I would like to propose that the distinction between different modes of expression coming from popes is by no means "artificial" but is in fact part of the Church's broader methodological legacy concerning the understanding of both heresy and papal magisterium. Constantinople III calls Honorius a "heretic" in a very specific sense. St. Leo II, in his ratification of that Council and in other writings of his, explains that Honorius was not a heretic in the sense of defending heretical doctrine, but in the sense of failing to strongly fight against heresy. This kind of distinction on the meaning of "heretic" has existed at least since the first Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. On the other hand, neither Honorius nor any other pope has ever taught heresy in his ordinary Magisterium to the entire Church; if they did, Catholicism would lose all meaning. The Church admits that a pope can fail in a personal capacity. At the same time, she demands assent of intellect and will when the pope teaches the whole Church, both in solemn extraordinary statements and in ordinary day-to-day teaching. The only reason she can make such demand is that it is always spiritually safe to follow the pope, even when it comes to his fallible magisterial statements. One place to go is the work 'De Romano Pontifice', by St. Robert Bellarmine, the Doctor of the Papacy. He explains that we must follow the pope not only in solemn statements but also in his ordinary teaching. "The Pope, by himself or with a particular Council, while stating something in a doubtful matter, whether he could err or not, must be obediently heard by all the faithful". (De Romano Pontifice IV.2) "The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err. Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men. On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off." (IV.3) The above was confirmed by the floor discussions and official documents of the First Vatican Council (cf. James J. McGovern, "Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII" [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], 239-241). And theologians have always explained that it is safe to follow the teachings of the pope. Why? Because he cannot teach doctrines or promulgate legislation that are pernicious to Church - otherwise the Church would not be indefectible. Concerning the distinctions on the meaning of "heresy" in general and in the case of Honorius, see Louis-Nazaire Bégin, "La Primauté et l’Infaillibilité des Souverains Pontifes" (Québec: L. H. Huot, 1873), chapter 6, which is entirely dedicated to the Honorius controversy. Cf. also Paul Bottalla, "Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and History" (London: Burns, Oates, 1868).
I'd add that in my opinion interviews are not as valuable as papal bulls or homilies or Angeli, you shouldn't try to guess the direction the church is going based on interviews of the Pope.
@@tafazzi-on-discord, traditionally popes would not 'give interviews'. These open the way to all sorts of ambiguities. Yet that does not strictly mean that a pope could not use this means of communication. But, as you said, one should not 'try to guess the direction the church is going based on interviews of the Pope'. Sermons, allocutions, bulls, encyclicals... there are more properly magisterial means. In any event, an interview still reveals one's mind. I know that many always think of Francis when the subject of interviews pops up, especially "airplane interviews." According to him, his many words should be considered magisterium. "I’m constantly making statements, giving homilies. That’s magisterium. That’s what I think, not what the media say that I think." (www.americamagazine.org/issue/we-must-reach-out) So he is always 'making statements' that he regards as magisterial. And Vatican II said that that the "frequent repetition" of a teaching is a sign that reveals a pope's mind and will (LG 25). Some topics always recur in Francis' interviews and one cannot dismiss that just because they were evoked in the context of an interview.
@YAJUN YUAN What do you think? Do you think it is spiritually safe to follow what he says concerning seeking a world fraternity by leaving our religious differences aside (Fratelli Tutti)? Do you think it is spiritually okay to believe that in some situations adultery is a morally 'less than ideal' situation which is "what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits" (Amoris Laetitia)?
"When St. Peter denied Christ, he had not yet begun to be the Supreme Pontiff, for it is certain that Ecclesiastical rule was handed to him by Christ in the last chapter of John, since the Lord said to him after the resurrection: 'Simon, son of John, feed my sheep.' Therefore, that denial of Peter cannot be numbered among errors of the Roman Pontiffs." (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice IV.8) The First Vatican Council confirms the same teaching that Peter only became the pope after the resurrection (cf. Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus"). The same Council also teaches that we should follow all that the popes teach to the Church, not only regarding faith and morals but also on the discipline and government of the Church. Of course the Church can only demand this because popes cannot teach heresy in an official capacity.
Agreed. I appreciate his recognition of the tensions as he refers to them. He doesn't offer a triumphalistic, "everybody should be Catholic because it is so clear and obvious from church history and scripture" approach. I find that refreshing. Because from my subjective view it is also not as clear as many apologists would like it to be. If Christ is the way the truth and the life, then pursuing truth will only lead us closer to Christ.
@@johnsayre2038Ybarra i think is a nice enough guy and generally speaking I find him rather inoffensive. But you should know hes been called out for plagiarism several times as well as several times where he just flat out doesnt know what he is talking about but pretends he does, which usually reflects worst on him than if he admitted to his ignorance
Honorius was anathematized at the Sixth Council. I don’t see how papal infallibility can be defended knowing this. I can’t see any possible explanation other than the council was wrong and Honorius wasn’t actually a monothelite but the letter clearly says otherwise.
@milagroman75 , it is not a formal teaching from the magisterium. It looks like Popes can err in their personal opinions, but not in their solemn pronouncements. Papal infallibility refers only to the solemn teachings, not to the rest. That's clear in the very document that promulgated the dogma of Papal infallibility, Pastor Aeternus. Furthermore, I think the channel Reason and Theology gave further insight in Pope Honorius' case, so check it out. Peace 🙏🏻
If Honorius was "fine," why did Popes anathematize him for centuries afterward upon taking the papal throne? Either Honorius was wrong or his predecessors were, eh?
They make it clear in the Councils that because Honorius did not properly address the heresy, is the reason why it spread like it did. Negligent in not being more specific in his responses to the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople.. Why does this same Council go on to say: Constantinople III Letter from Pope Agatho, to the Emperor, read openly, out loud at the 6th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III) and all the Council fathers (125 Bishops) accepted this letter while also explicitly responding to this letter, confirming its acceptance of the whole letter among the Collective Body, and this is what it states: “For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, HAS NEVER ERRED FROM THE PATH OF THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION, NOR has she been depraved by YIELDING TO HERETICAL INNOVATIONS, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you that your faith will not fail, and when you return, STRENGTHEN YOUR BRETHREN.” ??? They STILL affirm the divinely instituted Chair of Peter.
Yes, we have at least two cases in the history of confirmed Papal heresies... 1) Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the 5th Ecumenical Council for his support for heretical Three Chapters. After 6 months, Vigilius repented, admitted his errors, aligned himself with the Council, condemned Three Chapters and was brought back into the fold of the Church. IN his own words: "...one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognizes the truth...". 2) Pope Honorius I was excommunicated by the 6th Ecumenical Council alongside the Monothelites: "...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, Honorius 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!", 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". The Roman legates made no objection to his condemnation. So much so about the alleged "infallibility" of the Popes and alleged "supremacy" over the Councils.!
YES. Infallibility is only valid in certain circumstances, he must be teaching FROM THE CHAIR, for one thing, i.e meaning to define a dogma for the whole Church, East and West
@@glennlanham6309 Why would that be a more important question? Catholics did a pretty good job of compiling the Bible, but more than likely not a perfect job. This is why you see the differences in books in the Bible across all 3 major divisions of Christianity. Do you think that a protestant couldn't gather the pillars of their faith in an extremely large part from simply the four synoptic gospels? Of course the other books of the new testament matter greatly and inform us about our faith in a very rich way, and we would be lacking clarity on many issues without the letters from Paul, or Revelation etc. However, I think salvation could definitely be achieved simply by following what is found in the synoptic gospels. Given that the rest of the New Testament books are in agreement with the Gospels, there would be no good reason to believe that the compilation of new testament books are fallible.
It was certainly never imagined that a Pope could teach open heresy in an encyclical, which Francis did in ‘Amoris Laetitia’, which presents Lutheran heresy in its claims about sin. (Francis has special affection for Lutheran heresies, and has, of course, set up a statue of this arch- heretic in the Vatican.) He teaches publicly the heresy of religious indifference, he tolerates the abomination of idolatry within the walls of St. Peter’s Basilica. What more does he have to do to demonstrate that whenever he teaches something Catholic it is entirely by accident?
Papal infallibility, from what I hear, is quite rare. To make the infallible statement they must be saying it in a formal setting. In the end, even Popes are just men, albeit, Men that shoulder the weight of the Holy Catholic Church. I Nathaniel Turner wrote an article on this "Papists and Popery" it's called, a good read.
Can the tragic case of Pope Honorius be a transferable example to modern times whenever the Pope says (not ex cathedra) something that might be doctrinal error or justifiably questionable?
Popes are human so they in theory might make statements, as private persons, that are doctrinally erroneous or questionable. But the Church binds us to statements made by popes when they officially teach the Church. The Church can only do that because it is always safe to follow what a pope says in such situations. "The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err. Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men. On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off." (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice IV.3)
It seems that Orthodox are at a disadvantage regarding development of doctrine and papal authority. They can't seem to agree among themselves on a number of things. They seem to have been stuck without a mechanism to resolve their differences in a clear way for a long time now. The Catholic Church has it's troubles, but there is a clear mechanism to resolve issues and disputes. The buck has to stop somewhere.
I must watch this at least once more, the Pope taking pagan idols into Saint Peter's, and he did not question Joe Biden promoting abortion. These acts by Francis leave us in doubt!
I would like to propose that the distinction between different modes of expression coming from popes is by no means "artificial" but is in fact part of the Church's broader methodological legacy concerning the understanding of both heresy and papal magisterium. Constantinople III calls Honorius a "heretic" in a very specific sense. St. Leo II, in his ratification of that Council and in other writings of his, explains that Honorius was not a heretic in the sense of defending heretical doctrine, but in the sense of failing to strongly fight against heresy. This kind of distinction on the meaning of "heretic" has existed at least since the first Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. On the other hand, neither Honorius nor any other pope has ever taught heresy in his ordinary Magisterium to the entire Church; if they did, Catholicism would lose all meaning.
The Church admits that a pope can fail in a personal capacity. At the same time, she demands assent of intellect and will when the pope teaches the whole Church, both in solemn extraordinary statements and in ordinary day-to-day teaching. The only reason she can make such demand is that it is always spiritually safe to follow the pope, even when it comes to his fallible magisterial statements.
One place to go is the work 'De Romano Pontifice', by St. Robert Bellarmine, the Doctor of the Papacy. He explains that we must follow the pope not only in solemn statements but also in his ordinary teaching. "The Pope, by himself or with a particular Council, while stating something in a doubtful matter, whether he could err or not, must be obediently heard by all the faithful". (De Romano Pontifice IV.2) "The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err. Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men. On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off." (IV.3)
The above was confirmed by the floor discussions and official documents of the First Vatican Council (cf. James J. McGovern, "Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII" [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], 239-241). And theologians have always explained that it is safe to follow the teachings of the pope. Why? Because he cannot teach doctrines or promulgate legislation that are pernicious to Church - otherwise the Church would not be indefectible.
Concerning the distinctions on the meaning of "heresy" in general and in the case of Honorius, see Louis-Nazaire Bégin, "La Primauté et l’Infaillibilité des Souverains Pontifes" (Québec: L. H. Huot, 1873), chapter 6, which is entirely dedicated to the Honorius controversy. Cf. also Paul Bottalla, "Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and History" (London: Burns, Oates, 1868).
I'd add that in my opinion interviews are not as valuable as papal bulls or homilies or Angeli, you shouldn't try to guess the direction the church is going based on interviews of the Pope.
@@tafazzi-on-discord, traditionally popes would not 'give interviews'. These open the way to all sorts of ambiguities. Yet that does not strictly mean that a pope could not use this means of communication. But, as you said, one should not 'try to guess the direction the church is going based on interviews of the Pope'. Sermons, allocutions, bulls, encyclicals... there are more properly magisterial means.
In any event, an interview still reveals one's mind. I know that many always think of Francis when the subject of interviews pops up, especially "airplane interviews." According to him, his many words should be considered magisterium. "I’m constantly making statements, giving homilies. That’s magisterium. That’s what I think, not what the media say that I think." (www.americamagazine.org/issue/we-must-reach-out) So he is always 'making statements' that he regards as magisterial. And Vatican II said that that the "frequent repetition" of a teaching is a sign that reveals a pope's mind and will (LG 25). Some topics always recur in Francis' interviews and one cannot dismiss that just because they were evoked in the context of an interview.
@YAJUN YUAN What do you think? Do you think it is spiritually safe to follow what he says concerning seeking a world fraternity by leaving our religious differences aside (Fratelli Tutti)? Do you think it is spiritually okay to believe that in some situations adultery is a morally 'less than ideal' situation which is "what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits" (Amoris Laetitia)?
Not true.Francis has taught dangerous error in his magisterium. All religions are willed by God among other things.
The most famous act of heresy by a pope is Peter denying Christ.
A sad moment, followed by a beloved moment, where Peter goes to Mary and repents.🙏🏻
"When St. Peter denied Christ, he had not yet begun to be the Supreme Pontiff, for it is certain that Ecclesiastical rule was handed to him by Christ in the last chapter of John, since the Lord said to him after the resurrection: 'Simon, son of John, feed my sheep.' Therefore, that denial of Peter cannot be numbered among errors of the Roman Pontiffs." (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice IV.8)
The First Vatican Council confirms the same teaching that Peter only became the pope after the resurrection (cf. Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus"). The same Council also teaches that we should follow all that the popes teach to the Church, not only regarding faith and morals but also on the discipline and government of the Church. Of course the Church can only demand this because popes cannot teach heresy in an official capacity.
@John Jones I sincerely hope that you are joking
@@Victor-co2xjPeter denied knowing Jesus. He never denied Jesus was Christ
This was before the Pentecost. Since then the holy spirit guides and directs the popes when they promulgate Ex Cathedra
Ybarra: I go with the Council.
Also Ybarra: Honorius was right
that isnt what he said. he said what honorius said was forgivable.
Ybarra is a treasure for Catholics and UA-cam.
@YAJUN YUAN Can you clarify what you mean? Hypothetically? Or do you mean actually for something he has said that you have in mind?
@YAJUN YUAN Sorry, I'm not very familiar with TM on this.
Agreed. I appreciate his recognition of the tensions as he refers to them. He doesn't offer a triumphalistic, "everybody should be Catholic because it is so clear and obvious from church history and scripture" approach. I find that refreshing. Because from my subjective view it is also not as clear as many apologists would like it to be. If Christ is the way the truth and the life, then pursuing truth will only lead us closer to Christ.
@@johnsayre2038Ybarra i think is a nice enough guy and generally speaking I find him rather inoffensive. But you should know hes been called out for plagiarism several times as well as several times where he just flat out doesnt know what he is talking about but pretends he does, which usually reflects worst on him than if he admitted to his ignorance
This is a good job of presenting this slice of theological history
with an incredibly nuanced explanation. Many thanks!
I feel someone here is a fellow watcher of the incredibly nuanced theology channel of the subtle Michael "Nuance" Loftus...
Honorius was anathematized at the Sixth Council. I don’t see how papal infallibility can be defended knowing this. I can’t see any possible explanation other than the council was wrong and Honorius wasn’t actually a monothelite but the letter clearly says otherwise.
@@nadreb13 how is the letter to Sergius not teaching
@milagroman75 , it is not a formal teaching from the magisterium. It looks like Popes can err in their personal opinions, but not in their solemn pronouncements. Papal infallibility refers only to the solemn teachings, not to the rest. That's clear in the very document that promulgated the dogma of Papal infallibility, Pastor Aeternus.
Furthermore, I think the channel Reason and Theology gave further insight in Pope Honorius' case, so check it out.
Peace 🙏🏻
If Honorius was "fine," why did Popes anathematize him for centuries afterward upon taking the papal throne? Either Honorius was wrong or his predecessors were, eh?
Going to the source, the anathema was clear as day and night.
They make it clear in the Councils that because Honorius did not properly address the heresy, is the reason why it spread like it did.
Negligent in not being more specific in his responses to the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople..
Why does this same Council go on to say:
Constantinople III
Letter from Pope Agatho, to the Emperor, read openly, out loud at the 6th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III) and all the Council fathers (125 Bishops) accepted this letter while also explicitly responding to this letter, confirming its acceptance of the whole letter among the Collective Body, and this is what it states:
“For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, HAS NEVER ERRED FROM THE PATH OF THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION, NOR has she been depraved by YIELDING TO HERETICAL INNOVATIONS, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you that your faith will not fail, and when you return, STRENGTHEN YOUR BRETHREN.”
???
They STILL affirm the divinely instituted Chair of Peter.
Yes, we have at least two cases in the history of confirmed Papal heresies...
1) Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the 5th Ecumenical Council for his support for heretical Three Chapters. After 6 months, Vigilius repented, admitted his errors, aligned himself with the Council, condemned Three Chapters and was brought back into the fold of the Church. IN his own words: "...one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognizes the truth...".
2) Pope Honorius I was excommunicated by the 6th Ecumenical Council alongside the Monothelites: "...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, Honorius 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!", 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". The Roman legates made no objection to his condemnation.
So much so about the alleged "infallibility" of the Popes and alleged "supremacy" over the Councils.!
Vigilius was not excommunicated in the council!
Can’t believe we now have Loftonites who defend every single act the Pope performs as though it Carrie’s the full dignity of his office.
Love Eric Ybarra and I am learning so much from Eric thank you Matt GBU both 🙏🏻🙏🏻
Thank you for this!
YES. Infallibility is only valid in certain circumstances, he must be teaching FROM THE CHAIR, for one thing, i.e meaning to define a dogma for the whole Church, East and West
taking this from my textbook, Magisterial Authority, by Fr. Chad Ripperger
How many infallible statements have been made by the Roman papacy and is this number a fallible list of infallible teachings?
@@BurberryharryDo you have a fallible list of infallible books in your Bible?
@@Burberryharry I would be far more worried about that question if I were you
@@glennlanham6309 Why would that be a more important question? Catholics did a pretty good job of compiling the Bible, but more than likely not a perfect job. This is why you see the differences in books in the Bible across all 3 major divisions of Christianity. Do you think that a protestant couldn't gather the pillars of their faith in an extremely large part from simply the four synoptic gospels? Of course the other books of the new testament matter greatly and inform us about our faith in a very rich way, and we would be lacking clarity on many issues without the letters from Paul, or Revelation etc. However, I think salvation could definitely be achieved simply by following what is found in the synoptic gospels. Given that the rest of the New Testament books are in agreement with the Gospels, there would be no good reason to believe that the compilation of new testament books are fallible.
1:49 Sounds like Ybarra is discrediting an ecumenical council.
Wow, "I go with the councils verdict, but".
It was certainly never imagined that a Pope could teach open heresy in an encyclical, which Francis did in ‘Amoris Laetitia’, which presents Lutheran heresy in its claims about sin. (Francis has special affection for Lutheran heresies, and has, of course, set up a statue of this arch- heretic in the Vatican.) He teaches publicly the heresy of religious indifference, he tolerates the abomination of idolatry within the walls of St. Peter’s Basilica. What more does he have to do to demonstrate that whenever he teaches something Catholic it is entirely by accident?
Pray tell what a Lutheran heresy is?
What does he say about Vigillius?
Papal infallibility, from what I hear, is quite rare. To make the infallible statement they must be saying it in a formal setting. In the end, even Popes are just men, albeit, Men that shoulder the weight of the Holy Catholic Church. I Nathaniel Turner wrote an article on this "Papists and Popery" it's called, a good read.
hey Erick, what council was that again?
Can the tragic case of Pope Honorius be a transferable example to modern times whenever the Pope says (not ex cathedra) something that might be doctrinal error or justifiably questionable?
Popes are human so they in theory might make statements, as private persons, that are doctrinally erroneous or questionable. But the Church binds us to statements made by popes when they officially teach the Church. The Church can only do that because it is always safe to follow what a pope says in such situations.
"The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err. Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men. On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off." (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice IV.3)
@YAJUN YUAN Yes, because he isn't a pope.
Another Great Commercial for Orthodoxy☦️
It seems that Orthodox are at a disadvantage regarding development of doctrine and papal authority. They can't seem to agree among themselves on a number of things. They seem to have been stuck without a mechanism to resolve their differences in a clear way for a long time now. The Catholic Church has it's troubles, but there is a clear mechanism to resolve issues and disputes. The buck has to stop somewhere.
But what really does ex cathedra mean? What conditions will make someone speaking ex cathedra?
forkin spongebob popping up at the end of the video
It does sound artificial. Like the theology of papacy developed over time.
Yeah, all of the ones after the Second Vatican Council.
Interesting. “Infallible modes” seems super creepy, like “automatic writing” level creepy. Gotta love the Catholic “necessities”.
I must watch this at least once more, the Pope taking pagan idols into Saint Peter's, and he did not question Joe Biden promoting abortion. These acts by Francis leave us in doubt!
Those are sinful acts by Pope Francis, but not heretical theology.
Honorious wasn’t a Pope if he taught error ex cathedra. That’s the solution.
But he didn't teach error ex cathedra and was condemned for a private letter. That's the solution.
Then the line was broken ☺️
First
I already watched the video 3 times
Reported