Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism - Novus Ordo Watch

e passed on Pope Honorius, it is a matter of fact that we have <strong>an</strong> official pontifical
document which admits that a Pope could possibly fall into heresy. Such document is from
Pope Adri<strong>an</strong> II, more th<strong>an</strong> 200 years after the death of Honorius: “After his death, Honorius
was <strong>an</strong>athemized by the Eastern Church; but we should not forget that he was accused of
heresy, the only crime that would make lawful the resist<strong>an</strong>ce of inferiors to the orders of
their superiors, <strong>an</strong>d the refusal of their malicious doctrines.” As we see, St. Robert
Bellarmine’s 1 st Opinion has reasons in favour <strong>an</strong>d against it. Thus we c<strong>an</strong> say that this 1 st
opinion is only probable. [Emphasis in the original.]
Against this, we note the following.
a) St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal Billot, along with the vast majority of theologi<strong>an</strong>s, held that a
Pope could never become a heretic. They were all aware of the case of Honorius. Thus, <strong>an</strong>y
argument such as that developed here by Fr. Boulet is in fact <strong>an</strong> argument against those great <strong>an</strong>d
numerous authorities; <strong>an</strong>d because of the notoriety of the case, to argue as he does here is implicitly
to accuse those great men of the most facile error – viz. that they held something to be impossible
which had famously already occurred. Nobody c<strong>an</strong> admit such <strong>an</strong> argument.
b) The acts of the Council are of doubtful authenticity. Indeed Cardinal Baronius (the greatest
Catholic histori<strong>an</strong>), <strong>an</strong>d St. Robert Bellarmine also, held that the acts of the Council had been
falsified by the Greek schismatics. To quote these (possibly falsified) acts to the effect that
Honorius’s letter to Sergius was “in complete disagreement with the apostolic dogmas <strong>an</strong>d the
definitions of the holy councils,” is therefore rash <strong>an</strong>d unnecessarily injurious to the reputation of a
sovereign pontiff, <strong>an</strong>d furthermore, it is incompatible with the words of Pope Leo II, who
condemned Honorius not for teaching heresy or for believing it, but because he “did not, as became
the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered
it by his negligence." Indeed, as is commonly admitted by Catholic authorities, the letter to Sergius
was in itself completely orthodox. Its fault lay in its failure to condemn what it ought, in that
context, to have condemned.
c) Pope Honorius was not actually a heretic, but only fostered heresy by his failure to condemn it.
Pope Leo II did not condemn him for holding a heretical opinion, but only in the sense just
expressed.
d) Pope Honorius was not a m<strong>an</strong>ifest heretic, <strong>an</strong>d nobody has ever claimed that he was. Even John
Chapm<strong>an</strong> in the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that “Pope Honorius was much respected <strong>an</strong>d died
with <strong>an</strong> untarnished reputation.” Therefore even if we were to admit the claim that Honorius really
was a heretic, which we do not admit, he was certainly not a m<strong>an</strong>ifest heretic, <strong>an</strong>d thus his case has
12