|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 7, 2023 18:00:35 GMT -5
Part 1 part 2 I know you dont like videos...but it was this discussion with Catholic Historian Charles who did assert credibly about how certain commands of valid Popes were in fact deleterious. Its all I have...so if you dont watch it I cant offer anything elses. Again Im not saying it proves my position...only that I think it makes it a reasonable position....forgivable if its wrong in other words.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 7, 2023 18:12:27 GMT -5
For you Voxx, I will watch it. I will answer in a few days. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 7, 2023 18:28:15 GMT -5
who knows you might enjoy my shows...hopefully its not too insufferable
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 8, 2023 14:01:15 GMT -5
who knows you might enjoy my shows...hopefully its not too insufferable It’s really not anything about you, just videos in general. It’s my least liked format. I know many others like videos, and sometimes they are useful so I’m not against them or anything, it’s just a preference.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 9, 2023 15:14:09 GMT -5
Hi Vox,
I have been watching the videos, and the more I have been listening to, I am realizing that they really need a full thread dedicated just to them. There is much to discuss with this and a lot not really dealing with Pius XII or the 1950's laws. I will have a post soon.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 9, 2023 15:58:39 GMT -5
I am going through part I and taking notes. One of his statements, and this gets to what I am thinking, is the root of his judgments about Church history, is that he distrusts Catholic historians. He states in regards to crises and problems in Church history that:
I realize that this format is video, so I do cut him some slack, as he may have not have qualified it the way he meant, or have been as careful in his statement as he could have been in writing, but as it stands, I will just address this statement as he said it.
1. First off, this is a very broad statement, and as it's not qualified, as with any such broad and unqualified statement, it indicts potentially all Catholic historians.
2. It doesn't specify which historians and which facts they are obfuscating.
3. If it is intentional, then the historian may be deliberately misrepresenting the truth, and I certainly hope he isn't accusing them of that. If it is not intentional, then they are either through incompetence or a hidden bias misrepresenting history. Either way, the statement certainly is, in my opinion, biased against the Church's historians, and it is unproven either way. I would more expect to hear this type of rhetoric from Protestant or secular historians, than a Catholic. To prove this charge, one must present evidence to substantiate the charge against each and every Church historian, demonstrating with evidence that they were obfuscating, in order to minimize the severity of specific incidents. In plain English, one would call this charge whitewashing history or covering things up. It's a serious allegation.
4. This brings us to the next question: if Catholic historians are not reliable, as they are obfuscating the history of certain specific major events, then who must Catholics trust to give them the correct and complete accounts? Do we only trust secular or Protestant historians? Are they bias free, and only giving the complete and accurate truth?
In order to look at his judgments and the examples he is providing, first we must examine his methodology, and in the quote above he gives it. I strongly disagree with his statement. Our Faith and our morals demand a rigorous adherence to the truth, even when the truth works against us in some way, or works against what we thought before, or our biases.
1. (Beginning around 11:18) Mr. Coulombe states that a Pope was appointed by his mistress, and is the son of her aunt. He further states that this must have affected the Faith of this pope. He does use the "practically speaking," so he may be saying that the pope was not actually appointed by her, only that she was behind it. Either way, evidence is needed to support all of this. Also, I would like to see evidence that the pope in question suffered damage to his Faith from this alleged incident. I would like to see his references to what he is talking about.
2. (Beginning 22:55) Mr. Coulombe states:
The Patriarch of Constantinople appealed to the Pope to shut down the monothelites, and instead he shut down the orthodox. For which he was condemned by the ecumenical council after he died. Voxx responds, "so he has a simple terrible heresy" Coulombe responds, "you only need one," implying that Pope Honorius was actually holding this heresy of Monothelitism. Voxx, then asks, "did he ever recant?" Coulombe states, "no he died...several years later, the next ecumenical council condemned him for it."
I will get to more soon, but let me state that the history of Pope Honorius as stated above is at a minimum in dispute, but I believe that the assertions made above are inaccurate and incorrect, as has been demonstrated by Catholic historians who studied the incident. I will be presenting sources to support this in the resource section.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 9, 2023 17:34:50 GMT -5
Charles himself is a Catholic Historian...so he undercuts his own credibility if he was useing generalizations about other historians. Not sure he is...but due to the format getting citations just isnt going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 9, 2023 18:30:38 GMT -5
Charles himself is a Catholic Historian...so he undercuts his own credibility if he was useing generalizations about other historians. Not sure he is...but due to the format getting citations just isnt going to happen. I tried to figure out what he was talking about, and the only place these types of allegations exist that I could find are among Protestant or secular historians, not Catholic historians.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 9, 2023 18:59:38 GMT -5
The following, "The Supposed Fall of Pope Honorius," published in the American Catholic Quarterly Review, Vol. VII, no. 25, January, 1882, pp. 162-168, is now available in the resource section for those who wish to read from a Catholic historian a defense of Pope Honorius from the charge of heresy and further explain what exactly happened in this incident in Church history: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2461/supposed-fall-pope-honorius-acqr?page=1&scrollTo=15846
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 9, 2023 22:12:03 GMT -5
I think Charles asserts the heresy was in calling honorius' bishops in valid ( in part2 video)
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 10, 2023 6:46:31 GMT -5
I think Charles asserts the heresy was in calling honorius' bishops in valid ( in part2 video) I will hopefully get more done today. In the part under discussion above he is dealing with the Monothelite heresy and said as much in the discussion Here is what he and you said: Coulombe states, "The Patriarch of Constantinople appealed to the Pope to shut down the monothelites, and instead he shut down the orthodox. For which he was condemned by the ecumenical council after he died." Voxx responds, "so he has a simple terrible heresy" Coulombe responds, "you only need one," implying that Pope Honorius was actually holding this heresy of Monothelitism. Voxx, then asks, "did he ever recant?" Coulombe states, "no he died...several years later, the next ecumenical council condemned him for it." He should have made clear that Pope Honorius was not a heretic nor was he ever accused of it. He did not directly say he was a heretic, but the exchange implies it, when he responds to you saying, "you need only one," in regards to heresy. In the above exchange he is dealing with the Monothelite heresy. I will keep going with the videos today.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 10, 2023 7:21:44 GMT -5
By the way, for those reading along with this, it is very important to keep in mind a key detail when reading and discussing Pope Honorius. He lived his life and ruled the Church until his death with a great reputation. None of these accusations existed against him during his life. All of this surfaced against him decades after his death when a private letter that he had sent came to light, and the private letter did not incriminate him of heresy, but it allegedly showed that he knew of the heresy and did not deal with it.
This is from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia explaining the excellent reputation of Pope Honorius during his lifetime right up to his death:
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 10, 2023 7:48:11 GMT -5
Before moving on to the next point, I want to defend Pope Honorius from this assertion made by Mr. Coulombe, that I have not yet addressed:
Charles Coulombe stated: This is simply not true and the historical record does not support this. The Pope at most did nothing, and that's what he is accused of doing, nothing. If he was "shutting down the orthodox," that means that he took action against the Catholics, which he did not do.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 10, 2023 9:12:01 GMT -5
Well the point isnt about honorius you and I were discussing whether a true Pope can make deleterious decisions. It seems the case of Honorius whatever error Charles asserts ( and I will reach out for a response) isnt the salient point. In part two he makes a long winded account of popes who rejected each others Bishops....acts which Charles asserts were deleterious.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 10, 2023 9:57:18 GMT -5
at 24:00 or so Part 2 Charles quotes a Council that does condemn Honorious. Brother Pacelli please I understand that to a man of your precise and analytical mind 2 blowhards like Charles and I having an informal discussion on serious issues probebly makes you wince. No doubt...but I think you need to understand the context is informal. Maybe in your mind we shouldnt informally discuss this stuff...and you could be right. But tge methodology of dissecting EVERY point is wrong...the video should be glossed for the points Charles asserts that shows valid Popes making deleterious actions. Our original discussion is about how I asserted that Pius12s Changes to the Mass proved deleterious ( which I agree I havent proven to your satisfaction) and that they were imprudent. I didnt assert Pius12 was part of the modernists. Catholic RandR folks like Charles continually point out how past Popes did " bad" things...of course they wrongly imo conflate this to mean that bergoglio can be as bad as he wants ...hes still pope...but thats a different Topic Now gloss over to part 2 35:00 Charles discusses Leo 13
|
|