Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ? On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
Comments
Honorius was the subject of controversy over the divine and human will of Christ. The cause was the Pope's ambiguous letter addressed to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople; but afterwards the Fathers of the Council condemned both, although the Pope died before delving into the same subject.
Although that Council condemned Honorius for heresy, the Catholic Church asserts that the Bishops exercising an authority in the Church can discuss any doctrinal controversy in an Ecumenical Council, but that it must be recognized and approved by the Roman Pontiff (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 884).
Thus Pope St. Agatho sent legates (representatives of the Pope) a long dogmatic letter, on the authority of St. Peter, about his predecessor Honorius, that the Roman Apostolic Church never fell into heresy. Agatho leaves no power of deliberation, i.e., decision-making over Honorius and others allegedly for heresy to the Fathers of Constantinople. The Orientals had only one privilege of meeting simply by accepting their charter.
And they accepted Pope Agatho's letter not to condemn Honorius for heresy; Surprisingly, however, they condemned Pope Honorius. As the legates could not make decisions, they returned to Rome to communicate this fact for a definitive decision by the Pope. But the latter had also died.
Then his direct successor was elected, Pope St. Leo II, who read the condemnation of his predecessor Honorius I and modified it. He made it clear that Honorius was convicted not of heresy but of negligence. That is, this condemnation by the Orientals for heresy of Honorius was not ratified by him (https://trouwkatholiek.wordpress.com/2021/02/22/luther-was-a-rosicrucian-a-gnostic-an-archenemy-of-the-church/).
Because if the Council Fathers were right to condemn Honorius as a heretic, then Pope Leo X, for example, should be condemned in the same way because of the errors against the papacy spread by Luther during his pontificate.
And everything leads us to believe that Father Luther was a member of the Rosicrucian (https://trouwkatholiek.wordpress.com/2021/02/22/luther-was-a-rosicrucian-a-gnostic-an-archenemy-of-the-church/), that is, a secret society and, above all, a Gnostic one (and these assumptions only grow and coincide with this: Bishop Williamson, who unconditionally reconsecrated Viganò, has the Rosicrucian emblem as much on his episcopal coat of arms as Archbishop Lefebvre who consecrated the English Bishop - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYaQxVY5FsI&t=6s).
If this Italian prelate wished to break with this similar behavior of a Gnostic Luther, then he should reconsider this matter in order to maintain the public integrity of the papacy, with his assertions, in the example correctly cited by him about Honorius.
It follows that there are only two alternatives for Viganò to correct himself: either he would claim that the Popes were negligent, (a political rather than moral or doctrinal interest, in the examples of Pope Stephen VI about Pope Formosus), or he would claim that the Popes were prevented from acting.
Because he claimed that Benedict was controlled by Cardinal Bertone (he even names other prelates). Thus, he should be consistent in saying simply that Benedict was prevented from freely exercising the ministry.
If he admitted that Honorius was not a heretic, then why did Benedict not have the same treatment for a more sensible judgment because of this impediment cited by himself?
And this leads Viganò to recognize in the same way the others of the post-Vatican II Council, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II, that they were legitimate, because they are still part of a heretical legacy in the view of this prelate.
The historical fact about Honorius there is a clear dogmatic definition of Agatho that Rome never fell into heresy, which implicitly refers to all the Legitimate Popes in history, which Pius IX solemnly confirmed afterwards.