Home

Catholic Apologetics International

R. Sungenis: Hugh, I’ll take a little more time in responding to Mr. Larson, for I believe that, though he has a great enthusiasm for the papacy (and rightly so), I think his enthusiasm has gotten in the way of sound and logical reasoning.

Mr. Larson: Dear Hugh, I am writing this in the form of a letter, rather than an article or systematic critique, simply because I wish to speak in a way more personal than seems appropriate to a formal reply.

I have dealt with the subjects contained in my book Papal Primacy and the Schism of Archbishop Lefebvre for 16 years now. Most of my discussions with people have dealt with the question of the Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction in relation to the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre. As the years have progressed, however, I have noted in SSPX literature, or in literature sympathetic to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX position, a growth in attacks upon the very nature of the Papacy itself. These attacks always attempt to drive a wedge between the “office” of the Papacy and the person who is the reigning Pope, with the purpose of claiming either that one does not necessarily have to submit to juridical decisions of the Pope, or that a Pope can lose the faith and become a heretic. This latter belief is often accompanied by the further claim that a Pope who becomes a heretic ceases to by Pope, and this in turn forms the basis for a position of Sedevacantism.

R. Sungenis: First, let me say that I also disagree with the SSPX’s decision not to submit to the juridical decision of the pope. I also do not believe a pope loses his office for private heresy. I have written about both these issues on our web site.

Mr. Larson: In answer to all this, I can only begin by quoting Christ:

“Thou [the emphasis is necessary] art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Are not “thou” and “thee” personal pronouns? Did Jesus say, “Thou art Peter”; or, on the contrary, did He say, “Office art Peter?” This is, of course, buffoonery. But what more do we need to convince Mr. Sungenis, or anyone else ,that Jesus established the twofold Primacy upon the person of Peter? And further, that He established the Office of the Papacy not as something “above” Peter, but simply as a means of insuring that there would be successors to Peter upon whom these divine prerogatives would come to rest. Jesus, in fact, never mentions the term “office”, or anything like it. What He does mention is the term “rock”, and He changes Simon’s personal name so that he might be identified as Rock.”

R. Sungenis: This is really a very naïve argument. Jesus is not inaugurating Peter as pope or the office the papacy at that very moment. That is why all the verbs in Matthew 16:18-19 are in the future tense. The office of the papacy will only be inaugurated when Jesus dies and Peter then becomes the vicar of Christ. In other words, He is telling Peter, personally, that someday he will assume the office of the papacy. So it is futile for Mr. Larson to argue that because Jesus uses personal pronouns in Matthew 16:18-19 He doesn’t have the office of the papacy in view, only Peter’s person. No canonist would ever use such argumentation, and I don’t know anyone else who has.

Mr. Larson: Again, Vatican I provides us with the clear doctrine:

“And it was upon Simon alone [notice that the Council here uses “Simon” instead of “Peter”, thus playing havoc with any notion that Jesus might have made His promises only to “Peter” as some sort of symbol of the “office”) that Jesus, after His resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold in the words, “Feed My lambs, feed My sheep.” At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter in his simple person preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself but upon the Church, and the Church on Peter as her minister.”

The central contention throughout Mr. Sungenis’ critique is as follows: “The phrase ‘simple person’ [in Cardinal Manning’s translation] actually distorts the text. It makes an imposition on the text which shifts the focus off “government” and onto “person.” It does nothing of the sort. Rather, it identifies the primacy of the government of the Church as being bestowed directly by Christ upon the person of Peter. The above passage teaches that this government was “bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself” [we should note here that Mr. Sungenis’ Denzinger translation also has “himself” – he might ask himself therefore what the significant difference is between “himself” and “person” or “simple person], and this doctrine makes it a matter of error to claim that this primacy resides directly on the Church or some Church office, and descends only on Peter “as her minister.” The anathema pronounced at the end of this passage is pronounced against those who deny that Peter received these powers “directly and immediately” from our Lord Jesus Christ.

R. Sungenis: Here is the first case where Mr. Larson misunderstands the quote he cites. In reference to Vatican I’s statement, “the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter in his simple person preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself but upon the Church, and the Church on Peter as her minister,” Larson writes:

“…and this doctrine makes it a matter of error to claim that this primacy resides directly on the Church or some Church office, and descends only on Peter ‘as her minister.’”

But this is an obvious misreading of Vatican I. We can tell what Mr. Larson wishes to see because he slips in the phrase “Church office” into his analysis, but Vatican I is not addressing “Church offices,” and no one on my side of the fence is claiming that Vatican I bestowed a primacy on “the Church” or a “Church office.” In fact, if we use Mr. Larson’s argument about “person,” I wonder why Mr. Larson is so eager to make the “Church” into an “office” in the face of the fact that the Church is composed of PEOPLE, just as Peter and the Apostles are people?

The contrast Vatican I draws out is NOT between Peter and offices, but between: (a) “Peter” and “all the other Apostles,” and (b) “primacy…bestowed …upon Blessed Peter” as opposed to primacy bestowed on “the Church.” In other words, Vatican I is saying that only Peter can have the primacy, not the other Apostles, and not the Church as a whole. Vatican I was thwarting the Eastern Orthodox interpretation, that is: claiming that the primacy was bestowed on the Church, and Peter is thus among equals, and the Church chooses to give him a special place of honor. Vatican I was NOT separating Peter from the office of the papacy. If anything, it was strengthening the bond between the two, since it would not allow anyone else to infringe upon the rights Peter had through it.

Mr. Larson: Cardinal Manning’s translation may take some license with the Latin, but it takes no license with the meaning of the text. It rather serves to clarify it, which I am sure was Cardinal Manning’s intention. It is interesting that the accusation of promoting heresy which Mr. Sungenis applies to me, would also logically descend upon Cardinal Manning, who clearly believed in these personal prerogatives of any reigning Pope.

R. Sungenis: With all due respect to Cardinal Manning, his is the only translation with which I am aware that adds the word “simple person.” But his translation immediately becomes suspect, since it is not in the original Latin. Mr. Larson’s claim that it is allowed because it “clarifies the meaning of the text,” is simply a case of using as proof something he has not yet proven. But I am not accusing Cardinal Manning of heresy, for I don’t find him making arguments akin to Mr. Larson’s from the words “simple person.”

As for my use of the word “heresy” in the case of Mr. Larson, I was merely reciprocating to the level of discussion Mr. Larson had initiated by his rather free-wheeling use of the term “heresy” against Mr. Davies and other traditionalists. Throughout Mr. Larson’s book there is a condescending and accusatory tone, implying that, if you don’t agree with him, you’re not Catholic, and even worse, a heretic. I find that accusation not only out of his jurisdiction, but rather ironic in light of the unsound arguments he gives to support his own position.

Mr. Larson: It is absolutely essential to realize that the Pope holds an authority like no other on earth. Mr. Sungenis wishes us to “make the proper distinctions between the ‘legal’ and the ‘personal’ when speaking of the Papacy, in order that “we should not make such an impassable identification that we cannot separate the two when necessary.” In other words, he would do away with the whatever in the “whatever you bind on earth.”

R. Sungenis: Far from it. In fact, if the pope has established that “whatever” includes the connection and/or distinction between the person and the office, then we best heed that teaching.

Mr. Larson: In his critique, Mr. Sungenis tries to draw an analogy between the qualifications necessary to be a bishop and those necessary for the exercise of Papal authority. He fails to realize that there is a divinely constituted difference which exists between the Pope and the bishops in their relationship to the respective offices which they hold. Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum (On The Unity of the Church)quotes St. John Chrysostom:

“If the divine benignity willed anything to be in common between him (Peter) and the other princes, whatever He did not deny to the others He gave only through him. So that whereas Peter alone received many things, He conferred nothing on any of the rest without Peter participating in it.”

R. Sungenis: This again is a case of Mr. Larson misunderstanding the quote he cites. In fact, he is doing precisely the same thing here that he did with Vatican I’s quote we saw above. Chrysostom is NOT speaking about a distinction or connection between Peter and the papal office, but the lack of commonality between Peter and the “other princes.” In other words, Chysostom is saying the same thing Vatican I said, that is, there is a marked distinction between Peter and the Apostles, and Peter and the rest of “the Church.”

Mr. Larson: Pope Leo continues in his own words:

“From this it must be clearly understood that bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately withdraw from Peter and his successors….

R. Sungenis: Again, the same problem. The contrast is between Peter’s authority and everyone else’s authority, not a contrast between Peter and the papal office.

Mr. Larson: This teaching is also applied by Vatican II to the entire college of bishops: “The college or body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head….(Lumen Gentium 22).” In other words, there really is a distinction between the legal office of bishop and the person who holds that position, such that the powers of the office of bishop do not dissolve upon that person unless he meets certain conditions.

R. Sungenis: First of all, contrary to Mr. Larson’s interpretation, Lumen Gentium 22 is not making a distinction “between the legal office of bishop and the person who holds that position,” rather, it is only saying that unless the bishops are united with Peter, they have no authority. This is another case of Mr. Larson “reading into” the passage what he desires to see.

Moreover, Mr. Larson’s argument is highly selective. On the one hand, Mr. Larson admits to an “office of bishop,” but implies that “office” does not apply to the papacy. I find that conclusion rather puzzling in light of the fact that Scripture is clear that Apostleship is dependent on an “office” (cf., Acts 1:20); the bishopric is dependent on an “office” (1 Tim 3:1), yet somehow the chief Apostle and bishop, Peter, is not dependent on an office. How so? Only by Mr. Larson’s misinterpretation of Vatican I, which we will see below.

Mr. Larson: This is not true of the Papacy. Vatican I declares:

“We renew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, by which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman pontiff possesses the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is true Vicar of Christ, and Head of the whole Church, and Father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in Blessed Peter, by Jesus Christ our Lord, to rule, feed and govern the universal Church….”

R. Sungenis: Who holds the primacy? Notice that Vatican I says, first, that “the Holy Apostolic See” holds the primacy. Is that not an “office”? Obviously, since Vatican I is not limiting the primacy to a person but is including an entity known as the “the Holy Apostolic See,” then Mr. Larson’s argument is fallacious.

Mr. Larson: And finally:

“And since, by the divine right of Apostolic primacy, one Roman pontiff is placed over the universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes the decision of which belongs to the Church recourse may be had to his tribunal, but that none may open the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its judgment.”

R. Sungenis: I took the liberty of underlining all the “office” terms in Vatican I’s statement. Notice the interplay between such words as “Apostolic primacy,” “Apostolic See,” “tribunal” and “law” with “Roman pontiff” and “he.” I think it is clear that Vatican I recognized the “office” of the papacy.

Mr. Larson: The Pope’s powers are full, universal, and received directly from Christ. It is a profound error to attempt to subject the exercise of these powers to an office in any way exterior to him. It is, in other words, a heresy to place the prerogatives of the Papacy anywhere but upon the person of the man who legitimately occupies the Chair of Peter.

R. Sungenis: Here is an occasion of Mr. Larson using a strawman argument. No one on my side of the fence is claiming that the pope’s powers are exercised by an office which is “exterior” to him, and to be perfectly honest, I’m not quite sure what Mr. Larson means by “exterior.” I have held that when the pope exercises his authentic papal authority, his person and his office are indistinguishable, since the office is manifest by the person’s authoritative decisions. But when the pope, as a person, is merely giving his pious opinion on a certain subject, then he is not exercising or manifesting the papal office. Rather, at that point we distinguish between Karol Wojtyla as a man, as opposed to the pope who, at that time, is not exercising his papal authority. (In fact, later we will see Pope Agatho use this same argumentation in regards to Pope Honorius). And this is where Mr. Larson will meet his greatest obstacle. If he doesn’t make the proper distinctions at the proper time between the person of Karol Wojtyla and the Chair of Peter, then he will be forced to say that when Karol Wojtyla gives his pious opinion at say, a dinner meeting with visitors, that this is just as authoritative as when he writes an encyclical or in some other authoritative venue.

In fact, I find it puzzling why Mr. Larson, in his last sentence, refers on the one hand to “the prerogatives of the Papacy” and the “Chair of Peter,” yet on the other hand to “the person of the man.” If there is no distinction, then why does Mr. Larson keep implying that there is a distinction?

Mr. Larson: The Second Error

There are actually two distinct, but interconnected, errors which Mr. Sungenis seems to have embraced. The first I have discussed. It consists in the belief that the prerogatives of the Papacy do not “rest” directly and fully upon the person of any reigning Pope.
The second error consists in the denial of the “never-failing faith” of Peter and all his successors until the end of time. Mr. Sungenis emphatically states, “Vatican I NEVER states, however, that a pope could never lose his own personal faith.” We shall let Vatican I speak for itself:

“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.’

This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and resting in its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.”

The first thing that we must note concerning this passage is that this grace of never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors “according to the promise” made by Our Lord to Peter: “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm they brethren.” In other words, this never-failing faith is the fruit of Christ’s efficacious prayer that the personal faith of Peter “fail not.” Vatican I clearly states, therefore, that Peter’s personal faith is guaranteed “according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples.”

R. Sungenis: Once again, I have taken the liberty of underlining the key phrases in Vatican I’s statement. The problem here is that Mr. Larson is, again, not making the proper distinctions. Mr. Larson is stressing the “personal faith” of the pope, while Vatican I is speaking about the faith in the sense of God’s protection of the Church through the papal office. This is why Vatican I stresses the “deposit of faith.” In other words “faith” is a synonym, at least in this context, for doctrine about the faith and about morals. This is precisely why, in the above two paragraphs, Vatican I uses words and phrases such as “new doctrine,” “faithfully expound the revelation,” “apostolic doctrine,” “all blemish of error,” “error,” “heavenly doctrine.” There is nothing here about the pope’s “personal faith,” even though that may be a secondary benefit from the papal office. Thus, when Jesus prays for Peter’s faith, it is not necessarily that Peter, in his own personal life, could not falter, but that when he exercises his office as pope, he will never fail. He could be very immoral, but when it comes to making dogmatic decisions for the Church, he will never fail.

For example, it’s no secret that Pope Sergius III (904-911) illegitimately fathered Pope John XI (931-935). Pope Sergius has been called “an unscrupulous man” who ruled the Church “arrogantly” (Quoted from page 162 of The Popes, A Concise Biographical History, edited by Eric John, Imprimatur, George L. Craven, 1962. Originally published in 1964 by Burns and Oates, publishers to the Holy See.)

Alexander VI (1471-1503) had at least six children, four of them by a Roman lady, Vanozzza dei Catanei (Ibid., p. 304.) “There is evidence” says The Popes: A Concise Biographical History that Alexander “maintained a mistress after he became pope and that her influence persuaded him to make her brother, Alexander Farnese, later Paul III, a Cardinal”. Alexander VI became especially known for advancing his children’s careers. John XII (955-964) who became pope at age sixteen, is described in the Catholic Encyclopedia as “a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, (New York: Appleton, 1910) Volume VIII, p. 426). “There is no doubt” write the authors of The Popes, “that he (John XII) was a scandal to the whole Church” (P. 166).

At times, popes and bishops have accepted bribes for favors, as well as murdered political opponents. For example, Pope Sergius III “took the Papacy by force,” while Pope John XII is reportedly to have been “struck with paralysis while visiting his mistress” and died shortly after; and Pope Sixtus IV was involved in the plot to murder Lorenzo de Medici (The Popes, Eric John, pages 162, 166 and 301). Sixtus IV (1471-1484) made nepotism “the chief influence of papal policies.” His revenues, which exceeded 60,000 gold ducats a year, “enabled him to lead a life of luxury which astonished contemporaries and shocked many.” (The Popes, Eric John, p. 301). Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) a man whose morals were unsuitable for the papacy, would “openly avow his illegitimate children.” (Ibid., p. 302).

There are many more such examples that could be cited. The point is made, however. Vatican I is not speaking about the “personal faith” of the pope, but the faith he exercises in the papal office. If any of the above immoral popes had issued a dogmatic decree in their reign as pope, it would have been as infallible as when Pius XII issued the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

And, perhaps most important of all considering the contention between Mr. Larson and myself, I can’t leave Vatican I’s paragraph without citing its direct reference to the “high office” of the pope in its sentence: “Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all.”

So here we have a direct reference to the “office” of the papacy. Peter is not said to be performing from his “person,” but that he “might perform their high office.” Notice again, as we said above concerning the immoral popes, that is, even in the case of an immoral pope, when anyone of them “perform their high office” it is for the “salvation of all,” whereupon we are guaranteed divine protection that the pope will not make an official dogmatic error concerning the faith.

Mr. Larson: Secondly, “this gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair.” Vatican I, therefore, clearly declares that no Pope could ever lose his faith.
Third, this gift of never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors in order that “the whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and resting in its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.” Mr. Sungenis, having denied this doctrine concerning the never-failing faith of Peter and his successors has, in fact, reinserted this “occasion of schism” into his own personal faith. In a recent discussion with a Sedevacantist published on his web site, Mr. Sungenis says, “Considering the abominations of Assisi one would be remiss not to think there is a possibility that John Paul II is not the pope.” He would seem, therefore, to be flirting not only with schism, but also with Sedevacantism.

R. Sungenis: I’ll try to be patient with Mr. Larson at this point and just assume that he was making a rash judgment from something he misunderstands. The reason I made the statement about Sedevacantism is based on what the Church herself has recognized about those occupying the chair of Peter, that is, there is a distinct possibility that one claiming to possess the throne is not, indeed, a true pope. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, we have had 44 illegitimate “popes,” most who have occupied the chair of Peter for a certain length of time. Here are a few examples. Notice, in particular, that the antipope, Anacletus II, sat for EIGHT years (1130-1138) in the papal chair, while the true pope was in exile:

Hippolytus (217-236): CE, Vol. vii, p. 360: “He continued in opposition as antipope throughout the reigns of the two immediate successors of Callistus, Urban (222 or 223 to 230) and Pontius (230-35).....afterward he became reconciled with the legitimate bishop and the Church of Rome.”

Novatian (251-258): CE, vol. xi, p. 138: “Novatian was a schismatic of the third century, and founder of the sect of the Novatians; he was a Roman priest, and made himself antipope.”

Felix II (355-365): CE, vol. vi, p. 30: “Pope (more properly Antipope), 355-58; d. 22 Nov. 365...The emperor, however, who was supplanting the exiled Catholic bishops with bishops of Arian tendencies, exerted himself to install a new Bishop of Rome in place of the banished Liberius. He invited to Milan Felix, archdeacon of the Roman Church...succeeded in inducing him to accept the office from which Liberius had been forcibly expelled...”

Ursinus (366-367): CE, vol iv, p. 613: “...a number of over-zealous adherents of the deceased Liberius rejected him [Damasus I], chose the deacon Ursinus (or Ursicinus), had the latter irregularly consecrated, and resorted to much violence and bloodshed in order to seat him in the Chair of Peter.”

Anacletus II (1130-1138): CE, vol. i, p. 447: “Pope, the title assumed by Cardinal Pietro Pierleone at the contested papal election of the year 1130....Though the Pierleoni were conceded to be one of the wealthiest and most powerful senatorial families of Rome, and though they had staunchly supported the popes throughout the fifty years’ war for reform and freedom, yet it was never forgotten that they were of Jewish extraction, and had risen to wealth and power by usury...the future Antipope...there can be no doubt that he was determined to buy or force his way into the Papal Chair. When Honorius lay on his death-bed, Pierleone could count upon the votes of thirty cardinals, backed by the support of the mercenary populous and of every noble family in Rome...[The] squadronisti...resolved to rescue the papacy from unworthy hands by a coup d’etat....to secure liberty of action, they removed the sick Pontiff from the Lateran to St. Gregory’s...Honorius dying on the night of 13 February, they buried him hurriedly the next morning, and compelled the reluctant Cardinal of San Georgio, Gregory Papareschi, under threat of excommunication, to accept the pontifical mantle. He took the name of Innocent II. Later in the day the party of Pierleone assembled in the Church of St. Mark and proclaimed him Pope, with the name Anacletus II. Both claimants were consecrated on the same day, 23 February, Anacletus in St. Peter’s and Innocent in Sta. Maria Nuova. How this schism would have been healed, had the decision been left to the canonists, is hard to say. Anacletus had a strong title in law and fact. The majority of the cardinals with the Bishop of Porto, the Dean of the Sacred College, at their head, stood at his side. Almost the whole populous of Rome rallied around him. His victory seemed complete, when, shortly after, the Frangipani, abandoning what appeared to be a lost cause, went over to him. Innocent sought safety in flight. No sooner had he arrived in France than his affairs too a favorable turn. “Expelled from the City, he was welcomed by the world,” says St. Bernard, whose influence and exertions secured for him the adhesion of practically the entire Christian world. The Saint states his reasons for deciding in favor of Innocent in a letter to the Bishops of Aquitaine. They may not be canonically cogent; but then satisfied his contemporaries....In the spring of 1133, the German King conducted Innocent, whom two great synods, Reims and Piacenza, had proclaimed the legitimate Pope, to Rome; but as he came accompanied by only 2,000 horse[s], the Antipope, safe within the walls of Castle St. Angelo, looked on undismayed. Unable to open the way to St. Peter’s...upon the emperor’s departure Innocent was compelled to retire to Pisa, and for four years his rival remained in undisturbed possession of the Eternal City....When Anacletus died [1138], the preference of the Romans for Innocent was so pronounced that the Antipope, Victor IV, whom the party chose as its successor, soon came as a penitent to St. Bernard and by him was led to the feet of the Pope. Thus ended, after eight years of duration, a schism which threatened serious disaster to the Church.”

Felix V, aka Amadeus of Savoy (1439-1449): CE, vol. vi, p. 31: “(Amadeus of Savoy), Anti-pope (1440-1449)...The schismatic Council of Basel, having declared the rightful pope, Eugene IV, deposed, proceeded immediately with the election of an anti-pope....Amadeus had been in close relations with the schismatic Council of Basle; and was elected pope, 30 October, 1439, by the electoral college of that council, including one cardinal (d’Allemand of Arles), eleven bishops, seven abbots, five theologians, and nine canonists....He took the name Felix V, and was solemnly consecrated and crowned by the Cardinal d’Allemand, 24 July, 1440.”

Mr. Larson: My final point concerning this analysis of the above passage from Vatican I concerns the first line, which we shall quote again: “For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles.” This quotation is one of the mainstays in the literature of the SSPX, Sedevacantists, and other fellow-travelers who would like to make the Pope guilty of heresy and loss of faith. I have seen it parroted virtually everywhere in “traditionalist” polemics, but I have never seen it placed in the context of the whole passage which I have quoted above. Standing by itself it could, of course, be twisted (by the perverse, according to Vatican I) to mean that the Pope might attempt to make new doctrine, and thus be a heretic. But in the context of the entire passage, it can be clearly seen that this sentence means just the opposite The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter in order that they never would become heretics, never lose the faith.

R. Sungenis: All I can say is that mere assertions by Mr. Larson will not suffice in providing proof of his claims. If he thinks that the “context” of the above passage somehow dissuades us from what appears to be the clear meaning of the passage, then he is obligated to prove his case by a citation and analysis of the context. We have already seen that Mr. Larson’s key error is his refusal to make the proper distinctions between a person and the office the person holds. Unfortunately, this causes Mr. Larson to levy the most presumptuous and judgmental accusations against those who disagree with him (e.g., “twisted by the perverse”). To me, there is nothing more “perverse” than an overly-idealistic view of a man occupying the papal office.

Mr. Larson: We might note here that Mr. Sungenis wrote an article for the Remnant titled When a Pope Errors. In that article he quotes the first sentence of the passage mentioned above (and never, of course, quotes the rest), and says that “Unfortunately, criticisms and questions about John Paul II begin right here.”

R. Sungenis: At this point Mr. Larson is now inferring for his reader that I am dishonest, claiming that I deliberately quoted only part of a passage in order to deceive the reader. Again, I’ll be patient with Mr. Larson and attribute his veiled accusations to his enthusiasm. Until if and when Mr. Larson gives us proof from the context that the above quote is not what it appears to be, then I think the reader can infer that Mr. Larson’s case is ill-equipped to defend itself.

Mr. Larson: If that be true, then criticism and questions about John Paul II begin with a profound distortion of the teaching of Vatican I, and with a heresy.

R. Sungenis: I think it is clear by now that the only one distorting the teaching of Vatican I is Mr. Larson. Be that as it may, since Mr. Larson referred to my article, “When a Pope Errs,” I think the reader should see the context of the passage in which I quoted from the Dogmatic Constitution. In this way, the reader can see for himself why we are concerned about John Paul II:

“Unfortunately, criticisms and questions about John Paul II begin right here. If we contrast Vatican I’s statement against what John Paul II has said about Vatican II, we begin to see the potential problems in his pontificate. For example, in the 1988 document Ecclesia Dei, John Paul II signed-off on the statement in section 5 which declares that Vatican II might contain new points of doctrine. It states:

Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the council’s continuity with tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the church (emphasis mine).

“Although John Paul II seems to escape censure by saying that Vatican II “perhaps” contained something new, or that he is only concerned with “points of doctrine” rather than “doctrine,” nevertheless, the mere suggestion that Vatican II taught something “new” in regard to doctrine (as opposed, for example, to teaching something new in regards to mere pastoral issues which would certainly be allowable), seems to contradict the very declaration of Vatican I against such possibilities. When one says “points of doctrine” it is normally understood as specific statements about doctrine, and certainly nothing outside of doctrine. Logic dictates that, if they are “new,” then they were not taught before. If they were not taught before, then they were not part of Tradition. It they are not part of Tradition, then they have the potential of being erroneous. Moreover, since “points” is used in the plural, it means that John Paul II interprets Vatican II as teaching a variety of “new” things. Whether his interpretation of Vatican II is correct or not is another issue, part of which will be addressed in this essay. Suffice it to say, however, John Paul’s statement in Ecclesia Dei is confusing and cause for concern as to what he really believes both about Vatican I’s decrees and the “continuity of tradition.”

“Moreover, when we consider the specific and ominous language of the Papal Oath, which solemnly warns the pope against propagating any new teaching, we shudder at the mere thought that John Paul II might interpret Vatican II as teaching new doctrine. The oath which each pope is required to take states:

“I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein; To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort; To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess; I swear to God Almighty and Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared. I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I. If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice. Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it ourselves or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.”

“Not only is this language rather foreboding against any pope who would dare change or introduce something new into Catholic teaching, the italicized portions show that it is certainly a possibility that the pope himself could indeed disobey the oath and thus introduce new teaching, otherwise there would be no reason for him to take the oath if he was immune from such transgressions. Hence, our thesis is proved at the outset – the very oath required of the pope indicates that it is possible for the pope to err, and indeed, on the very issues of the faith he chooses not to protect under the domain of infallibility. END

Now, consider the following statements from popes about other popes:

Pope Innocent III († 1216): “The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” (Sermo 4)

Pope Adrian VI († 1523), a pope of exceptional integrity, stated: “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).” (Quaestiones in IV Sent; NB: the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia states this work was published in 1512 from the notes of Pope Adrian’s student.)

Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognised the danger that a future pope would be an heretic and “teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith”, and he instructed, “do not follow him.” “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

Pope Adrian II († 872): “We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches (i.e., the patriarchs and bishops), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offence which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings”.

Now, I didn’t write these warnings, the popes did. If Mr. Larson has such high regard for the “person” of the pope, and thinks that person cannot err in whatever capacity Mr. Larson believes it to apply, then were these popes making an error when they said a pope, in his “person,” could err? Think about that one for a few minutes. It will have your head spinning. Think of the absurdities that are created if it is held that those popes were in error regarding whether a pope could be in error!

Again, the proper way to answer this question is by making the proper distinction between the “person” of the pope and the “office” of the pope. This is precisely why Vatican I laid down four very strict criteria regarding what is to be considered “infallible,” that is, without error of any kind. Unfortunately, Mr. Larson has trapped himself because he has failed to make the proper distinctions, and as a result, he makes the papacy look worse than it really is.

Mr. Larson: All this, of course, does not mean that there is not a lot of scandal in what Pope John Paul II has done. Nor does it mean that I or anyone else might not consider the Papacy of John Paul II to be the greatest chastisement ever visited by Christ upon His Church. It does mean that in our examination of these “scandals”, and the conclusions we draw therefrom, we must not in any way deny the doctrinal truths I have examined above. In this regard, I would recommend reading the chapter titled John Paul II and Assisi in my book as a means to understand how one of the most disturbing of these “scandals” can be seen to not violate these Church doctrines.

R. Sungenis: I glanced at Mr. Larson’s treatment of John Paul II and Assisi but I didn’t see anything noteworthy there. I will address his distinction between “natural liberty” and “moral liberty” later. Be that as it may, the above paragraph from Mr. Larson is very confusing. What right has Mr. Larson to claim that John Paul’s pontificate is “the greatest chastisement ever visited by Christ upon His Church”? Did Mr. Larson confer with John Paul II to obtain this thoroughly negative evaluation of his 25-year pontificate? I don’t think so. And I’m sure if Mr. Larson asked John Paul II what John Paul II thought of his 25-year papacy, John Paul II would be much more positive. In fact, just the other day John Paul II praised Cardinal Kasper for initiating Assisi-like programs for the Church! So what Mr. Larson regards as “the greatest chastisement,” John Paul II regards as his greatest achievement. Quite ironic, is it not, especially from a reviewer such as Mr. Larson who thinks that the person of the pope is so far above criticism? Unfortunately, these are the kinds of contortions into which John Paul II has put Catholic apologists. They find themselves having to reinvent the art of logic in order to even attempt a defense of the pope’s actions. How Mr. Larson can defend a pope who tells pagan religions to pray to their false gods for mundane blessings, and yet never say a word to these pagans, for 16 years, regarding their responsibility to forsake their false religions and convert to Christianity, is beyond the pale. God didn’t call Mr. Larson to defend such actions, He called him to condemn them, and to show people that John Paul II has disgraced the papacy with these actions, even though the papacy itself still survives and will remain inviolate. As I said above, we will see Pope Agatho and Pope Leo II say the same thing regarding disgrace of the papacy brought on by Pope Honorius, yet maintain that the papal office itself remains pure and error free.

Mr. Larson: I would also recommend reading my short chapter on Pope Honorius. And because of the serious errors to be found in Mr. Sungenis’s treatment of this subject I feel obliged to offer the following.

R. Sungenis: I am grateful to Mr. Larson for bringing up this matter, since it is high-time we cleared the air about Pope Honorius. Besides the statement I have quoted from our own popes regarding the errors certain popes have made (NB: non ex cathedra errors), I think we will be in for a few surprises regarding Pope Honorius I.

Mr. Larson: Pope Honorius I: The case of Pope Honorius is of importance to this discussion because he is the only Pope in the almost 2,000 year history of the Church who, it is falsely claimed, was legitimately condemned by the Church itself.

R. Sungenis: First of all, although Pope Honorius was not the only pope who erred in non ex cathedra statements (e.g., there was Liberius, Vigilius, Boniface IV, John XXII, et al), it only takes one instance of error to set the precedent for the rest of history, and not coincidentally, that is precisely how Pope Agatho and Pope Leo viewed the situation with Pope Honorius, that is, as a precedent-setting event.

Mr. Larson: After referring to my use of Vatican I’s statement, “knowing fully that this See of Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples’, Mr. Sungenis continues:

“The ironic thing about this statement is that it is precisely what Pope Agatho stated after he declared Pope Honorius a heretic! [we will see that this statement is a simple falsification of historical fact]....So how could Pope Agatho, on the one hand, condemn Honorius as a heretic, but on the other hand, say the See of Peter was preserved without error? Because Agatho separated Honorius’ non-infallible “personal” opinion from the infallible “office” of the papacy. Without that crucial distinction, there indeed would have been ‘error’ in the See of Peter”

It is important to realize what is going on here. Mr. Sungenis is not just trying to prove that some Pope at sometime made a mistake in judgment or taught something in a non-infallible manner which may have contained error (as in the instance of Pope John XXII). He wants it to be established the a Pope can really lose his faith, become a full-blown heretic, and thus once-and-for-all separate the office and its promises from the person of any reigning Pontiff. The stakes are high. As I said, this is the only case in almost 2,000 years where there is really any possibility of claiming that the Church condemned a Pope as a heretic. So let us look closer.

R. Sungenis: Mr. Larson has a unique way of exaggerating his opponent’s position.

Mr. Larson: Pope Agatho, contrary to what Mr. Sungenis says, did not condemn Honorius as a heretic. Pope Agatho (678-681) reigned during the period that the Third Council of Constantinople was in session. He wrote a letter to Emperor Constantine IV, and this letter was read aloud at the Council. The Pope condemned all the major promoters of the Monothelite heresy by name. But if one is looking for the name of Honorius, it is conspicuous by its absence. Mr. Sungenis quotes the passage from Pope Agatho’s letter containing the scriptural passage about the See of Peter remaining ever free from all blemish of error, but he does not quote the other passages in this letter which reveal the total lack of truth in his claim that Pope Agatho condemned Honorius for heresy. These passages follow.

“Let your tranquil Clemency [the Emperor] therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing….

In other words, Pope Agatho, instead of doing what Mr. Sungenis wants him to do, does just the opposite. If possible, he makes an even stronger case than Vatican I for the doctrine that the personal faith of his predecessors (and all Popes) is never-failing.

R. Sungenis: First of all, let me clarify my statement that Pope Agatho called Pope Honorius a heretic. Pope Agatho did not say it directly, but he did so indirectly, through his own letter, and through the Roman Council of 680 that his legates confirmed. Pope Leo was more direct, and I will cover him later.

While we are on Pope Agatho, the fact is, he made the same distinction I am making, that is, between the “person” of the pope and his infallible papal “office,” in order to defend the Catholic Church from the charge of formal heresy. Here is what Agatho writes:

“The heretics have followed some passing expressions imprudently set down by one Pope [Honorius], who made no appeal to papal authority, nor to tradition from St. Peter. Against this I put the repeated, the continuous protest of Pope after Pope, authoritative, grave, deliberate. Their voice was intended to be, and was, the voice of the infallible Roman Church.” (Mansi, xi, 285).

I think this statement says everything I have said above, in a nutshell. Notice first that Agatho admits (by his reference to “imprudently set down by one Pope”) that Honorius put to writing the erroneous statement that Christ had “one will.” As I noted earlier, this erroneous statement was included in a letter that Pope Honourius wrote to Sergius, and it is recorded in Denzinger 251.

To explain this erroneous statement, Pope Agatho does not give unbridled immunity from error to Pope Honorius himself (as Mr. Larson does), rather, Agatho says Honorius “made no appeal to papal authority”! In other words, Agatho explains for us that Honorius separated his “person” from the papal “office” when he wrote the letter to Sergius. He wrote a private letter to Sergius, and according to Agatho, this does not qualify as “papal authority,” since Honorius did not claim such authority when writing it. Now, this explanation of Honorius comes directly from one of our popes, speaking authoritatively in his papal office, as to how we should understand the issue, and it is quite clear that Agatho’s explanation runs counter to Mr. Larson’s explanation. In fact, I don’t know of one pope or council who has ever argued the way Mr. Larson is arguing this case, that is, by making no distinction between the “person” and the “office.”

At the request of the Emperor, Pope Agatho called a council for this matter. This was the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which took place on Novermber 7, 680. It was here that Agatho’s long letter (an excerpt quoted above) was read to the Council. Agatho sent two papal legates to the council, representing himself. At the twelfth session, Honorius’ written correspondence with Sergius is brought up for the first time. The council then drafts a response to these erroneous letters, stating:

“…those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names shall also be cast out of the holy Church of God, that is, Sergius, who was prelate of this God-protected royal city, and was the first to write about this impious dogma, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who presided on the throne of this God-protected city, and who held the same views as the others, and also Theodore, who was Bishop of Pharan; all which persons were mentioned by Agatho, the most holy and blessed Pope of elder Rome, in his letter to the most pious and divinely strengthened and great Emperor, and were cast out by him, as holding view contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema. And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things and confirmed his wicked dogmas.”

Obviously, this is only fair. To have condemned Sergius and to have spared Honorius would have been grossly unfair. If Sergius began the heresy, Honorius continued it by his written approval.

As such, Agatho’s papal legates raise no objections to the Roman Council. In fact, as its presidents, the legates must have proposed the condemnation of Honorius to the council, and the legates must have known that Agatho would not have disapproved, since they do only the pope’s bidding. As such, the council ordered Honorius’ letters to Sergius to be burned, since they were “agreeing in one impiety and hurtful to the soul.”

As it stands, the council agreed with all that Agatho wrote, and Agatho agreed with the council through his papal legates. This is no discord or discrepancy between pope and council regarding Honorius.

In the final decree of the council on Sept. 16, 681, it begins by accepting the five general councils and the creeds of Nicea and Constantinople, and it condemns the “one will” heretics, including Honorius, saying: “But the devil raised up Theodore…Sergius, Phrrhus, Paul and Peter…and also Honorius, who was Pope of Elder Rome…to teach one will and operation after the fashion of the impious Apollinarians, Servians and Themistians.” It then adds:

“And this holy an ecumenical Synod, faithfully and with uplifted hands greeting the letter of the most holy and blessed Poe of Elder Rome, Agatho, to our most faithful Emperor Constantine, which casts out by name those who have preached and taught, as we have said, one will or one operation in the dispensation of the Incarnation of Christ, our true God…” (Mansi xi, 632).

The decree was signed by the whole Council, first by the two papal legates, and last by the Emperor. At the moment of his signing, anathema was again proclaimed against all the heretics, including Honorius.

After this, the council addresses the Emperor, citing Pope Agatho:

“Therefore, in accordance with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and in agreement with one another, and assenting to the letter of our most blessed Father and most high Pope Agatho, addressed to your Majesty, and also to that of his holy synod of 125 bishops…And lest anyone should reprehend the divine zeal of the all-holy Pope or the present angelic assemblage, we have followed his teaching and he the Apostolic and Patristic tradition…with us fought the Prince of the Apostles (Greek: ho koruphaiotatos protapostalos) for to assist us we had his imitator and the successor to his chair, who exhibited to us the mystery of theology in his letter.”

And thus, when signed by Agatho’s papal legates, the victory over Honorius and the eastern bishops is attributed to Pope Agatho.

The council then addresses a letter to Pope Agatho:

“The greatest diseases demand the greatest remedies, as you know, most blessed one. Wherefore, Christ, our true God, has revealed you Holiness as a wise physician, mightily driving away the disease of heresy by the medicine of orthodoxy, and bestowing health on the members of the Church. We therefore leave to you what is to be done, since you occupy the first see of the universal Church and stand on the firm rock of faith, after we have dwelt with pleasure upon the writings of the true confession from you paternal blessedness to the most pious King, which also we recognize as pronounced by the chiefest head of the Apostles, and by which we have put to flight the dangerous opinion of the heresy which lately arose…according to the previous condemnation pronounced on them in your holy letters – we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter, and besides these…Macarius…Stephen…and Polychronius.”

Notice that Honorius is numbered among those whom the pope had already condemned, though in the original condemnation he had been rightly set down as an addition made by the Council.

The Emperor then wrote an edict putting the decrees of the council into effect. Here the Emperor makes an official declaration of the inerrancy of Rome:

“These are the teachings of the voices of the Gospels and Apostles, these the doctrines of the holy synods, and of the elect and patristic tongues; these have been preserved untainted by Peter, the rock of the faith, the head of the Apostles; in this faith we live and reign…”

Thus, even the Emperor recognizes the vital role that Agatho played in condemning Honorius.

This is confirmed in a letter that the Emperor himself wrote to Pope Leo, since Agatho had died soon after the end of the council in January 682. The Emperor recounts how he had invited the Pope to send representatives to a council. One paragraph of the Emperor’s letter states:

“The letter of Pope Agatho…we ordered it to be read in the hearing of all, and we beheld in it as in a mirror the image of sound and unsullied faith. We compared it with the voices of the Gospels and of the Apostles, and set beside it the decisions and definitions of the holy ecumenical synods, and compared the quotations it contained with the precepts of the Fathers, and finding nothing our of harmony, we perceived in it the word of the true confession of Peter unaltered…We all received it willingly and sincerely, and embraced it, as though it were Peter himself. Marcarius alone, who was prelate of Antioch, with those whom he dragged after him, divided from us, and drew back from the yoke of Christ, and leapt out of the sacerdotal circle; for he refused altogether to agree to the all-holy writings of Agatho, as though he were even raging against the corypheus Peter himself…Glory be to God, who does wondrous thing, who has kept safe the faith among you unharmed. For how should He not do so in that rock on which He founded His church, and prophesied that the gates of hell, all the ambushes of heretics, should not prevail against it…” (Mansi, xi, 713).

The Emperor then addressed a letter to the Roman Council who condemned Honorius:

“You yourselves were present with your ecumenical chief pastor (Greek: to oikoumeniko archipemeno), speaking with him in spirit and in writing. For we received, besides the letter from his blessedness [Agatho], also one from your sanctity…We did not neglect to compare them with care. And, therefore, in harmony of mind and tongue we believed with the one and confessed with the other, and we admired the writing of Agatho as the voice of divine Peter, for nobody disagreed, save one.” (Mansi, xi, 721).

As we can see, there is complete collaboration between the pope, the emperor and the council. All are in agreement about Agatho’s infallible decree, and all are in agreement that Honorius’ name is added to those condemned for the heresy.

Mr. Larson: Pope Honorius (625-638) was, of course, the predecessor of Pope Agatho (678-681). It is obvious, therefore, that Pope Agatho’s statement concerning the never-failing faith of his predecessors refers also to Pope Honorius. This reference becomes even more specific in a subsequent passage:

“Wherefore the predecessors of Apostolic memory of my littleness, learned in the doctrine of the Lord, ever since the prelates of the Church of Constantinople have been trying to introduce into the immaculate Church of Christ an heretical innovation, have never cease to exhort and warn them with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma, lest they make the beginning of a split in the unity of the Church, by asserting one will, and one operation of the two natures in the one Jesus Christ our Lord….”

Anyone with knowledge of these events immediately recognizes that the phrase “at least by silence” refers to only one man: Pope Honorius, who ordered silence upon the contesting parties in Constantinople and elsewhere. Therefore, even though he does not mention him by name, the famous letter of Pope Agatho gives clear testimony of the never-failing faith of all his predecessors, and contains a specific reference to the orthodoxy of Honorius.

R. Sungenis: I think I know why this is the only paragraph from Agatho’s letter that Mr. Larson quotes, for it is the only possible excuse he can find in his attempt to exonerate Honorius. Despite Mr. Larson’s efforts here, still, Agatho does not mention Honorius by name, and thus there is no proof that Agatho is even attempting an exoneration. Obviously, if Agatho had intended on apologizing for Honorius, he would have done so directly and candidly. Nevertheless, although it is true that, at one point Honorius recommended silence in regard to the issue of “two wills,” still, Honorius did not remain silent but wrote his letter to Sergius with the words: “Hence, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ,” which is a heresy.

It is important to note that, in his letter to Sergius, although Honorius praises Sergius for his insight in disapproving the expression “one operation,” unfortunately, he goes on to sanction the phrase “one will” because “our Lord Jesus Christ also, because surely our nature, not our guilt was assumed by the Godhead…For Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit without sin…” Hence, the reason Honorius gives for using “one will” is that Christ has a human will, only not an additional corrupt lower human will, which he wrote to Sergius. Sergius had maintained that if there were “two operations” there would be two contrary wills. Honorius replies that to teach “one operation” is a Eutychian heresy, but to teach “two wills” is a Nestorian heresy, and thus advises that both phrases are to be avoided. Obviously, then, Honorius is as much in the dark of the true understanding as Sergius. This, however, does not harm the doctrine of papal infallibility, since, as Agatho himself stated, Honorius “made no appeal to papal authority, nor to tradition from St. Peter.” At most Honorius could be condemned as a private heretic, just like Sergius and the rest of the eastern bishops.

Mr. Larson: We next come to the Third Council of Constantinople. Before looking at the complexities of this case concerning Pope Honorius, it would be good to summarize the outcome. The bishops at the Council went directly against the decisions of two previous Popes (Agatho and John IV – more on his letter concerning Honorius in a moment), and declared Honorius a heretic. When it came time for the ratification of the Council documents, Pope Agatho had died.

R. Sungenis: As we have seen, the Council did no such thing. That Mr. Larson would have to stoop to defending John Paul II by putting Pope Agatho at odds with his own council shows the desperation in his apologetic. There is simply no evidence that the council acted against the wishes of Agatho. The facts, as I have documented from Mansi’s Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, show that Pope Agatho, the Emperor, and the Council were all in agreement over the fate of Honorius, each party writing letters to the other, which included the names of the Emperor and Pope Agatho. We further saw that Pope Agatho sent his two papal legates to the council and, acting as its leaders, included the name of Honorius in the condemnation.

Mr. Larson: Pope Leo II, his immediate successor, ratified the proceedings of the Council only after deleting these charges of heresy.

R. Sungenis: “Deleted these charges of heresy”?? So now Mr. Larson wants to set Pope Agatho against Pope Leo, and Pope Leo against the sixth council, the Emperor, and the papal legates to prove his case! Ironically, Mr. Larson has to destroy the truth and credibility of two papacies and a council in order to save John Paul II from criticism. In any case, let’s see if Pope Leo II really DID what Mr. Larson is claiming. Here are Leo II’s words:

“And in like manner 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.”

First, notice that Leo II has no qualms about adding Honorius’ name to the list of trespassers in this affair. This is significant because Mr. Larson claimed that because Pope Agatho DID Not mention Honorius by name, then this means that he was not condemning Honorius (this is aside from the fact that Mr. Larson does not mention that Pope Agatho refers to Honorius as “…one Pope who made no appeal to papal authority, nor to the tradition from St. Peter”). Here Leo II specifically mentions Honorius by name, as did the sixth council of 681 in the presence and formulation of Agatho’s papal legates.

Second, do the words “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” sound like Leo II is, as Mr. Larson claims, “deleting the charges of heresy”? If anything is true it is that Leo II, already fully aware of the heretical statement Honorius believed, approved and wrote, has concluded these actions not as some accidental or misinformed venture, but as a “profane treachery.” The phrase “by profane treachery permitted” is in the active voice, not the passive. That is, it is not to be gleaned from Leo II’s remarks that Honorius stood idly by, but that he took an active part in propagating the error (although, as Agatho said, he did it as a private citizen, not as one assuming his “papal authority”).

As it stands, Leo II’s condemnation of Honorius is even stronger than the council’s. Leo adds that Honorius did not disseminate the apostolic doctrine of the Holy See, and this to Leo is a disgrace to the Church of Rome, since its “purity is polluted.” Not even the Sixth Council or the eastern bishops made such accusations against Honorius, only the pope of Rome, Leo II, realized the full implications of Honorius’ error.

That later councils followed the lead of Leo II is seen in the fact that the Trullo council, and the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils mentioned Honorius by name and pronounced anathemas upon him. Not only this, but the oath taken by every newly elected pope stated the following: “Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions” (Liberdiurnus, II, 9). In addition, Honorius was mentioned as a heretic in the lessons of the Roman Breviary for June 28, the feast, no less, of Pope St. Leo II, and was thus recited until the eighteenth century, (when Honorius’ name was removed since it might cause misunderstanding).

Mr. Larson: What was the reason the Church Fathers at Constantinople illicitly tried to condemn Honorius? For over 300 years the Church had been ravaged by every possible heresy concerning the two Natures of Christ and their unity in One Divine Person.

R. Sungenis: As I have documented very carefully, the Church Fathers at Constantinople never had a thought of illicitly condemning Honorius. I’m afraid that Mr. Larson has engaged in an egregious attempt at revisionist history. Either that, or he simply isn’t aware of all the facts

Mr. Larson: According to the historian Warren Carroll, in the year 634 Pope Honorius, who had never heard of Monothelitism (this thing was relatively new) received an “artfully worded” letter from Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople.

R. Sungenis: No, that is not true either. According to Pope Leo II, Honorius did indeed know of Monothelitism, which is why Leo II said in his condemnation of Honorius: “Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition…” How could Pope Leo II accuse Honorius of not abiding by the tradition if Honorius, as Mr. Larson claims, did not really know the tradition? Moreover, there was no “artfully worded” letter from Sergius, rather, Sergius and Honorius exchanged letters on the issue, and both agreed on the “one will” formula. We already saw that Honorius accepted the “one will” formula because of his mistaken notion of Christ’s human will, and that he wrote to Sergius that if one were to accept “two wills” this would be akin to Nestorianism.

Mr. Larson: The story is complicated, but the substance of Sergius’ letter consisted in his contention that the Church was in danger of disunity and heresy from those who claimed that there were two operations in Christ which implied the existence in Christ of two opposed wills. In other words, Sergius claimed to want to protect the Church from heresies which claimed that there was not really one Divine Person in Christ, and that the “will of the flesh” and the will of God could be contrary one to another in Christ. Pope Honorius misunderstood the situation and wrote the following (taken from Denzinger 251):

“Confessing that the Lord Jesus Christ, the mediator of God and of men [1Tim 2:5] has performed divine (works) through the medium of the humanity naturally [gr. hypostatically] united to the Word of God, and that the same one performed human works, because flesh had been assumed ineffably and particularly by the full divinity {gr. in –] distinctly, unconfusedly, and unchangeably…so that truly it may be recognized that by a wonderful design [passible flesh] is united [to the Godhead] while the differences of both natures marvelously remain….Hence, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ also, because surely our nature, not our guilt was assumed by the Godhead, that certainly, which was created before sin, not that which was vitiated after the transgression. For Christ…was conceived of the Holy Spirit without sin, and was also born of the holy and immaculate Virgin Mother of God without sin, experiencing no contagion of our vitiated nature….For there was no other law in His members, or a will different from or contrary to the Savior….”

It is obvious from the above that Pope Honorius was fully orthodox in professing the existence and union of two Natures in Christ, both Natures being “distinctly, unconfusedly, and unchangeable” united in the hypostatic union, and both Natures remaining after this union. It is equally obvious, therefore, that Honorius accepted the existence of a human will in Christ. What Honorius was persuaded that he must do was to assert that there was not in Christ any law or will “contrary to the Saviour” (contrary to the Divine Will), and he therefore spoke of the will as being “one” is the same sense that we even today speak of two persons having the same will, or of a specific person not having a divided will. Pope Honorius and the Monothelites were speaking of two very different things when they embraced the concepts of “one will.” Honorius was simply reiterating Our Lord’s testimony concerning himself that “I always do the Father’s will,” whereas, the Monothelites were denying in Christ the existence of a fully human nature.

R. Sungenis: This is just another attempt at revisionist history. There is not one word from Agatho, the Emperor, the Sixth, Seventh, or Eight ecumenical councils, or Pope Leo II, or the Liberdiurnus or the Breviery that Honorius was “simply reiterating Our Lord’s testimony concerning himself that “I always do the Father’s will,” unless, of course, Mr. Larson wants to equate “I always do the Father’s will” with Pope Leo II’s condemnation: “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.”

Mr. Larson: Pope Honorius was persuaded by Sergius (remember he was quite ignorant of this new heresy and the machinations of its proponents), therefore, to enjoin silence concerning either the existence or non-existence of either one or two “operations” in Christ. It is this “silence” which Pope Agatho refers to in his Letter to the Emperor, and it is to Pope Honorius who enjoined this “silence” that Pope Agatho attributes the never-failing faith of Peter.

R. Sungenis: Not really. What we saw in the documentation was that the “silence” Agatho mentions does not specify Honorius, especially since Agatho, when using the word “silence,” is speaking in the plural of all his previous “predecessors.” And even if “silence” is some veiled allusion to Honorius, still, Agatho later admitted to Honorius’ error, but then disavowed the papacy of responsibility since, as he stated, Honorius “made no appeal to papal authority.” How could Agatho NOT think Honorius had erred if he was so willing to separate Honorius from “papal authority”? We also saw that Honorius exchanged letters with Sergius, and approved of Sergius’ formula, in writing, based on Honorius’ erroneous understanding of the “one will” formula.

Mr. Larson: But it not only Pope Agatho who exonerated Honorius. Two years after the death of Honorius, Pope John IV came to the throne of Peter. In 641 he wrote an epistle (Denzinger 253) titled Dominus qui dixit (The Meaning of the Words of HONORIUS about the Two Wills) to the Emperor Constantius:

“Thus in the dispensation of His sacred flesh, He (Christ) never had two contrary wills, nor did the will of His flesh resist the will of His mind….Therefore, knowing that there was no sin at all in Him when He was born and lived, we fittingly say and truthfully confess one will in the humanity of His sacred dispensation; and we do not preach two contrary wills, of mind and of flesh, as in a pure man, in the manner certain heretics are known to rave. In accord with this method, then, our predecessor (already mentioned) [Honorius] is known to have written to the (aforementioned) Sergius the Patriarch who was asking questions, that in our Savior two contrary wills did not exist internally, that is, in His members, since He derived no blemish from the transgression of the first man….This usually happens, that, naturally where there is a wound, there medicinal aid offers itself. For the blessed Apostle is known to have done this often, preparing himself according to the custom of his hearers; and sometimes indeed when teaching about the supreme nature, he is completely silent about the human nature, but sometimes when treating of the human dispensation, he does not touch on the mystery of His divinity…So, my aforementioned predecessor said concerning the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, that there were not in Him, as in us sinners, contrary wills of mind and flesh; and certain ones converting this to their own meaning, suspected that He taught one will of His divinity and humanity which is altogether contrary to the truth.”

So, in other words, we have a second Pope (John IV) who personally exonerated Honorius from any heresy. And he did so within two years of Honorius’ death.

R. Sungenis: As we have seen, Agatho did not exonerate Honorius. The only clear reference to Honorius is when Agatho referred to him as “one Pope who made no appeal to papal authority.” If Mr. Larson wants to call Agatho’s separation of Honorius from papal authority an “exoneration,” he can do so, and I will oblige him, but then he is going to have a problem with his thesis that there is no distinction between the person of Honorius and his papal authority.

As for John IV, first of all, he came before Agatho, the 6-8 ecumenical councils and Leo II, who laid down the definitive judgments against Honorius. Obviously, he did not have the last word, otherwise, Agatho and Leo would have deferred to his judgment.

Second, John IV attempts to make the argument (above) that Sergius and Honorius merely used the expression “one will” because they would not admit to “contrary wills.” But this only sets up the evidence for the future conviction of Honorius by Leo II, since John IV has inadvertently admitted that, not only did Honorius admit to the “one will” as opposed to the “two wills” formula, but that Honorius AND Sergius had the SAME INTENTION in promoting the “one will” formula!

So if Sergius was declared a heretic for that formula and reasoning, why not Honorius? John IV doesn’t explain, and that is why he is NOT the last word on the subject. The last word will not come until Leo II, and we already saw that he did not have kind words for Honorius, rather, he gave him one of the worst posthumous condemnations ever levied against a pope.

Mr. Larson: We are left, finally, with the Council and the actions of Pope Leo II.
The Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinope did in fact condemn Honorius with the following words:

“And along with them [the condemned heretics, who were listed by name], it is our unanimous decree that there shall be expelled from the Church and anathematized Honorius, formerly Pope of Old Rome, because we find in his letter to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.”

We must make three points concerning this declaration. First, the declarations of a Council do not take effect unless they are ratified by the reigning Pope. We shall address this point in a moment. Second, the Council chose to ignore the clear teachings of two preceding Popes (John IV and Agatho) who had exonerated Honorious of any charge of doctrinal error, and instead declared just the opposite.

R. Sungenis: Again, the Council did no such thing. We already saw that Agatho, the Emperor and the Council were in complete agreement in their exchange of letters with one another. We saw Agatho acknowledge Honorius’ error by saying that Honorius “did not appeal to papal authority” when he wrote his “imprudent statement.” We also saw that John IV inadvertently gave a more damning statement about Honorius than he did an exonerating one. Moreover, John IV never mentioned the fact that Honorius had also prohibited the use of both “one operation” and “two operations,” which, ironically, was the very belief for which Pope St. Martin laid down his life. In addition, we also know that John IV was not the author of the above words concerning Honorius (in Denz. 253). The writer was John Symponus.

Mr. Larson: Third, the First Vatican Council emphatically declared: “Wherefore they err from the right path of truth who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman pontiff.” In other words, an ecumenical council has no power to judge any Pope.

R. Sungenis: True enough, but it has already been shown that the Sixth Council was in complete agreement with Agatho and the Emperor regarding the condemnation of Honorius. Agatho’s own papal legates saw to it that Honorius’ name was mentioned in the condemnation. We saw that Leo II confirmed the decision of the Sixth Council when he added to it that Honorius “did not attempt to sanctify this apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by a profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

Mr. Larson: Finally, we must look at the actions of Pope Leo II. According to the historian Warren Carroll:

“Everything we know and can conclude about the thought and actions of Pope St. Leo II regarding the decrees of the Sixth Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 680 and 681 must be drawn from his five extant letters, all relating to this subject: one to Emperor Constantine IV and four to Spain – to its King Erwig, to its bishops collectively, to the Spanish bishop Quiricus, and to the Spanish Count Simplicius. The letters to the Emperor, to the king, and to all the Spanish bishops contain clear statements that Pope Leo has confirmed the final decree of the Council, while at the same time redefining its language on Pope Honorius to make it conform to the fact, evident from a careful reading of Honorius’ letter to Sergius, that he had not endorsed Sergius’ Monothelite ideas, but only refrained from condemning them. Writing to the Emperor, almost certainly composing the letter himself in the Emperor’s own language, Greek, pope Leo II wrote that Pope Honorius was condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” Writing in Latin to the Spanish bishops, he declared that Honorius was condemned for not at once extinguishing the flames of heresy, but rather fanning them in negligence. To King Erwig he wrote that Honorius was condemned for negligence in not denouncing the heresy, and for using an expression which the heretics were able to employ to advance their cause, thereby allowing the Faith to be stained.”

Mr. Carroll’s conclusion runs as follows:

“Pope Honorius, therefore, was never condemned for heresy by the supreme Church authority, but only for negligence allowing a heresy to spread and grow, when he should have denounced it; for this is all Pope Leo II ever said in announcing the confirmation of the acts of the council and explaining to the bishops of the Western church and the Catholic kings of the West the meaning of what he had confirmed.”

R. Sungenis: We already saw that the Sixth Council condemned Honorius and all the Eastern bishops and affiliates who had anything to do with the “one will” heresy. We saw Leo II affirming this council and adding even more stinging words to the condemnation. In no place does Leo II distance himself or disavow himself from the decisions of the Sixth Council. Dr. Carroll’s treatment of this issue is simply not looking at all the facts, but is trying some way of excusing Honorius for his doctrinal error. If Dr. Carroll and Mr. Larson would only take Agatho’s advice and understand that, since Honorius “did not appeal to papal authority, nor to tradition from St. Peter,” then there is no transgression on the office of the papacy and its infallibility. But as it happens, if your apologetic is wrong in a basic premise, then it is going to be wrong in its subsequent premises and ultimately in its conclusion.

Mr. Larson: This is, of course, not the only time in the history of the Catholic Church that a Pope has been moved by the Holy Spirit to amend the rash actions of a Universal Council (The Council of Constance in the 15th Century provides a fascinating example).

R. Sungenis: Mr. Larson is so convinced of his contrived position that he now speaks of Leo II as “amending” the decisions of the council. The facts are, however, that Leo’s “amendment” only reinforces precisely what Agatho and the Council declared against Honorius. If Leo had any intention of exonerating Honorius, he would have stated something to the effect of, “I do hereby amend the decisions of the Sixth Ecumenical council, to lessen the charges against Honorius.” But no such statement is ever made. Leo never retracts the anathema placed on Honorius, and never exonerates him of error. In fact, not only does Leo endorse the council’s decisions, but he adds his own condemnation, showing precisely the damage that Honorius had done to the Holy See, which is a dimension not covered by the Sixth Council. Hence, the reason for the addition statement is to show the utter seriousness of the error of Honorius.

Mr. Larson: Those who appeal to this Council’s words without taking into considerations the amendments of Pope Leo II are simply falling under the judgment of the doctrinal teaching of Vatican I (worth repeating again): “Wherefore they err from the right path of truth who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman pontiff.”

Even more harsh than this teaching of Vatican I is the excommunication and condemnation promulgated by Pope Benedict XIV: “We likewise excommunicate and anathematize each and every one, of whatever state, grade, or condition he may be, We place under interdict the universities, colleges, and chapters, by whatever name they are constituted, who appeal from Our ordinance or instructions, or those of the Roman Pontiffs then existing, to a future Universal Council, as well as those who would assist, counsel, or favor this appeal (Pastoralis Romani Pontificis, March 30, 1741).”

R. Sungenis: Mr. Larson never ceases to anathematize those who have an opposite view than he. The irony is that Mr. Larson has clearly shown he has not considered all the facts, and has made some rash and biased judgments regarding the little evidence that he does possess.

Mr. Larson: Contrary to what Mr. Sungenis has written, therefore, we have in the case of Pope Honorius a marvelous historical confirmation of two truths taught by Vatican Council I: that no Pope can lose his faith and become a heretic; and that no ecumenical council has the power or right to judge a Pope, or any of his decisions or writings.

Conclusion

In his critique of my chapter on Vatican I and the Papal Primacy Mr. Sungenis has therefore embraced at least two errors (denying that Christ conferred the “power of the keys” on the person of Peter; and denial of the never-failing faith of all Popes). and defamed one Pope (Honorius). And all this in order to somehow “get at” the Papacy and establish a false distinction between the office and the person who occupies that office. Such actions of course beg an answer as to why? Why should any Catholic who claims to be “traditional” feel the necessity to deny the nature of this gift from Christ? There can be only one answer: the “felt” need, and even desperation, to have an escape-hatch from the obligation to submit to the Pope in his divinely-instituted prerogatives.
These errors constitute a very rapidly growing phenomenon within what is commonly called the “traditionalist movement.” I believe, in fact, that a great number of “traditionalists” are on the cusp of Sedevacantism. They are tremendously scandalized by the things that Pope John Paul II has done. Their frustration is at a breaking point, and possibly the only thing that keeps them from “making the break” is the perception that the Pope is dying. If a new Pope of the same “orientation” ascends to the Papacy, I would suspect that there would be a large exodus into Sedevacantism.
As for me, I hold onto the clear doctrines of the Church. When I converted to the Catholic Church I soon became aware of all the “scandals” of which Mr. Sungenis and others write. I prayed to understand, and I believe that prayer was answered. I saw first that the Church was to duplicate, in a sense, the Passion of Our Lord. That it would be covered with blood, sweat, spittle and dirt, which would lead virtually all men to say that they saw no “comeliness” in the Church of God. I saw that the “center” of Catholic belief and practice for most people “would not hold.” I came to understand that part of this “chastisement” would be that Satan would come just as close as possible to prevailing against the Church and Christ’s Kingdom, and that “because iniquity hath prevailed, the charity of many shall grow cold.” And finally, I saw that in the depths of all this chaos and confusion resides not only the “mystery of iniquity”, but also the mystery of Christ’s providential love which works in the midst of all this evil in the world.
I have also come to understand that these two “mysteries” come to meet and do battle in the human will. This is why Pope Leo XIII, in his great Encyclical on Human Liberty speaks of two forms of human liberty: natural liberty and moral liberty. He writes, in fact, that Libertas Humanae does not deal with natural liberty, but rather with moral liberty. That is why his encyclical emphasizes the teachings which it does. It is a document which inculcates the Church’s teaching on the Kingship of Christ over human freedom .
Dignitatis Humanae, on the other hand, is a council document which explores the Church’s teaching on natural liberty, the possession and exercise of which is integral to human nature and dignity. The problem, of course, is that because of original sin there is always a tension (oftentimes terrible) between these two freedoms. On the one hand, natural freedom is necessary in order to come to the truth, but it can be profoundly abused. On the other hand, those things necessary to moral and true spiritual freedom define what makes natural freedom truly free (“know the truth, and the truth shall make you free); but the imposition of this truth and freedom from “above” has definite bounds because of God’s respect for the integrity of the natural freedom of man who is created in the image of God.
When we look at such things as the history of the Papacy and the Church, the history of dogma, the writings of different Church Fathers, and the actions of temporal sovereigns, we can see many variations in the degrees to which these two freedoms are emphasized or de-emphasized. There is no question but what the policies and teachings of Pope John Paul II lie at the extreme of emphasizing human natural freedom. As I pointed out in my chapter on Pope John Paul II and Assisi, the Pope actually attempts to unite and identify these two extremes in order to further the Kingdom of Christ through the fostering of the full use of natural human liberty. He believes, in other words, that the Reign of Christ will come about through fostering and dialoging with all that is profoundly human in man. In his explanation (as presented in my book) of what he was precisely intending to do at Assisi, the Pope in fact speaks of the “seed of the Word”, present in all human freedom, cultures, and religions, awaiting fulfillment in Christ. It is precisely in order to foster the progression of these seeds to full-flowering in Christ that John Paul II has continued to “throw open” the doors of the Church and has also continued to make all the scary ecumenical gestures and statements which have become so characteristic of his papacy.. We may see this as naïve, dangerous, and believe that such an approach ends up by encouraging the growth of all that is opposed to Christ. We cannot say, however, that it is heresy or constitutes a loss of faith.
I believe, in fact, that the Papacy of John Paul II may be the greatest chastisement ever visited by Christ upon His Church. This is so because it amounts to administration of the Church by Christ in such a manner as to take away virtually all of the restraints imposed on human freedom through the exterior imposition of the Kingship of Christ. The corollary to this chastisement is the handing over of the Church and the whole world to its natural freedom in order to reduce us to that point of self-induced confusion which will bring us to our knees. Anyone who has studied the Old Testament can recognize this cycle of chastisement and blessing visited by God upon the Jews.
In the midst of all this Passion of the Church, I feel more and more that I am called to silence and prayer. Psalm 21:14 comes constantly to my mind: “My heart is become like wax melting in the midst of my bowels.” The heart, in scriptural usage, is the seat of true spiritual understanding. In the time of Passion, this understanding, as it were, melts into the bowels – the region of the human soul where only simple “gut” choice remains. In this place, I choose not to go the way of Robert Sungenis

In Christ, Jim

R. Sungenis: I could use the same pious language in describing my intentions, but I will not engage in such descriptions to convince anyone. Mr. Larson does not need to wear his heart on his sleeve for me to see his devotion and enthusiasm for the Catholic Church and the papacy. We all “pray” and “read Scripture” and keep our wills open to the Holy Spirit. This is not a contest of who is more holy and thus more worthy to know the truth. These are very difficult things we are discussing. Unfortunately, God does not give us a voice from heaven saying “No, here is the right way to look at it” or “No, you’re on the wrong track.” We are all in this together, and we have to struggle to know the truth, and that is the way God wants it, in His wisdom.

Contrary to what Mr. Larson stated, we are not here to “get at” the papacy. We, that is, those of a traditionalist persuasion, are just up to our necks in putting up with the abominations that have occurred in this pontificate, with no end in sight. Mr. Larson himself acknowledges these “scandals,” as he puts it, but has somehow convinced himself that John Paul II is off the hook for allowing them because, as he claims, this is a “chastisement” from God. It may, indeed, be a chastisement, and, in fact, I proposed that very thing in my CFN article last year titled “Was God Behind The Ambiguities of Vatican II?” But whether it gets John Paul II off the hook is another question altogether. At the least, Mr. Larson should acknowledge that the person at the top must take full responsibility for the condition of the Church.

The problem is, that for most of his pontificate John Paul II has thought the Church is in fine shape, and only within the last year has he started to realize that it may not be the bed of roses he thought it was, and the first indication came when he finally realized his own lack of discipline in the Church. When the only man he excommunicated (Lefebvre) is the very man who tried to uphold the traditions of the Church, while at the same time John Paul II allowed almost every heretic in the world to run rampant with hardly a slap on the wrist, then it is obvious to me that the “chastisement” is for John Paul II.

Lastly, Mr. Larson’s attempt to defend the Assisi gatherings I find just another case of watching a Catholic apologist make a fool out of himself defending something that simply can’t be defended. All this talk about “natural liberty” and “moral liberty” is not going to settle the issue. The bottom line is that, for the first time in history, a pope of the Catholic Church has invited pagans to pray to their false gods for mundane blessings, and, as a further indication of his design, has failed, or refused, to tell these same pagans, for the sixteen years from 1986-2002, of their responsibility to forsake these gods and convert themselves to Christianity for the saving of their souls.

Presently, these pagans are all quite happy back in their homelands practicing their false religions, and will continue to do so, since John Paul II sanctioned such false worship when he invited them to Assisi. It is quite apparent, even in John Paul II’s commendation to Cardinal Kasper just a few days ago, that he is much more interested in promoting peace on earth than he is of providing the world with the peace of heaven through salvation in Jesus Christ. It is absolutely amazing that, the one man who is supposed to be the Church’s best model of evangelism, has only mentioned the name of Jesus Christ once to these pagans in 16 years, and that was only a small reference to Christ’s divinity, but nothing about Christ’s desire to save the souls of those poor pagans from the pains of hell. How is that possible, Mr. Larson, when every other pope, saint, doctor, Father and council gave its top priority to the saving of souls for eternity, but here we have a pope who, by the itinerary of his own public schedule, seems to put the salvation of souls on the low list of priorities?

And the proof is in the pudding. Has any of this changed the world? Hardly. The world is practically an armed camp, and sin is at unprecedented levels. Here is my take. The rise of evil in the world is due precisely to the mistakes and lack of discipline coming from the pontificate of John Paul II. And what has John Paul II done about the greatest scandal ever to face the Church, the homosexual and pedophile sex scandal? Almost nothing. In fact, he shows a distinct lack of concern by protecting and employing the very Cardinal who helped perpetuate the scandal, Cardinal Law.

Well, I could go on and on with the things that have gone wrong in this pontificate. Rest assured, John Paul II is still the pope and he will have my respect, since he occupies the papal office, and I will obey him till the day he dies. I see no infringement on the papal office or its infallibility. But like Leo II, I do see in John Paul II a pope, like Honorius, who has sullied the Church of God, and “by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.” I can think of nothing more “treacherously profane” than the Assisi Interfaith Prayer Gatherings. When a pope invites pagan gods into the Catholic Church, it has become “polluted.” Fortunately, like the case of Honorius, these actions are not ex cathedra dogmas of the Church, and thus the papal office, though polluted, remains the rock of Peter. Hopefully, the next pope, as Agatho followed Honorius, will take away the pollution and restore the honor due to the papal throne.

Robert Sungenis

Catholic Apologetics International