TrapCast Express
There were six lay speakers in total, and one of them was Claudio Pierantoni, a professor of medieval philosophy at the University of Chile.
His presentation was entitled, The Need for Consistency Between Magisterium and Tradition, Examples from History, and it was posted at the Rarate Cheli blog on April 23rd.
Once again, trying to find some sort of historical precedent for the doctrinal disaster that is Pope Francis.
Pierantoni brought up the cases of, you guessed it, Popes Liberius and Honorius I.
Regarding Pope Honorius, he quotes, of course, the Third Council of Constantinople in 681, which includes, it is true, a condemnation of Pope Honorius as a heretic,
but when the council issued this condemnation on March 28th, 681, it did so without the Pope, because there was no Pope reigning at the time.
It was...
And without the approval of the Pope, a council is practically worthless.
The next Pope, Leo II, was elected on August 17th of 682, almost a year after the council was over.
And when he, Pope Leo II, approved the council, he approved the condemnation of Pope Honorius only insofar as Honorius was guilty of negligence by not sufficiently suppressing,
and unwittingly favoring the heresy of monothelitism because of how he expressed himself in a letter
to the patriarch Sergius. Now, Pierantoni more or less says as much, but then he also says that
Poponorius was condemned for heresy. Well, not really. He was condemned for abetting heresy,
for not doing enough to stamp it out. A lot of ink has been spilled over the years about the
Poponorius case. On Novels Art or Watch, we are going to publish at some point a big post on it
for our series, The Heretical Popes, of which we've published only one part so far on Pope
Adrian VI. The reason it's taking so long is that this is the kind of thing you need to do,
not quickly, but thoroughly, else nothing is gained.
In the meantime, people interested in the facts about the Poponorius case
may want to turn to Volume 5 of The History of the Councils of the Church by the Right
Reverend Charles Joseph Heffaly. You can find that for free online at books.google.com. Again,
that's Volume 5 of A History of the Councils of the Church by
Poponorius.
Father Charles Heffaly, and that's H-E-F-E-L-E. By the way, these historical parallels that people
are always trying to find in order to shed some light on what to do with Francis will all fail
because Francis is a manifest public heretic, and such a thing has never happened before,
meaning there has never been a public manifest heretic who was also a
valid pope at the same time, because such a thing is an impossibility. It's like saying
there can be a non-Catholic Catholic. No, there can't. It's a contradiction in terms.
Now, regarding Poponorius' letter to Sergius, even if it had contained heresy, which it didn't,
but even if it had, it was not a public letter, but a private one. It wasn't even discovered,
or made public at least, until after Poponorius had already died. So, even if it were a heretical
document, it would not have made Poponorius a public heretic. So, on that score alone,
there is no comparison with Francis. But, you know, this whole correcting and condemning a
heretical pope thing that many people are envisioning is really flawed in principle. Think about it.
If Poponorius had been a heretic and condemned as one by Pope Leo II, how would a Catholic know
if perhaps in the future Pope Leo II would not be condemned as a heretic and Honorius vindicated
again? See, once you admit the idea that a pope can be a heretic and still be a true pope, it's over.
But Pierre-Antoni does make a very good point in his presentation. He says,
quote,
Precisely. But now Pierre-Antoni also needs to apply this to his very own case. Do you really
think that the pope could now withdraw Amoris Laetitia or correct the heresies in it and all
would be fine?
Fixed? Nuh-uh. That balloon has already been popped. It's over. Remember, it's really not
just about communion for unrepentant adulterers. It's about the entire foundation of Catholic
morality. And Pierre-Antoni says as much. In Amoris Laetitia, Francis has basically turned
the Ten Commandments into the Ten Ideal Suggestions. And he's transformed the very notion of sin
from a voluntary transgression of the divine law into an attempt at virtue that has not quite
succeeded in reaching its goal. I mean, that document, Amoris Laetitia, is blatantly and
fundamentally heretical. And that's not just us Sedevacanthes saying that. Even conservative
nobles-ordos have used the word heresy to describe the content of Amoris Laetitia.
So, by,
correcting, as it were, Amoris Laetitia, nothing would be gained at all. The horse is already out
of the barn. You can close the barn door now all you want, and you can put extra security locks on
it and whatever, but it's already too late. The doctrine that the papal magisterium can safely
be followed at all times has already been violated. To try to fix it now by means of a correction
after the fact won't be easy. So, I'm going to try to fix it now by means of a correction after the
fact won't be easy. So, I'm going to try to fix it now by means of a correction after the fact won't
accomplish anything. And as for the accusation that Pope Liberius was a heretic and excommunicated
St. Athanasius, John Daly has completely dismantled that myth. And you can find all
the evidence. It's very well documented. You can find all that evidence on our blog at
NovusOrdoWatch.org slash wire. NovusOrdoWatch.org slash wire. Just type Pope Liberius.
Just type Pope Liberius into the search box at the top right, and you will get the posts pertaining
to that issue. You know, one thing I'd like to know is, why are people making such a big fuss
about Amor's Laetitia and yet are virtually silent on all of France's other heresies and blasphemies?
Why is there a conference on Amor's Laetitia and not one on France's naturalism, his ecumenism of
blood, his indignation, his indignation, his indignation, his indignation, his indignation, his
indifferentism, and so forth? This odd double standard is nothing new, though. Where were the
conferences, the petitions, the outrage when Joseph Ratzinger as Archbishop of Munich denied
Catholic teaching on original sin, for example? When as the head of the Congregation for the
Destruction of the Faith, he denied the dogma of papal primacy? When as Pope Benedict XVI,
he said that he has respect for the
Muslim Koran, which is heretical and blasphemous? Where was the outrage, where were the conferences
and the petitions when Pope John Paul II claimed that non-Christians' firm adherence to their
errors is the effect of the Holy Ghost? Yeah, he said that in his 1979 encyclical,
Redemptor Hominis, number six. You can look it up on the Vatican website. John Paul II,
encyclical, Redemptor Hominis.
Number six. So, what is going on here? Why is the outrage so selective? Why is orthodoxy
always reduced to being orthodox only on matters of the Sixth and the Ninth Commandments?
Now, before we close, on a related note, everybody is so gung-ho about getting Francis to
answer the dubia or clarify Amoris Laetitia like we didn't long have all the clarity we need.
But what is the point? I mean, what would happen if he actually did answer the dubia?
Nothing, really. Because whichever side loses, so to speak, would simply resist.
And everything else would keep going on as before.
See, in the Novus Ordo Church, the papacy is not only completely useless, but actually the biggest
stumbling block to Catholicism. It's the biggest obstacle of orthodoxy. Have you ever noticed that?
I mean, all the Vatican II reforms came from the Vatican. And the funny thing is
that people keep getting told that they need to read this or that papal document in continuity
with tradition, right? Well, why don't they just write it in continuity with tradition?
How's that for a change? All right. Lastly, the idea of the fraternal correction
of the Vatican. So, what is the point of that? Well, the idea of the fraternal correction of the
In case he doesn't answer the dubia, well, here, too, you have to ask yourself,
what do these people think that that would accomplish? At best, they would have a bunch of
supposed cardinals in direct and public opposition to the supposed pope on a matter of doctrine.
And then what? The papal magisterium trumps any lesser magisterium in the
Catholic Church. So, for people who hold that Francis is the vicar of Christ, well, they would
actually have to go with him, with Francis. Welcome to the papacy. So, that whole fraternal
correction thing wouldn't accomplish anything either. So, folks, in the end, it's all a big
dog and pony show for nothing. All it accomplishes is it distracts you from the reality that the
Vatican II sect is a fraud. And so, you have to go with him. And so, you have to go with him. And so,
Francis is not the pope of the Catholic Church. They always need to give traditionalists in their
church something to hang their hopes on, to make sure they don't become set of accountants. It's
worked for them for decades, and they will continue using the strategy for as long as
people still fall for it. Don't be one of them. Tradcast Express is a production of
Novus Ordo Watch. Check us out at tradcast.org. And if you like what we're doing, please consider
making a tax.
Donate at novusortowatch.org.