off, it cannot happen again, so they tried to make light of Honorius' condemnation. They would be absolutely mortified by what happened since 1958, but they would still consider the popes since 1958 valid.

I am not copypasting it here, but I will, if people fail to read it.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider: On the Question of a Heretical Pope

 

Dr Livci

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻
Seeing most ardent RC apologist turn on each other and going back and forth but what is actually TRVE papal ex cathedral common magesterial etc etc insert Latin term here is really convincing me hard that the papacy brings much clarity and unity to the church.
 
Top