New blog on the kid : So, Catholicism is Demographic - But is the Catholic Demography Always Catholic? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : On Marcel Lefebvre and "Traditionalist Dissent" · Responding to "Critics of Pope Francis, What’s your End-Game?"
Here is the link:
Critics of Pope Francis, What’s your End-Game?
by Mike Lewis · May 9, 2018
My answers are:
- to title question : I accept Pope Michael
- to another question, in the text, see exchange below. Note, Mike Lewis very graciously supplied the exact text of my comment:
- Mike Lewis
- ... Ultimately, however, the argument is useless. Regardless of how emphatically and convincingly someone insists on the historicity of the heresy of Honorius, they still can’t point to a single point of doctrine or canon law that says anything about how Catholics are to respond should a pope teach heresy. ...
- Hans Georg Lundahl
You are forgetting Saints are a valid interpretation of God’s law.
Liberius : St Athanasius explained his stance as circumstanced by persecution and ignored it (as a forced concession), St Felix the second accepted to become Pope in his stead (he seems to have already been antipope, but now, acc to Liber Papalis, “began to be Pope”).
Honorius : St Sophronius ignored his laying on the lid.
John XXII : I recall from my SSPX days that St Paschalis (was it he?) threatened to “withdraw his obedience”. On SSPX interpretation, that threat, if John XXII had persisted, would have been a “recognise and resist” stance. On a probably more realistic sede (and orthopapist) stance, if John XXII had persisted, St Paschalis would have concluded he was not Pope.
For any SSPX : the stance of St Paschalis was a temporary one which effected what it intended (conversion of a Pope from an inconsiderate statement) within a reasonable delay. The stance of St Sophronius simply seems to have been “laying on the lid” is not really and truly a Papal power, so he could ignore that (and Honorius does not seem to have demanded any direct acceptance of Monotheletism).
That of St Athanasius was only possible because there was a reasonable position the papal stance at Sirmium was more a tortured than a freely papal one, and St Felix conceded this and stepped back for Liberius when he came back and cleared himself. So, the stance of St Athanasius before having full proof of Pope Liberius having been forced and to what extent of concession (only ambiguity) would correspond to the Palmarian stance to “Paul VI” as “prisoner in the Vatican”. So far, unlike Liberius, we have no proof he was (I’m an ex-Palmarian, btw).
Feel free to comment here, either with a blogger account, or using name+URL!