.png)
OBJECTION: It seems that it is possible to resist the Roman Pontiff
''Although we have read of the Roman pontiff having passed judgement on the bishops of all the churches, we have not read of anyone having passed judgement on him. For even though Honorius was anathematized after this death by the easterners, it should be known that he had been accused of heresy, which is the only offence where inferiors have the right to resist the initiatives of their superiors or are free to reject their false opinions, although even in this case no patriarch or other bishop has the right of passing any judgement on him unless the consent of the pontiff of the same first see has authorized it.''
(Pope Adrian II, Roman Synod of 869, ap. Mansi, Ampliss. collect. XVI, 126; cited in On the Question of Honorius, cf. Amann, E. "Honorius Ier, pape", Dictionnarie de Théologie Catholique, VII, I, cols. 96-130).
The quote seems to corroborate the idea of resistance to a pontiff who deviates from the faith, with the caveat that it would not be lawful to pass any sentence against him except with the consent of the Apostolic See.
SED CONTRA
On the contrary, Cardinal Billot states in his Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi:
''We read that the Roman Pontiff has judged the bishops of all the churches; but we do not read of anyone who has judged him. For although after his death the Eastern churches anathematized Honorius, nevertheless it must be recognized that he had been accused of heresy, by reason of which alone inferiors may resist the initiatives of their superiors or freely reject the wicked senses. Although even in that case it would not have been ever so much lawful for any of the patriarchs or other bishops to carry out the sentence against him unless the approval of the concurrence of the Pontiff of the same first see had preceded." But what does this matter, since it is well known that Honorius by no means fell into heresy, but only negatively favoured the same by not using the supreme authority to root out the incipient error, and in this sense he is said to have been accused in the matter of heresy? Accordingly, in the same Ecumenical Council VIII, Action 1, a formula sent by the same Hadrian had been appended, in which, with no restriction attached, one reads the following: "In view of the fact that the Catholic religion has always been preserved in the apostolic see, and holy doctrine has been proclaimed.'' If on the other hand the sense of Hadrian is not that Honorius fell into heresy, those who use that statement to argue that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic have no ground to stand upon.''
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Some resistance from inferiors against ecclesiastical superiors is, in fact, possible. However, it is not clear from the quote in dispute that the object of this resistance could be the Roman Pontiff, given that the same council states that ''the Catholic religion has always been preserved in the Apostolic See, and the holy doctrine was proclaimed."
Now, if the chair of St. Peter ''always remains unblemished by any error'' (Pastor Aeternus,6), resistance would be impossible, unnecessary and unsubstantiated.
The reason we feel the urge to resist is that we perceive the throne of Saint Peter has become the seat of pestilence (Psalm 1:1)
However, this is impossible, as it would contradict at least two ecumenical councils (Constantinople IV and Vatican I) and a significant part of the ordinary magisterium.
Therefore, the only theologically viable solution to this dilemma is sedevacantism, as it is the only position that does not lead its adherents to heresy or schism.
Support Our Work!
If you appreciate our efforts, consider supporting us via PayPal at usquequodomine1958@gmail.com or by purchasing our products.
Check out My Lenten Devotional—twenty-three selected meditations, including sermons by St Leo the Great, along with reflections on sin, salvation, and the Passion of Christ. Perfect for daily prayer and reflection.
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment