Reblog: The predecessors of Pope Francis come to the defense of his magisterium? Well – Yes and No, Mr. Walford

Blog Note (March 3/17/2017): This is a reblog of the inaugural post of Roma Locuta Est. It replies to one objection in principle to the Dubia of the four cardinals and, by implication, any possible correction of the Pope. That objection asserts Pope Francis has spoken infallibly in Amoris Laetitia- with the voice of St. Peter, and thus with regard to Amoris Laetitia – the case is closed. This reply rejects this erroneous argument and demonstrates there is precedent in history for ‘correcting’ (to put it mildly) a Pope who declines to teach with the voice of Peter and who by his silence ‘favors’ the spread of heresy. As the date of an expected public correction of the Pope draws near, it seemed timely to repost this.


Honorius Redivivus?

By Steven O’Reilly

(February 18, 2017) – I have long toyed with the idea of blogging. This itch has been held firmly in check by the conviction that a blogger should be one of two things: either a very interesting person or at least someone with something very interesting to say.  Ideally, one is both. Fearing myself neither of these things, I contented myself with wearing out my local archbishop, pastor, friends and family with my screeds over developments in the Church, especially during these past few years. Yet, a recent article published in Vatican Insider [1] on the La Stampa website has prompted me–against my better judgment that I lack both of the aforementioned qualities–to enter the blogosphere and comment on the events of our time.

The Predecessors of Pope Francis Regarding the Petrine Magisterium

The article that caught my attention sought to defend Pope Francis with regard to his Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (AL). Written by Stephen Walford, the title of the article aptly describes the thrust of its argument: “The Magisterium of Pope Francis: His Predecessors come to his Defence.” This response does not go into the details of what are considered AL’s problematic issues [(e.g., 301-305), footnotes (e.g., n. 351), and questionable statements (e.g., related to Hell and capital punishment)] for which many have sought clarification from the pope [NB (3/17/2017): I do respond to the argument that Amoris Laetitia allows communion for public adulterers here and whether it denies the possibility of eternal damnation here].  Furthermore, this response also prescinds from questions related to the religious submission and respect the faithful Catholic owe a papal document–and whether there are or can be exceptions to this submission.

Instead, this rebuttal specifically targets Mr. Walford’s argument, as I understood it, that the teachings of the predecessors of Pope Francis defend the notion that AL must be an exercise of Pope Francis’ infallible, ordinary papal magisterium. For Mr. Walford, “There is no other interpretation available; the popes have spoken.” His article begins as follows (NB: bolding and italicizations for emphasis throughout this article are mine):

“It would seem obvious to most Catholics and commentators that the magisterium of Pope Francis is under more scrutiny and subject to more criticism than any other in living memory, and possibly going back much further than that. In particular, Amoris Laetitia has led many traditionalists to the conclusion that Pope Francis is at least deliberately “allowing” error and possibly even teaching heresy. In contrast to all the noise and commotion from social media explaining the various sides of the argument, there has been a deafening silence in one crucial area: the teaching of the popes themselves concerning their own unique charism. This is surely an area that needs exploration and acceptance because quite simply, no other authority on earth exists that can lay claim to a superior ministry on behalf of Christ and his truth.”

Mr. Walford adduces several quotes and commentaries from popes such as Innocent III, Pius IX, Pius XII, Benedict XVI and John Paul II to support his thesis.  For example, Pope Innocent III is quoted:  “The Lord clearly intimates that Peter’s successors will never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but will instead recall the others and strengthen the hesitant”[2]. Pius XII is also quoted by the same writer to similar effect: “Whatever may be the name, the face, the human origins of any Pope, it is always Peter who lives in him; it is Peter who rules and governs; it is Peter above all, who teaches and diffuses over the world the light of liberating truth” [3].

The weight of this and other papal evidence in his article is intended by Mr. Walford, of course, to lead one to an inevitable conclusion, which may be summed up in the words of John Paul II: “Alongside this infallibility of ex cathedra definitions, there is the charism of the Holy Spirit’s assistance, granted to Peter and his successors so that they would not err in matters of faith and morals, but rather shed great light on the Christian people” [4].  John Paul then adds: “This charism is not limited to exceptional cases” [5].

Mr. Walford seems to ask of all those with hesitations about AL: Does not Peter “live in Pope Francis?”

My answer is: “Yes, of course–’Peter lives in Pope Francis’.”  

Another of Pope Francis’ Predecessors Speaks:  Pope John XXII

Having quoted many of Francis’ predecessors and spoken highly (and rightly) of the ordinary papal magisterium, Mr. Walford acknowledges a seeming exception and hole in his argument–the case of Pope John XXII.  Though there are other cases of popes holding erroneous views to choose from, Walford limits his discussion to John XXII and says of him:

“No doubt a distinction needs to be made between the “private” theological speculations of a Pope-as in the case of Pope John XXII who for a time held the opinion that the beatific vision is not given immediately to the souls in heaven -and teachings deliberately given as part of the magisterium. At the time of John XXII, the dogma concerning the beatific vision had not been formulated, thus his was only a theological opinion-as he himself maintained – and not a formal teaching. In more recent times, Pope Benedict XVI was very careful to state that his Trilogy “Jesus of Nazareth” “is in no way an exercise of the magisterium”, and as one can only be a heretic after a doctrine has been formally taught by the Church, Pope John XXII even in his “private person” did not fall under that category.”

The case of John XXII is an interesting one. Even prior to his election, John XXII held the erroneous opinion that the souls of the Blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment, and the future pope had even written on the subject [6].  Mr. Roberto de Mattei wrote an article on the case (“A Pope Who Fell Into Heresy, A Church That Resisted: John XXII and the Beatific Vision“) which appears on the Rorate Caeli website  [7]. De Mattei relates in his article how John XXII when pope publicly sermonized on the subject of his erroneous opinion on at least three occasions; that he attempted to impose his view on the Faculty of Theology in Paris; that he was publicly opposed by theologians of the day for this heresy–and that one of them was even tried and imprisoned for resisting the pope’s views.  It was only after three years of controversy, and on his deathbed, that John XXII explained he meant only to express himself as a private theologian. It took the next pope, Benedict XII, to clean up the controversial mess left to him with a dogmatic definition (Benedictus Deus).  Mr. de Mattei states that:

“Following these doctrinal decisions, the thesis sustained by John XXII must be considered formally heretical, even if at that time the Pope sustained that it was still not defined as dogma of faith. St. Robert Bellarmine who dealt amply with this issue in De Romano Pontifice (Opera omnia, Venetiis 1599, Book. IV, chap. 14, coll. 841-844) writes that John XXII supported a heretical thesis, with the intention of imposing it as the truth on the faithful, but died before he could have defined the dogma, without therefore, undermining the principle of pontifical infallibility by his behavior.”

It is evident from this case that the written and publicly spoken words of a pope touching upon doctrinal matters may not necessarily be an infallible exercise of his ordinary papal magisterium. This case is an example of how an exercise or intervention of the infallible, ordinary papal magisterium clearly requires the intent of the pope to do so.   John Paul II explained:

“The Successor of Peter fulfills this doctrinal mission in a continual series of oral and written interventions that represent the ordinary exercise of the Magisterium as the teaching of truths to be believed and put into practice (fidem et mores). The acts expressing this Magisterium can be more or less frequent and take various forms according to the needs of the time, the requirements of concrete situations, the opportunities and means available, and the methods and systems of communication. However, given that they derive from an explicit or implicit intention to make pronouncements on matters of faith and morals, they are linked to the mandate received by Peter and enjoy the authority conferred on him by Christ. [8]

Given that these interventions-which represent the exercise of the Magisterium as the teaching of truths to be believed and put into practice- “derive from an explicit or implicit intention to make pronouncements on matters of faith and morals, they are linked to the mandate received by Peter and enjoy the authority conferred on him by Christ,” then it follows that where such “an explicit or implicit intention to make pronouncements on matters of faith and morals” is lacking, no such act or intervention expressing the infallible, ordinary papal Magisterium necessarily exists. But how then do we determine an explicit and implicit intention on the part of a Roman pontiff? The answer comes in the form of guidance from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith:

“It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church’s faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context.” [9]

The question then regarding AL is: did Pope Francis have the implicit or explicit intention to exercise an intervention of the infallible, ordinary papal magisterium, and is this suggested by “the tenor of the words used and from their context?” The thrust and implication of Mr. Walford’s argument suggests his answer would be a definitive “yes.” However, let us turn now to another predecessor of Pope Francis to see what light he sheds on the question.

Yet, Another of Pope Francis’ Predecessors Speaks:  Pope Honorius

It is to Mr. Walford’s credit he considered the history of John XXII and that pope’s lack of intent to pronounce magisterially. However, it would have been interesting to also hear him address the more problematical case of Pope Honorius (625-638), which perhaps bears greater similarities to the controversy surrounding AL. By way of brief background, Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, sent letters to Pope Honorius concerning a rising dispute over new theological expressions becoming current in the East and which became the basis of the Monothelite heresy (NB: see “Guilty Only of a Failure to Teach“[10], and “White is Wrong“[11] for background).

Pope Honorius said he confessed “one will” in Christ, which on its face encapsulated the monothelites’ heretical belief that there is but one will in Christ, and not two–human and divine–as is the orthodox teaching. While Honorius may be defended on the grounds he spoke in an orthodox sense, it remains he erroneously considered a real Christological dispute brought to him by Sergius to be ‘an idle question for grammarians.’  While the nascent crisis of the Church screamed out for the Pope of Rome to definitively declare the orthodox faith on the question, Honorius instead disclaimed any intent to define anything, saying: “on account of the simplicity of man and to avoid controversies, we must, as I have already said, define neither one nor two operations in the mediator between God and man” [12].

Instead of defining the truth with a rule of faith, Honorius followed Sergius’ suggestion and opted for a rule of silence in which none of the disputed expressions would be used. The shameful effects of Honorius’ words were to place heterodox and orthodox terms on equal footing and to leave heretical bishops in place where they were able to continue to spread the heresy amongst the faithful. Honorius’ confusing letters were gleefully seized upon by the monothelites to defend their false doctrine, while others, including popes and saints, interpreted the same letters in a fashion consistent with traditional orthodox doctrine. Sound familiar? History has not been kind to the memory of Honorius. At the Sixth Ecumenical Council (681), the council fathers anathematized him for what they “found written by him to Sergius;” in which letters Honorius “followed his [Sergius’s] view and confirmed his [Sergius’s] impious doctrines” [13]. The Council fathers heaped additional abuse upon the memory of the pontiff, going so far as to call him, along with the others condemned, a “tool of Satan” used by the evil one in the “dissemination” of the heresy [14]. The Council fathers ordered the pope’s letters consigned to the flames, and they anathematized him as a heretic. Pope Leo II (682-683) would also condemn his predecessor for negligence which fostered the spread of history.

Returning to Mr. Walford’s argument, the dilemma he essentially poses to the growing number of Catholics with questions about AL is as follows: One either accepts AL as an exercise of Francis’ infallible, ordinary papal magisterium or one is rejecting Christ’s words to Peter (cf. Luke 22:31-32) which  assures us of the infallibility of both the ordinary and extraordinary papal magisterium. I submit that such a dilemma is a false one. We have already seen in the cases of John XXII and Honorius that it is not logically contradictory to say that though a given pope may exercise his ordinary magisterium infallibly, not every statement or document–in whole or in part– of that pope is, ipso facto, an infallible exercise of the ordinary  magisterium. In the case of Honorius, an official letter intended to address and settle a question of doctrinal significance was neither an infallible act of the pope’s ordinary or extraordinary magisterium nor was it immune from the severe rebukes of future popes and councils.

In evaluating AL, one must try to understand whether the document demonstrates an intent by Pope Francis to implicitly or explicitly pronounce on the issue, and whether “this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context.”  We have already seen that the words of John XXII and Honorius did not signify such an intent with regard to the controversies associated with them. What of Pope Francis? Let us consider what the evidence suggests about his intent in AL:

“Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For “cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied”. (Amoris Laetitia, 3)

Right away we see in one of AL’s introductory passages that Francis seemingly disclaims the intent to make AL an “intervention of the magisterium.” In saying “I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium” it seems sufficiently clear the pope’s meaning amounts to this: ‘What follows may be a doctrinal, moral or pastoral issue, but I would make it clear I do not intend to settle them with interventions of the magisterium in this document.’ If this was not the pope’s meaning, it is utterly unclear what other purpose he had in mind given the tenor of the words used and their context. Francis’ lack of intent in exercising his ordinary papal magisterium to pronounce an infallible teaching which would bind the whole Church is also evidenced when he says “each country and region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs.” By leaving countries and regions on their own to seek solutions, the pope clearly did not propose a rule of faith.

This rebuttal’s brief treatment of AL is, admittedly, not a comprehensive one. Certainly, Pope Francis reaffirms Church teaching in various parts of AL, and these are certainly acts of his ordinary magisterium. Even so, AL appears for the most part to be exhortative in its tenor, which of course reflects its nature as an Apostolic Exhortation.

“I understand those who pre­fer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the good­ness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street.”  (Amoris Laetitia, 308)

In the quote above, Pope Francis reflects back on what he has just said in the most controversial sections of Chapter 8 (i.e., 301-305, including n. 351) which have since been used by various bishops and bishops’ conferences to justify the possibility of communion for adulterers living more uxurio.  Francis professes to “understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion,” in obvious contradistinction to his own position which would-by implication-presumably allow such room. Yet, even if we were to grant what the most lenient commentators accept about the pope’s intent and policy in Chapter 8 of AL, what authority does Pope Francis muster in support of his argument? Given the ‘time and space’, does Pope Francis overthrow “rigorous pastoral care” and practice with a definite pronouncement based on Sacred Scripture or Tradition? No. What is the tenor and context of his words? Francis exhorts, cajoles, and even seems to plead with the rigorists: “But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness” etc.  Such words (i.e., “I sincerely believe”) have the tenor and context of words which preface a deeply held opinion. It would be difficult to argue these words represent or reveal an intent to exercise an infallible intervention of the ordinary papal magisterium.

 The Warning of Pope Agatho

“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery.” So begins a famous quote from the theologian Melchior Cano. This rebuttal has restricted itself, until now, to demonstrating that Mr. Walford’s thesis–AL,  being authored by a pope, is, by this fact alone, an infallible exercise of the ordinary papal magisterium–is incorrect. The examples of John XXII and Honorius demonstrate that when a pope does not intend an infallible intervention of his ordinary magisterium and does not show he is doing so with the tenor of his words and their context when expressing himself on a question of faith and morals, he is not immune from error. This high level review of the tenor and context of AL suggests that Pope Francis did not intend to exercise his ordinary magisterium in a binding or infallible way, at least not in regard to the passages which have understandably troubled many. This conclusion is the most charitable one that I can muster with regard to AL.

What next? In his article, Mr. Walford cites the example of St. Robert Bellarmine to defend his belief in the  impossibility of a pope falling into heresy:

Some of the great theologians through the ages have looked into this question concerning a pope teaching heresy; St Robert Bellarmine in his De Romano Pontifice ruled it out, basing his view on Jesus’ prayer for Peter, just as Innocent III had done. Francisco de Suarez shared the same opinion while St Alphonus Liguori stated: “We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic” [15].

The reader, having bravely come this far in this rebuttal, may be a surprised to hear it–but I agree with Bellarmine. I do not believe a pope could become a public heretic or an occult heretic. The case for this opinion–based on Sacred Scripture, Tradition and past papal teaching–is a strong one in my opinion. Still, even though Bellarmine held this opinion to be probable, he admitted it was not certain. In fact, Bellarmine said that the opposite theological opinion–that a pope could become a public heretic–was the common one. Until the Church definitively adopts the Bellarmine position, the question remains open. St. Paul warns us to be on guard (cf. Galatians 1:8), as does the Catholic Catechism when it speaks of a “religious deception” to come (cf. CC 675). Therefore, as a matter of prudence, one should not hold it to be a definite impossibility that any living or future pope, Francis included, could never fall into heresy–so that one not be deceived in the event.

John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio (84) absolutely denied the possibility of communion for  divorced and remarried individuals, basing this teaching on the practice of the Church and Sacred Scripture. The exception being for couples who for serious reasons cannot separate–but these individuals must abstain from sexual contact and live as “brother and sister” (cf. FC 84). This teaching is also contained in similar terms in the Catholic Catechism (1650). Responding to queries whether there could be additional exceptions, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) under Cardinal Ratzinger, with the approval of the Pope John Paul II, issued a response (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful. September 14, 1994). In it, the Cardinal Prefect says in part:

At the same time it (i.e., Familiaris Consortio) confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, “founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion”. The structure of the Exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.[ Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful. September 14, 1994. (5)]

The force and clarity of the teaching is undeniable. In documents either authored or approved by John Paul II, the pope confirmed this teaching is a “constant and universal practice” that is “founded on Sacred Scripture” and which is “binding.” Mr. Walford does not analyze these words for us, though he suggests there has been a development of doctrine. However, it is difficult to see how a true doctrinal development can begin with a constant and universal practice founded on Sacred Scripture which absolutely denies communion to adulterers living more uxurio, and then–by allowing even a single possible exception for adulterers living more uxurio to receive communion–negate it. St. John Henry Newman must be rolling in his grave. This rebuttal does not offer an opinion here as to whether an authentic interpretation of AL either does or does not allow such a negation. The point has only been to show that AL does not exhibit in its tenor or context of its expressions an intent to exercise the ordinary papal magisterium infallibly to change a constant and universal practice of the Church founded on Sacred Scripture. This in itself may be a sign of the Holy Spirit protecting the Church.

A crisis like that of the Arian and the Monothelite heresies is not looming in the distance–it is upon us now. Whatever the intent and meaning of Pope Francis in AL, the episcopate is dividing along separate and opposite ‘battle lines’ over its interpretation and the actual teaching of the Church. There is no need here to provide an inventory of the ever-expanding orders of battle on each side of the debate. If not checked very soon, we should certainly expect this division to not only continue, but its pace to quicken. In the cases of the aforementioned heresies, it took many decades of confusion and strife before peace was restored to the life of the Church. These are dark times.

There is one man with the God given authority on this earth to prevent this–Pope Francis. Yet, while we witness curial cardinal vs. curial cardinal, cardinal vs. cardinal, bishop vs. bishop, and the laity looking for needed clarity–Peter remains silent. Pope Agatho (678-681), in his letter to the Emperor and the Sixth Ecumenical Council, spoke of the consequences of silence for a pope:

“For woe is me, if I neglect to preach the truth of my Lord, which they (i.e., the Roman pontiffs) have sincerely preached. Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which I am bidden to give to the exchangers, i.e., to teach to the Christian people and imbue it therewith. What shall I say in the future examination by Christ himself, if I blush (which God forbid!) to preach here the truth of his words? What satisfaction shall I be able to give for myself, what for the souls committed to me, when he demands a strict account of the office I have received?”[16]

The Verdict of Pope Leo II

Any pope, especially in perilous times for the faith, should take heed of Pope Agatho’s words. A pope, as well as all the faithful, should also remember the Lord’s words: “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32). So commands the Lord: “confirm thy brethren.” Pope Agatho’s words are a warning to his successors regarding the ‘strict account of office’ a pope must render to the Lord. We do not know the secret and fearful judgments of the Lord. However, should a pope neglect or refuse to ‘confirm the brethren’ when error is spreading and dividing the Church, then such a pope would be well deserving of the words written by Pope Leo II in posthumously condemning Pope Honorius for his part in a Church crisis:

“(Honorius) did not illuminate this Apostolic See with the doctrine of the Apostolic Tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.” [17]

Let us pray for Pope Francis that he may definitively uphold, and illuminate the Apostolic See with the doctrine of the Apostolic Tradition.

(February 24, 2017 – Note: Since publication of the post above, I have added an addendum to this discussion which may be found here – Honorius Redivivus – Addendum.)

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. He lives near Atlanta with his wife Margaret. He has four children. He  has written apologetic articles and is working on a historical-adventure trilogy, set during the time of the Arian crisis. Book one of the trilogy will be completed in 2017. He can be contacted at


  1. The Magisterium of Pope Francis: His Predecessors comes to his Defence” by  Stephen Walford. Retrieved February 17, 2017 from Vatican Insider (La Stampa):   Pubblicato il 07/02/2017.  Ultima modifica il 07/02/2017 alle ore 15:45
  2. Apostolicae Sedis Primatus (November 12, 1199) quoted by Pope John Paul II, General Audience, December 2, 1992, as cited by Stephen Walford (Vatican Insider).
  3. Pope Pius XII, Address to Newlyweds, January 17, 1940. As cited by Stephen Walford (Vatican Insider).
  4. Pope John Paul II, General Audience, March 24, 1993. As cited by Stephen Walford
  5. Ibid.
  6. Kirsch, J.P. (1910). Pope John XXII. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved February 16, 2017 from New Advent:
  7. A POPE WHO FELL INTO HERESY, A CHURCH THAT RESISTED: John XXII and the Beatific Vision“- by Roberto de Mattei. Retrieved on February 16, 2017 from:
  8. John Paul II, General Audience, Wednesday 10 March 1993. Retrieved February 16, 2017 from:”
  9. Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, June 29 1998. (n. 17).  Retrieved February 17, 2017 from Vatican:
  1. Guilty Only of Failure To Teach” by Steven O’Reilly (This Rock, Catholic Answer, Inc. October 2000). Retrieved February 17, 2017 from Catholic Answers:
  1. White is Wrong” by Steven O’Reilly. (This Rock, Catholic Answer, Inc. November 2000). Retrieved February 17, 2017 from Catholic Answers:

  1. Scripta dilectissimi filiiquoted by William Shaw Kerr inA Handbook on the Papacy 196.  Cited in “Guilty only of a Failure to Teach.”
  2. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 343 as quoted in “Guilty Only of Failure to Teach
  3. Session XVIII, NPNF, vol. 14, 344 as quoted in “White is Wrong.”
  4. Dogmatic Works of St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Turin, 1848, vol. VIII, p. 720. As cited by Stephen Walford in Vatican Insider.
  5. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,333
  6. Leonis II ad Constantium. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol 14, 352. Cited in “White is Wrong”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s