You should have read the next paragraph after the one I quoted. Or did you?
Yep, I sure did; but I don't change anything in what I said. You're making the mistake of isolating this from the context of the Church's Tradition. I know what the decree reads, but you're misinterpreting it, because there can not possibly be a change in the person's eternal destiny following the particular judgment. Consequently "we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius" refers, like I said, to the externals, such as suppression of the veneration of his relics and preventing him from the title of "Saint." Of course, you would not get this from reading a Wikipedia article, which I understand is one of your favorite ways of doing research.
The point is, just like the excommunication of those who believed/observed that Christ died on the 14th, the point is the Church posthumously expelled them from the Body. They anathematized, excommunicated, repelled them. They were in heaven, but the Church on earth decided to expel them from the Body in heaven.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Don't you think that it would occur to the Bishops at the Council that, after the particular judgement, the soul of the person has been delived to eternal rest or torment as it is? The anathema is used to say that Honorius is not to be honored in the Church. Honestly, this is like a Creationist who likes to pretend that he knows everything about biology, chemistry, and physics, even though he hasn't studied them.
Your insistance on a simplistic view of "anathema" was contested in my last post. Please stop complaining, and get cracken' on it.
OBVIOUSLY, I do not believe such nonsense. But others believe they have the power, the intent, and excercise it, to expel them.
"Oh ho ho.
I, Jenings, do not believe in such nonsense; pinky out, now. Quite."
My agreement was based on my assumption that you were defining Christian NOT as RC only. Since you do so, I rescind my agreement with you. Don't want any part of the nonsense.
No matter how many times you say it, I have not defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only." In order to show that I did that, you would have to show that I define "heretic" as "non-Christian." On this thread, I have only ever defined "Christian" as "one who remains in the Body of Christ." Your best attempts to connect me with any other defiition failed dismally; just like your attempts to accuse me of
argumentum ex silentio about a week ago.
By the way, does this mean that you do not believe that a Christian who dies remains alive with Christ?
Read the sequence of letters between Firmilian, Cyprian, and Stephen. Stephen was allowing baptisms of Marcion and Samosoto as valid. The rest of the Catholic Church was aghast.
Why should I read these letters? You haven't read them yet either. But may I point out that you haven't defended your claim that the Church believed the baptism of the Mormons was valid, and then that it wasn't (of course, if you go far enough back, the Mormons changed their theology of baptism as well; so there may in fact have been a time when it was valid, but post-change it wasn't).
For my part, I'll again point out that the CDF simply replied to a question in 2001, and it is indisputable that
that particular document does not claim that there was a time when the Mormon baptism was valid. And before that time, the American Bishops conference and the individual bishops in America claimed that Mormon baptism was invalid.
As to the 'tradition of apostles' per Eusebius, the reference is to letters from Alexandria (NOT Rome) to Palestine. Alexandria taught Christ died on the 14th. (See Clement of Alexandria and Peter of Alexandria).
"The reference" was not what my quotation from Eusibius is about. It is: "However it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this point, as they observed the practice, which from Apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the Resurrection of our Saviour." You've also been dreadfully negligent in citing your sources: "(See Clement of Alexandria and Peter of Alexandria)" tells us nothing about what you're trying to prove.
You've also ignored the rest of what I said regarding the matter; which is that, in condemning the Quartodecimians, the Church didn't say that Christ was not crucified on the 14th. The Church was simply reaffirming that the commemoration of it should be on a Friday; this ties in to the Church's understanding of Sacred Time, because then the very days become a part of the re-experience of Holy Week. The Church also certainly did not "posthumously excommunicate" anyone who had commemorated Christ's death on the fourteenth. That would be utterly senseless.
(NewMan99, who recently passed away, you may have seen the thread on it in OBOB, was the one who suggested I find an answer to that little Eusebian comment. I regret not having shared with him the information found a couple years later. May he rest in peace.)
Does it ever worry you that you might have given him false information, given your track-record of getting things dreadfully wrong but acting as confidently in them as though they were right? Such as the memorable experience with Christimas presents, or the Pope's "changed mind" regarding contraception, or again, your misreading of the Pope's
Jesus of Nazareth, or your completely disproven claims that I had committed
argumentum ex silentio? Does that ever cause you a bit of pause?
Your Body in Heaven is missing quite a few people that you think are there, but were excommunicated by your group.
If you say so, Pope Standing Up. For my part, though, I'll be a Sedevacantist on this one and point out again that the Church uses the word "anathema" in different ways and that only a person looking for contradiction where it does not exist would make such a claim.
JuCh: "The Body in heaven are members of the society of the Church who have been particularly judged, and found worthy to enter the presence of God in the Beatific Vision;"
Given what we know about Honorus and others, the Church (RC) on earth believes it has the power to exclude those already judged and found worthy. They've usurped the power reserved solely to God.
...So, does that mean that you have no problem with the definition? I asked you if you, yourself, have any problems with the definition. Unless you believe that the Church on earth "has the power to exclude those already judged and found worthy," then you haven't presented an objection to the definition.
I'm about through here. The stomach can only take so much.
Now now, I've played very nicely with you. The fact that you've given up trying to prove that I re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only," and have taken instead to simply repeating the charge well after you've been shown-up should not a cause for indigestion for you. On the other hand, our understanding of the psycho-somatic nature of such things is still very incomplete, and so it may be that getting proved wrong three times in the same thread (two charges of fallacy disproven, and a charge of "re-definition") may be just a little too much for a person's functioning. If that is the case, my non-professional opinion is rest and fruit juice. I'll be back to "check-up" on another of your threads at some later date.