Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. John-

You keep asserting that Honorius taught heresy and that this disproves papal infallibility.

Catholics counter no, not unless Honorius was making an ex cathedra statement. The criteria for infallible statements can be applied retroactively to determine whether a pope in years past did make an infallible pronouncement. Catholics argue that Honorius did not make such a pronouncement based upon the following evidence:

1. In no less than four places in his letters, he rejects all idea of defining doctrine in favour of one side or the other:
   (a) “We must not wrest what they say into Church dogmas”;
   (b) “We must not define either one or two operations”;
   (c) “We leave the matter to grammarians”;
   (d) “We must not, defining, pronounce one or two operations.”
2. Honorius imposed no obligations upon the faithful to hold any of the doctrinal opinions expressed in his letter: the customary grave penalties for refusing to assent to the doctrine taught, receive no mention: he makes no reference to the use of Petrine authority nor to the traditional teaching of the Church. In other words, Honorius did not claim to be speaking with the mouth of Peter nor to be exercising that Apostle’s privilege of infallibility.

Therefore, in face of all this it cannot be asserted that an ex cathedra statement was made, or that that Council thought that such a definition had been pronounced.

Now, these things are a matter of objective, historical fact. Since you are an objective historian with a PhD in the field, it must be possible for you to evaluate whether these things are true or not.

So, did Honorius’ letters include the disclaimers listed above or not?

If he did include such obvious qualifiers, how can you continue to insist that he WAS teaching formally teaching error when Honorius went to such lengths to clarify otherwise?

You are reading back into history concepts that did not exist at that time. There was no concept that the Pope had the authority to issue doctrinal decisions “ex cathedra” during the time of the ancient undivided Church. To have ecumenical authority any decree of the Bishop of Rome had to be studied and ratified by an Ecumenical Council as the Council of Chalcedon studied and ratified the Tome of Leo. The decree of the 1st Vatican Council claims unconditionally that “see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error…” The case of Pope Honorius I shows that the the see of St. Peter has not been umblemishd by any error. He was condemned for heresy by the 6th Ecumenical Council. The 5th Ecumenical Council forced Pope Vigilius to accept its decisions. The decree of the 1st Vatican Council claims that the Popes have always called Ecumenical Councils That also is not true, the Emperors called the first 7 Ecumenical Councils. You cannot reconcile the 1st Vatican Council with the practices of the ancient undivided Church. It is not possible without distorting the historical record.

Fr. John

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are reading back into history concepts that did not exist at that time. There was no concept that the Pope had the authority to issue doctrinal decisions “ex cathedra” during the time of the ancient undivided Church. To have ecumenical authority any decree of the Bishop of Rome had to be studied and ratified by an Ecumenical Council as the Council of Chalcedon studied and ratified the Tome of Leo. The decree of the 1st Vatican Council claims unconditionally that “see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error…” The case of Pope Honorius I shows that the the see of St. Peter has not been umblemishd by any error. He was condemned for heresy by the 6th Ecumenical Council. The 5th Ecumenical Council forced Pope Vigilius to accept its decisions. The decree of the 1st Vatican Council claims that the Popes have always called Ecumenical Councils That also is not true, the Emperors called the first 7 Ecumenical Councils. You cannot reconcile the 1st Vatican Council with the practices of the ancient undivided Church. It is not possible without distorting the historical record.

Fr. John

Fr. John-

Did Honorius write the things I quoted or not?

If so, would this be evidence that he was NOT teaching formally or infallibly?

Thanks.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. John-

Did Honorius write the things I quoted or not?

If so, would this be evidence that he was NOT teaching formally or infallibly?

Thanks.

Pope Honorius was not teaching formally or infallibly because the Popes had no such authority at that time. Besides the decree of Vatican I does not state that only statements by the Pope taught formally of infallibly were unblemished by false teaching, but that no Pope had ever taught false doctrine. Pope Honorius did teach false doctrine in his letter to Patriarch Sergius.

Fr. John

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pope Honorius was not teaching formally or infallibly because the Popes had no such authority at that time. Besides the decree of Vatican I does not state that only statements by the Pope taught formally of infallibly were unblemished by false teaching, but that no Pope had ever taught false doctrine. Pope Honorius did teach false doctrine in his letter to Patriarch Sergius.

Fr. John

Did Honorius’ letters contain those qualifiers or not?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Did Honorius’ letters contain those qualifiers or not?

That makes no sense the council spoke clearly on the matter. Pope Honorius was an heretic. You are avoiding the issue. There was a Pope who was officially condemned for heresy by an Ecumenical Council. That means that Rome has not been unblemished by doctrinal error. I do not know how more official it could have been Patriarch Sergius asked him for his opinion and he gave an opinion that was heretical. You cannot change history or ignore the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. There was an heretical Pope. Therefore, Popes cannot claim infallibility.

Fr. John

t

 

[Randy_Carson]

That makes no sense the council spoke clearly on the matter. Pope Honorius was an heretic. You are avoiding the issue. There was a Pope who was officially condemned for heresy by an Ecumenical Council. That means that Rome has not been unblemished by doctrinal error. I do not know how more official it could have been Patriarch Sergius asked him for his opinion and he gave an opinion that was heretical. You cannot change history or ignore the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. There was an heretical Pope. Therefore, Popes cannot claim infallibility.

Fr. John

t

So, you either don’t know or don’t want to admit that Honorius never made an ex cathedra statement.

Tell me, in your understanding of papal infallibility, are popes permitted to err as private theologians (ie, when they are offering their opinions on theological matters and NOT binding the whole Church to that opinion) and does that private error - even private heresy - have any bearing whatsoever on papal infalliblity?

 

[Cavaradossi]

1. Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide which theological matters are or are not essential differences.

They would reject this as nonsensical, because one cannot treat the faith in such a reductionistic fashion so as to create essential and nonessential points of doctrine.

1. Theologians who disagree with one another must ultimately adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views are reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics).

It simply doesn’t work that way. No amount of Magisterial authority can ever solve certain problems of hermeneutics and epistemology.

1. The fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—one single, official Catholic position.

There is no corresponding authority in Orthodoxy that can speak for all the Orthodox Churches.

No, there cannot be, because having “one position” even if issued from only a single source will not ever solve the problem of hermeneutics. The unity you seek after is a fool’s folly. But again, thank you for playing and presuming to know the minds of my friends better than I. It has brought me great joy to think of them and what they might say in response.

 

[Randy_Carson]

They would reject this as nonsensical, because one cannot treat the faith in such a reductionistic fashion so as to create essential and nonessential points of doctrine.

It simply doesn’t work that way. No amount of Magisterial authority can ever solve certain problems of hermeneutics and epistemology.

No, there cannot be, because having “one position” even if issued from only a single source will not ever solve the problem of hermeneutics. The unity you seek after is a fool’s folly. But again, thank you for playing and presuming to know the minds of my friends better than I. It has brought me great joy to think of them and what they might say in response.

Thanks. Now, I look forward to hearing what your friends themselves have to say.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Fr. John-

Did Honorius write the things I quoted or not?

If so, would this be evidence that he was NOT teaching formally or infallibly?

Thanks.

I’ve been trying to get this Honorius letter, without success… One of the biggest things from what I’ve read so far is that he did not want to get into the “wills of Christ” argumentation and that he did want to fall back on the “Definition of Faith” present at Chalcedon in 451…

I think he was negligent, but without examining the actual documentary evidence all I have is the “opinions” of scholars. Which at this point becomes a matter of mere credibility and objectivity.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The actual required conditions [for papal infallibility] are twofold: The pope must exercise his office as “teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,” and he must define a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be “held by the whole Church” (Pastor aeternus 4, iv, quoted in The Church Teaches, John F. Clarkson, S.J. et. al, ed., 102).

Not every exercise of a pope’s primacy involves his office and authority as “teacher of all Christians.” This primacy also includes—in addition to the power to teach—the power to rule and govern the whole Church. The truth is, a pope can exercise his supreme authority in any number of ways without involving the gift of infallibility—appointing and deposing bishops, suppressing religious orders, altering or imposing disciplines, etc.

Sergius wrote to Honorius to obtain not a dogmatic teaching but a rule of silence that Sergius misrepresented as necessary to end needless wrangling over disputed expressions. Honorius, without further investigation, accepted Sergius’s presentation at face value, seeing the dispute as “an idle question” to be left to the “grammarians who sell formulae of their own invention” (Scripta fraternitatis vestrae, quoted by Fernand Hayward in A History of the Popes, 90). It is no surprise therefore, that Honorius wrote that, “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” (Scripta dilectissimi filii quoted by William Shaw Kerr in A Handbook on the Papacy 196, emphasis added).

These words make it clear Honorius did not address the nascent heresy as the “teacher of all Christians” defining what ought to be believed. On the contrary, the pope declines to define anything and merely follows Sergius’s suggestion in saying neither expression should be spoken of. Whether Honorius’ letters later “affected the whole Church” is immaterial to the question of infallibility.

The proper question is whether Honorius proclaimed a doctrine to be “held by the whole Church.” The answer to this question is clearly “No.” Honorius urged a rule of silence, not a rule of faith. His letters, which anathematized nothing, were intended for a few Eastern bishops and were unknown in the West until after his death. They were hardly the sort of documents with which a pope communicates his intent to bind the whole Church to a solemn dogmatic definition. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of Honoriuss policy was to leave the monothelite patriarchs in the East in place.

Source: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301

 

[Isaiah45_9]

“At the Second Vatican Council, Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV spoke on behalf of the “absent members” of the Council: the Orthodox Churches. He did this with the complete approbation of Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople. Maximos argued against the Latinization of the Eastern Churches, and in favour of the use of vernacular languages in all the liturgies of the Catholic Church. For his outstanding work at the Council, he was awarded with the Cardinalate.”

For a Patriarch to accept a Cardinal’s rank is a demotion and a sign of subordination to Rome by the Melkites. Melkites are not Orthodox nor do they teach the Eastern Orthodox Faith, because according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine, if a Bishop is in communion with another Bishop that signifies that he shares a common doctrine with the other Bishop. That means that according to Eastern Orthodox teaching, the Melkites accept Roman Catholic doctrine, not Eastern Orthodox doctrine. As Eastern Catholics the Melkites have left the Eastern Orthodox Church. Therefore, it is not their place to declare that they believe as we do. We, the Eastern Orthodox decide what we believe and who is Eastern Orthodox, not the Melkites who have ceased to be Eastern Orthodox by leaving the Eastern Orthodox Church and accepting the papacy and all its claims to infallibility and universal jurisdiction over the Church. Their claim to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome is one reason why the Eastern Orthodox find the Eastern Catholic movement so offensive. From our point of view you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. They are not the best chance at unity between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome. Instead, the Eastern Catholic movement is one of the most important barriers to reconciliation between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Rome.

Fr. John

So Father,

How do you really feel about Eastern Catholicism?

I am kidding, Father.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thanks. Now, I look forward to hearing what your friends themselves have to say.

I’d not have the heart to expose you to such mockery.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’d not have the heart to expose you to such mockery.

Why stop now?

 

[Peter_J]

So, please, from scripture, show me how your model of church governance (which has resulted in the creation of multiple ethnically homogenous and geographically-oriented autonomous “churches”) even remotely resembles the unity that was SUPPOSED to be a witness to the world that Jesus was sent by God.

From scripture.

You’re still Catholic, right?

 

[spina1953]

Randy Carson said that Catholicism has a functioning magesterium that can decide which thelogical matters are or not essentical differences, to which a reply is that “They would reject this as nonsensical, because one cannot treat the faith in such a reductionistic fashion so as to create essentical and nonessentical points of doctrine.” I have to reply that had everyone understood what the Apostles and their deciples taught there would be no need for any council to decide what it is that Christains were to believe. Also the Magesterium teaches us what it is we are to believe as Christains and what was handed down from Christ to the Apostles. Without it, how are to know what is to be taught and believed or not. I say this because there are so many different ways of belief concerning what the Apostles taught and understaood as time went by and in this day and age it is all the more important as so many different denomonatins have doctrimes that are not in line of what the Apostles taught. I am beginning to think that the East is unwilling to give up anything for fear that they will lose their independence thereby losing face.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

On the most important theological matters there is one official Orthodox position, too, even without a magisterium.

So you don’t have a teaching office?

So how is this one position enforced?

 

[frjohnmorris]

So, you either don’t know or don’t want to admit that Honorius never made an ex cathedra statement.

Tell me, in your understanding of papal infallibility, are popes permitted to err as private theologians (ie, when they are offering their opinions on theological matters and NOT binding the whole Church to that opinion) and does that private error - even private heresy - have any bearing whatsoever on papal infalliblity?

Of course Pope Honorius I did not make an “ex cathedra” statement, because that concept did not exist at that time. When he wrote a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople on a matter of doctrine, he first stated that only an Ecumenical Council had the authority to introduce new doctrine. That alone shows that that the ancient Popes did not claim the authority to speak unilaterally or “ex cathedra” on matters of doctrine, but recognized the authority of an Ecumenical Council as the final authority on all matters of doctrine. However, he suggested that instead of using the term one energy that the therm “one will” should be used instead of one energy. The 6th Ecumenical Council condemned him for heresy for that letter. [Walker, A History of the Christian Church, pp. 81-182.] The decree of the 1st Vatican Council states that Rome has kept its doctrine “undefiled.” The doctrine of Rome has not been kept undefiled if a Pope was declared an heretic by an Ecumenical Council. Obviously his letter was public knowledge and important enough that the Fathers of the council felt the need to publicly repudiate it and its author, although both Pope Honorius I and Patriarch Sergius had died years before the council.
Even without the case of Pope Honorius I, it is not possible to reconcile Vatican I with the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils or the practice of the ancient undivided Church which gave the Bishop of Rome only a primacy of honor, not universal jurisdiction or the final say on doctrinal matters.

Fr. John

 

[RyanBlack]

Randy Carson said that Catholicism has a functioning magesterium that can decide which thelogical matters are or not essentical differences, to which a reply is that “They would reject this as nonsensical, because one cannot treat the faith in such a reductionistic fashion so as to create essentical and nonessentical points of doctrine.” I have to reply that had everyone understood what the Apostles and their deciples taught there would be no need for any council to decide what it is that Christains were to believe. Also the Magesterium teaches us what it is we are to believe as Christains and what was handed down from Christ to the Apostles. Without it, how are to know what is to be taught and believed or not. I say this because there are so many different ways of belief concerning what the Apostles taught and understaood as time went by and in this day and age it is all the more important as so many different denomonatins have doctrimes that are not in line of what the Apostles taught. I am beginning to think that the East is unwilling to give up anything for fear that they will lose their independence thereby losing face.

And what is the West willing to give up? Papal infallibility? The filioque (not just its recitation in the Creed, but as official teaching)? Universal ordinary jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome? The Immaculate Conception, etc.?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Randy Carson said that Catholicism has a functioning magesterium that can decide which thelogical matters are or not essentical differences, to which a reply is that “They would reject this as nonsensical, because one cannot treat the faith in such a reductionistic fashion so as to create essentical and nonessentical points of doctrine.” I have to reply that had everyone understood what the Apostles and their deciples taught there would be no need for any council to decide what it is that Christains were to believe. Also the Magesterium teaches us what it is we are to believe as Christains and what was handed down from Christ to the Apostles. Without it, how are to know what is to be taught and believed or not. I say this because there are so many different ways of belief concerning what the Apostles taught and understaood as time went by and in this day and age it is all the more important as so many different denomonatins have doctrimes that are not in line of what the Apostles taught. I am beginning to think that the East is unwilling to give up anything for fear that they will lose their independence thereby losing face.

It has nothing to do with face. It is a simple matter of doctrine and practice. We are not willing to give up our administration by councils because we believe that is the proper form of Church administration based on the Biblical example of the Apostolic Council. We adhere to the beliefs and practices of the Church before 1054 as the correct model to follow. What about the Catholics? Is it not a matter of face for them to continue to adhere to the Papacy, although the historic record shows beyond a doubt that the Eastern Patriarchs never recognized any Pope as having the authority given to him by the 1st Vatican Council? We do not need a Magesterium or the Pope because we have the Holy Tradition of the Church to guide us on what is and what is not essential.

Fr. John

 

[spina1953]

If that is so how do the faithful know what is to be taught to them? The reason why the Catholic Church has a magesterium is so that the faithful know what it is that the Church teaches and what we are to believe. Without it, we would be like so many of the Protestant denomonations that have conflicting doctrines of belief. Also is there in conformity with the Churches in union with The Catholic Church as a whole. Doctrines explain dogma’s. There are as I understand it many different ways of explaining the truth of what we as Catholic’s believe. without it how is one to know what to believe as one could believe whatever they wanted to without criticism from the Church.