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 Breviary 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

1 2 3 4