Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-05-07

be smitten with Anathema, and together
with them we Judge that HOnOrius,
formerly Pope OF Ancient Rome
be anathematlzed, since We find IN
his letter to Sergius that he fol-
lows in all respects his error
and authorizes his impiOus dOciriRe, lSess.
Is, March, 6Sl.) This same council in
its 18th and last session sOlemnly re-
iterates its condemnation OF HOnOrius
among the other heretics formally
mathematical. (LandOn, page 1881
Now let all intelligent persons judge
whether have sustained my position
or not, namely, that Pope HOnonuss
was condemned by the Sixth General
Council for heresy.
The Bishop says the proceedings oil
General Council are not binding till
sanctioned by the Pope. Now leaving
out of consideration the controversy
that for long time was agitated in the
Roman Catholic Church on the subject
whether the DEGREES OF a Council were
binding irrespective of their sanction
bv Pope, we come to Pope LeO.s po-
sition as given by the Bishop in his let
ter IN the REGISTER OF April Il. lie
the Bishop says, After expressly
condemning as inventors of the new
error, Theodore. Cyrus and others, Pope
Leo also condemned HOnOriOus for per-
miting the immaculate doctrine OF the
Apostolic See 10 be corrupted later on
Il presume i'm the same letter.. Again
enumerating those whom he expressly
condemned as guilty of heresy together
with Honorius, who by negligence
fDstered the flame OF heretiCal teaching,
and did not cxtinguish it in the begin
ming as it became his apostolic
authority" Now examine these state,
ments made by the authority produced
bv Bishop Kain, and in his own words.
In the first place Pope Leo condemns Is
the word not anathematize?J HonOrius
for permitting the immaculate doctrine
of the Apostolic See TO be corrupted.
Pope Leo, speaking &C. cduedrd declares
that it was corrupted, here Is TACT
number one. And Leo further declares
that lIOnorius permitted it, here IS TACT
number two. And these are given by
Leo, speaking er cdtbedrd, and therefore
as such mtoHibie In speaking thus OF
Honorius Pope Leo must either have
reference to the orthodox Creeds of the
churches or to the personal faith OF
HOnOrius i'm these CreCds. But the
orthodox creeds Of the churches were
the same after as before the time OF
Honorius, hence it must have been the
personal faith of IIOnOrius which failed
or gave way. In such case
would not Honorius be guilty OF
treason in the Church OF God?
In the Bishops second quotation from
Leo, Ilonorus is charged with ncgll-
gcncc, "who by negligence iostcred the
flame of hcritical teaching" He iostered
il bv negligence. Hecould have stamped
this fire out, but did not do SO. lie was
one of those Shepherds who saw the
wolf coming, but did not give warning.
Did he not rather encourage the wolf TO
come? But here We have one infallible
Pope condcmning another in!allible
Pope. Leo, as | understand the Bishop,
need not have done SO. Yet he con-
dcmncd him merely for neglect. But look
back at the letter of llonorious to Ser
gius, and the action OF the Council on
this letter, aud then ask: Did the Bish-
ops then, as Bishop Kain does now, be-
licvc i'm the nfallibility OF the Pope?
SAMUEL STEELE.
Wheeling, May ;, 1879.