"One of the best contemporary writers on philosophy" National Review
"A terrific writer" Damian Thompson, Daily Telegraph
"Feser... has the rare and enviable gift of making philosophical argument compulsively readable" Sir Anthony Kenny, Times Literary Supplement
Selected for the First Things list of the 50 Best Blogs of 2010 (November 19, 2010)
Friday, July 11, 2025
A second Honorius?
Like his
predecessor Honorius, Pope Francis failed clearly to uphold traditional
teaching at a time the Church was sick from heresy. So I argue in my contribution
to a symposium on Francis in the latest issue of The Lamp.
"and it will vomit out today’s liberalism and modernism too. When it does, the adulation Pope Francis received upon death may prove as ephemeral as that which Honorius enjoyed." Liberalism and modernism are here to stay.
C'mon, Ed, quit beating around the bush and tell us what you really think of Francis's artful ambiguity and deliberate muddles. He can't declare you persona non grata now. You needn't be coy about it. ;-)
Seriously, even if one wanted to defend Francis's problematic statements, questions, and declarations one by one where each one, by itself, is sort-of, kind-of, not entirely wrong, it is still true that clarity of teaching is per se good, and his (apparently deliberate, studied) practice of creating confused ambiguity where none belongs is contrary to role of the pope. At least not so far as we have understood it by the previous occupants of the chair for almost 2000 straight years. Similarly, the constant phrasing of changes as presenting a new church or a "new way of being church" seem to be starkly contrary to the way ALL prior popes viewed their role, even the ones who instituted enormous reforms.
"But while the Church has often been made sick from heresy, it always recovers. It vomited out Arianism. It vomited out Monothelitism, which is why Honorius’s reputation sank. And it will vomit out today’s liberalism and modernism too. When it does, the adulation Pope Francis received upon death may prove as ephemeral as that which Honorius enjoyed."
BRAVO, ED. BRAVO! That's one of the (several) reasons I love your work: courage! You always say what needs to be said. Thank you.
Can I suggest actually reading "Saint Paul’s teaching on worthiness to receive Communion" in its context in 1 Corinthians 11 before you start confidently asserting that anyone (much less the Pope) has violated that teaching? Because even the way you phrase it strongly suggests you've completely misunderstood the passage. Paul says nothing about our "worthiness" to receive communion; it is the way the meal is celebrated, not the participants, who are worthy or unworthy. Paul has a lot to say about some eating greedily (or getting drunk) while others go hungry, or not treating the meal with due reverence, and nothing to say about sexual sin (at least not in that passage).
Pope Honorius's weakness in the face of yet another Greek heresy was not a denial of the faith. The Greeks who stacked the Council that condemned him historically often did do so however. The Council's papal legates were instructed not to endorse this condemnation but were weak too. Not much of a doctrinal precedent if one wishes to argue that the Church teaches popes can fall into heresy. It has never taught this, and Catholics can freely argue that no Pope will become a heretic.
Pope Francis was another of the post-Vatican II popes, who were all deeply affected by its slip-ups on how to regard other religions, and its new way of being a church. No discussion of Pope Francis will ever make any sense until the Council's texts and spirit are addressed properly.
"and it will vomit out today’s liberalism and modernism too. When it does, the adulation Pope Francis received upon death may prove as ephemeral as that which Honorius enjoyed."
ReplyDeleteLiberalism and modernism are here to stay.
C'mon, Ed, quit beating around the bush and tell us what you really think of Francis's artful ambiguity and deliberate muddles. He can't declare you persona non grata now. You needn't be coy about it. ;-)
ReplyDeleteSeriously, even if one wanted to defend Francis's problematic statements, questions, and declarations one by one where each one, by itself, is sort-of, kind-of, not entirely wrong, it is still true that clarity of teaching is per se good, and his (apparently deliberate, studied) practice of creating confused ambiguity where none belongs is contrary to role of the pope. At least not so far as we have understood it by the previous occupants of the chair for almost 2000 straight years. Similarly, the constant phrasing of changes as presenting a new church or a "new way of being church" seem to be starkly contrary to the way ALL prior popes viewed their role, even the ones who instituted enormous reforms.
"But while the Church has often been made sick from heresy, it always recovers. It vomited out Arianism. It vomited out Monothelitism, which is why Honorius’s reputation sank. And it will vomit out today’s liberalism and modernism too. When it does, the adulation Pope Francis received upon death may prove as ephemeral as that which Honorius enjoyed."
ReplyDeleteBRAVO, ED. BRAVO! That's one of the (several) reasons I love your work: courage! You always say what needs to be said. Thank you.
Can I suggest actually reading "Saint Paul’s teaching on worthiness to receive Communion" in its context in 1 Corinthians 11 before you start confidently asserting that anyone (much less the Pope) has violated that teaching? Because even the way you phrase it strongly suggests you've completely misunderstood the passage. Paul says nothing about our "worthiness" to receive communion; it is the way the meal is celebrated, not the participants, who are worthy or unworthy. Paul has a lot to say about some eating greedily (or getting drunk) while others go hungry, or not treating the meal with due reverence, and nothing to say about sexual sin (at least not in that passage).
ReplyDeletePope Honorius's weakness in the face of yet another Greek heresy was not a denial of the faith. The Greeks who stacked the Council that condemned him historically often did do so however. The Council's papal legates were instructed not to endorse this condemnation but were weak too. Not much of a doctrinal precedent if one wishes to argue that the Church teaches popes can fall into heresy. It has never taught this, and Catholics can freely argue that no Pope will become a heretic.
ReplyDeletePope Francis was another of the post-Vatican II popes, who were all deeply affected by its slip-ups on how to regard other religions, and its new way of being a church. No discussion of Pope Francis will ever make any sense until the Council's texts and spirit are addressed properly.