Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[Randy_Carson]

And so I say, it was not infallible.

Father, you have stubbornly trying to equate papal infallibility to Pope Honorius teaching even after being explained to you that papal infallibility is conditional.

Don’t you think that you should understand what papal infallibility is first of all? Like what it entails?

Whether or not past Popes prior to Vatican 1 knew about papal infallibility or not, you still cannot logically allege that all their teachings were deemed infallible. They are not today and they were not then.

I feel that you are obsessed in your objection to papal infallibility that you have confused much of your scholarly presentation and instead you seemed to have mixed your points, perhaps as you did when I dialogued with you regarding abortive birth control and pro-life issue. You seem to be saying most of the time when the weakness of your church being pointed to you, “Your church (Catholic) is doing the same thing” or to that effect.

The spirit of Vatican 1 regarding papal infallibility is that it is a gift of being protected from error when spoken Ex-Cathedra on matter of faith and moral. When the Church formulated this in Vatican 1, it did not include as infallible statements – personal letters, teaching on specific subjects, encyclicals or thought of the past Popes which it does not now too.

To include Honorius’ letter (which you cannot show) as supposed to be infallible teaching in order that you could attack papal infallibility is confusing indeed to my mind. It is like you have mixed up your points.

Vatican 1 basically says when the papal infallibility is free from error, she is saying all dogmas that are not in error, not heretical teaching or personal thought of the Popes. Papal infallibility is never meant the Poes’ encyclicals, letters or personal thought and teaching on current subjects but one that affirmed the belief of the apostles.

Have a good day.

It has been demonstrated by you, mardukm, wandile and others repeatedly in multiple threads in multiple subforums that:

A. Honorius was not the source of the heresy;
B. Honorius’ letters explicitly deny that he is attempting to make any sort of binding decision;
C. Honorius’ letters do not meet the criteria for an infallible decree by any stretch of the imagination.

Those who claim otherwise reveal their DESPERATION to have at least one Pope they can claim to have taught error and thus disprove papal infallibility.

This is an understandable reaction from those who have dedicated many years of their lives to a Church only to learn that they were misinformed. Too much is at stake to let go. Consequently, erroneous beliefs like this falsehood concerning Honorius will be defended vigorously despite the evidence because objectivity is impossible to maintain under these circumstances.

Still, it’s kind of sad to watch it play out in a public forum.

 

[frjohnmorris]

It has been demonstrated by you, mardukm, wandile and others repeatedly in multiple threads in multiple subforums that:

A. Honorius was not the source of the heresy;
B. Honorius’ letters explicitly deny that he is attempting to make any sort of binding decision;
C. Honorius’ letters do not meet the criteria for an infallible decree by any stretch of the imagination.

Those who claim otherwise reveal their DESPERATION to have at least one Pope they can claim to have taught error and thus disprove papal infallibility.

This is an understandable reaction from those who have dedicated many years of their lives to a Church only to learn that they were misinformed. Too much is at stake to let go. Consequently, erroneous beliefs like this falsehood concerning Honorius will be defended vigorously despite the evidence because objectivity is impossible to maintain under these circumstances.

Still, it’s kind of sad to watch it play out in a public forum.

What is sad is the way that Roman Catholics reject the historical record to defend the doctrine of papal infallibility. There is no falsehood concerning Honorius. He was condemned for heresy at the 6th Ecumenical Council. The decrees of the council are available on line at ccel.org/fathers.html. In the ancient undivided Church only an Ecumenical Council had the authority to make binding decisions on the official doctrine of the Church. No ancient Pope had the authority to proclaim doctrine speaking “ex catedra.” That concept did not exist. No Bishop is infallible, not even the Bishop of Rome. Only the Church is infallible speaking in an Ecumenical Council, which is accepted by the Church as a legitimate Ecumenical Council. That is a council becomes an Ecumenical Council after it is accepted by the Church. The example of a council that was not accepted is the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449.

Fr. John

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is sad is the way that Roman Catholics reject the historical record to defend the doctrine of papal infallibility. There is no falsehood concerning Honorius. He was condemned for heresy at the 6th Ecumenical Council. The decrees of the council are available on line at ccel.org/fathers.html. In the ancient undivided Church only an Ecumenical Council had the authority to make binding decisions on the official doctrine of the Church. No ancient Pope had the authority to proclaim doctrine speaking “ex catedra.” That concept did not exist. No Bishop is infallible, not even the Bishop of Rome. Only the Church is infallible speaking in an Ecumenical Council, which is accepted by the Church as a legitimate Ecumenical Council. That is a council becomes an Ecumenical Council after it is accepted by the Church. The example of a council that was not accepted is the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449.

Fr. John

There is no question of his being condemned as a heretic, but this does not prove what you want it to prove. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

 

[Reuben_J]

What is sad is the way that Roman Catholics reject the historical record to defend the doctrine of papal infallibility. There is no falsehood concerning Honorius. He was condemned for heresy at the 6th Ecumenical Council. The decrees of the council are available on line at ccel.org/fathers.html.

It is also to be remembered that sometimes history may be depended on who the writers are and who interpret them.

In the ancient undivided Church only an Ecumenical Council had the authority to make binding decisions on the official doctrine of the Church.

Ecumenical Council was important but it was not the only one who decided on the matters of the Church.

No ancient Pope had the authority to proclaim doctrine speaking “ex catedra.” That concept did not exist.

You are sadly misinformed here and obviously wrong. I don’t know the nature of your formation in the seminary but it usually forms a priest to some extent and that sadly would include certain bias which the formators are against or for. This happens in Catholic seminary colleges too and it is not always good for the priests nowadays. Nevertheless for you to say that the concept of ex-cathedra did not exist, to my eyes surely does not enhance your credibility, for certainly there existed such concept. I do not mean a disrespect for you as a priest but we can point it out if a priest errs. We do that in our parishes and if anything, it is because we love them. Hopefully this sounds loving though admittedly it is difficult in a discussion where opinion differs so much.

Ex cathedra is a Latin phrase simply literally means, “from the chair”. Jesus said not to do what the Pharisees did (for they are hypocrites) but nevertheless do what they say for they are saying it from the chair of Moses, paraphrasing mine.

This is very profound because of the intensity of Jesus’ abhorrence of the Pharisees and yet he admitted that they still hold the truth by virtue of their position – from the chair of Moses.

Ex cathedra is not so much about making decision but rather of proclaiming the truth. We derive our truth from the teaching and the belief of the apostles who in turn were witnesses /disciples of Jesus.

The ancient Church might not use this term but it does not mean that the concept did not exist.

No Bishop is infallible, not even the Bishop of Rome. Only the Church is infallible speaking in an Ecumenical Council, which is accepted by the Church as a legitimate Ecumenical Council.

You, Father, are misinformed again here. I did mention about infallibility in my earlier post. The Bishops certainly do have a degree of infallibility.

The idea of infallibility derived from the promise of the key to heaven, the authority to bind and to loose and that the Gate of Hell will not prevail against the Church. He directed this empowerment singularly to Peter and some of that corporately to the apostles.

The successors of Peter are infallible when they proclaim the truth of their faith and they are protected from error in this. In other word, a Pope will never declare that there are three gods, for example. Thus in fact Popes had been infallible since the beginning in matter of faith and moral which they exercised regularly in their administration and preaching.

The fact that there was no declaration of ex-cathedra, it was because there was no necessity for it. The Popes and the Church were affirming the deposit of faith already. But when asked and questioned, the leader of the Church has to confirm this belief and categorically say it as it is.

If we believe that Bishops, and for that matter, many of us, hold positions for the purpose of God’s work, it means that they are blessed in holding that positions. God helps them with their roles, not so much as individuals but because of their postions which come from God.

That is a council becomes an Ecumenical Council after it is accepted by the Church. The example of a council that was not accepted is the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449.

It is more appropriate to say, it is, after the Pope ratified it. It did not matter whether he convened or participated in it.

 

[frjohnmorris]

There is no question of his being condemned as a heretic, but this does not prove what you want it to prove. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

It shows that the claim of the 1st Vatican that “this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error” is untrue because an Pope was declared an heretic by an Ecumenical Council. It is also clear that the claim of the council that Ecumenical Councils were always called by the Pope. The ancient Ecumenical Councils were always called by the emperor. The council also is wrong to claim that the Church has always recognized the authority of Rome.

Fr. John

 

[livingwordunity]

Before the schism, no Pope exercised the authority to unilaterally make infallible declarations on doctrine or to overrule a general council.

It goes back to when Jesus gave the keys of authority to Peter. That’s really what is at the root of this.

 

[Reuben_J]

frjohnmorris:

It shows that the claim of the 1st Vatican that “this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error” is untrue because an Pope was declared an heretic by an Ecumenical Council.

In so far when it proclaimed the truth of the faith which is the context of the Vatican 1 in question. You are attacking shadow. No, that is not what Vatican 1 is talking about.uch:

frjohnmorris:

It is also clear that the claim of the council that Ecumenical Councils were always called by the Pope.

It is hard to grasp what you are claiming – that the Pope always called the Council and yet he did not. Unless the Bishops, theologians and historians of the Vatican 1 really missed this one out … .

frjohnmorris:

The ancient Ecumenical Councils were always called by the emperor.

Probably that has got to do with the reality of the world then. A Pope who was imprisoned would not likely to call the Council. Also due to age factor, some Popes might not be able to withstand the journey to such meetings. The late Pope John Paul II was the most travelled Pope in history. He did it well through his eighties. But then he had the luxury of 747 and perhaps the Popemobile.

Ideally a Pope should call the Council but does that really matter when ultimately he had to ratify the outcome of such Council to make it Ecumenical, an implied authority.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

How many infallible statements have been made by Popes? What is it, something like two?
Don’t you think it is highly remiss of the popes for failing to use this charism to settle the many issues which have caused schisms and outright divisions throughout church history?
How would you defend their gross negligence?

No, the pope’s infallibility spreads further than just two cases (where did you get that number?). I asked because I have seen some Eastern Orthodox deny the infallibility of the Church.

If you accept infallibility, how is something known by the Church to have been decided infallibly? Either it is a minimal solution, the pope, or a maximal solution, the universal acceptance of the entire body faithful, which seems to be the EO position. If we consider this from the perspective of practicality, the papacy is a more suitable principle because the principle is definite and discernible. Relying on the acceptance of the whole body of the faithful is a question-begging method because the identity of the faithful is uncertain and the fact of universal acceptance is impossible to verify. What good is infallibility if you can’t discern it? If the infallibility of the Church is to be maintained by the EO, it will have to better explained than it has been to me in popular EO apologetics.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It goes back to when Jesus gave the keys of authority to Peter. That’s really what is at the root of this.

Amen, and the Keys are not the power to bind and loose, and they indeed represent the FAITH and PERSON of St Peter.

The charisma of the teaching authority=KEYS.

Amen, beautiful thing, so it was said, so it was written, so it shall be…and is!

 

[Randy_Carson]

It shows that the claim of the 1st Vatican that “this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error” is untrue because an Pope was declared an heretic by an Ecumenical Council. It is also clear that the claim of the council that Ecumenical Councils were always called by the Pope. The ancient Ecumenical Councils were always called by the emperor. The council also is wrong to claim that the Church has always recognized the authority of Rome.

Fr. John

Yes, but he never taught error formally in a manner that was binding on all Christians, was he? You have been shown your error repeatedly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Amen, and the Keys are not the power to bind and loose, and they indeed represent the FAITH and PERSON of St Peter.

The charisma of the teaching authority=KEYS.

Amen, beautiful thing, so it was said, so it was written, so it shall be…and is!

And Jesus’ words concerning the keys tie into Is 22:20-22 demonstrating that Jesus was actually re-establishing the perpetual office of the Royal Steward in His new kingdom.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Eastern Orthodox Theologians Agree: Peter is the Rock

Veselin Kesich

“It has long been noticed that Mt 16:17-19 has a Palestinian, Aramaic background. The form of Jesus’ reply to Peter’s confession appears Hebraistic. There are parallels to the Matthean text in the Qumran literature. The use of semitisms such as ‘gates of Hades,’ ‘flesh and blood,’ ‘bind and loose,’ and semitic parallelism again indicates an Aramaic environment…[Jesus] conferred upon Simon Bar-Jonah the title Peter, and promised that he would build his church upon him. ‘You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (ecclesia).’ These words are spoken in Aramaic, in which Cephas stands both for petros and petra…The confession of Peter, therefore, cannot be separated from Peter himself. Petra or rock does not simply refer to Peter’s faith but also to Peter personally. There is a formal and real identity between Petros and petra. Jesus will build the church upon Cephas.” (Veselin Kesich, “Peter’s Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition” in The Primacy of Peter edited by John Meyendorff [St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992], page 47,48)

Theodore Stylianopoulos

“That Orthodox scholars have gradually moved in the direction of affirming the personal application of Matt 16:17-19 to the Apostle Peter must be applauded. From the standpoint of critical scholarship it can no longer be disputed that Jesus’ words to Peter as reported in Matt 16:17-19 confer a special distinction on Peter as “rock” — the foundation on which Christ promised to build his Church. … These points are now conceded by conservative Protestant scholars as well.” (Kasper 48-49)

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, but he never taught error formally in a manner that was binding on all Christians, was he?

How could Christians be bound to believe error? (Do you mean civil law?)

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by frjohnmorris

It is also clear that the claim of the council that Ecumenical Councils were always called by the Pope.

I assume you meant “It is also clear that the claim of the council that Ecumenical Councils were always called by the Pope is false.” ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Eastern Orthodox Scholar Admits Universal Primacy

**Fr. Alexander Schmemann (Dean of St. Vladimir’s Seminary) **

“Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local ‘centers of agreement’ or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy…”(Primacy of Peter, edited by John Meyendorff)

 

[Randy_Carson]

How could Christians be bound to believe error? (Do you mean civil law?)

Honorius did not teach anything in this matter in a formal manner that suggests he was attempting to bind all Christians to that teaching. In fact, the opposite is true:

(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.”

Somehow, despite these clear statements that Honorius had no intention of making a binding decision, some controversialists insist that Honorius was attempting to make a formal, binding pronouncement and, because the matter in questions proved to be heretical, that Honorius’ private opinions disprove papal infallibility.

 

[Randy_Carson]

John Chrysostom on Peter’s Universal Jurisdiction (and Keys)

At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here [Antioch] for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man [Ignatius of Antioch] succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.” (Homily on St. Ignatius, 4)

He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren…If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1]

“God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler of the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying, ‘Simon, Simon, how often hath Satan desired to sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy strength fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren’.” (Hom quod frequenter conveniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[329])

“When he is told, ‘Thou canst not follow Me now,’ he says, ‘Though all should deny Thee, yet will not I deny.’ Because, then, it appeared likely he would be puffed up even to madness, since he practiced contradicting, He warns him not to rebel. This is what Luke refers to when he says that Christ said: ‘And I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,’ viz. that it may not be lost to the end, throughout teaching him humility, and proving that human nature is nothing by itself. For since his great love made him contradictory, He moderates him, that he might not in the future have the same fault, when he should receive the government of the world, but that remembering his fault he might know himself.” (Hom 73[72] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 395[429])

 

[frjohnmorris]

It goes back to when Jesus gave the keys of authority to Peter. That’s really what is at the root of this.

There is no question that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles and the Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor. That is not the issue. The transformation of the papacy from a primacy of honor as first among equals into a medieval absolute monarchy is what divides us. The ancient Church followed the example set by the Apostles at the Apostolic Council where St. Peter’s words carried great influence, but the decision was made by the Apostles and announced by St. James, the local Bishop. All important decisions on doctrine, discipline and organization were made by Ecumenical Council, not the Pope during the age of the ancient undivided Church. As senior Bishop the Pope had great influence but did not have anything near the authority given to him by the 1st Vatican Council.

Fr. John

 

[Randy_Carson]

It goes back to when Jesus gave the keys of authority to Peter. That’s really what is at the root of this.

You are correct, and the connection to Is. 22:20-22 is unmistakable; Jesus is re-establishing the perpetual office of the Royal Steward in His kingdom and naming Peter as its first Steward.

I would also like to offer an explanation of the events of the Council of Jerusalem that clears up some of the errors you will often hear bandied about by those who must deny Peter’s true authority in the Church:

As leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:

Acts 15:10-11
Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

James addresses them, also:

“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

 

[frjohnmorris]

No, the pope’s infallibility spreads further than just two cases (where did you get that number?). I asked because I have seen some Eastern Orthodox deny the infallibility of the Church.

If you accept infallibility, how is something known by the Church to have been decided infallibly? Either it is a minimal solution, the pope, or a maximal solution, the universal acceptance of the entire body faithful, which seems to be the EO position. If we consider this from the perspective of practicality, the papacy is a more suitable principle because the principle is definite and discernible. Relying on the acceptance of the whole body of the faithful is a question-begging method because the identity of the faithful is uncertain and the fact of universal acceptance is impossible to verify. What good is infallibility if you can’t discern it? If the infallibility of the Church is to be maintained by the EO, it will have to better explained than it has been to me in popular EO apologetics.

Orthodox Christian doctrine does teach that the Church is infallible. Infallibility is not verified by a legalistic process. It is verified by the Holy Tradition, which is the life of the Church in the Holy Spirit. A council is an Ecumenical Council when it is received and accepted by the Church as were the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I believe that it is a serious mistake to give one man the power to make infallible statements that are not subject to review by the Church as are papal decrees. There is no doubt that the ancient Popes had no such authority. Even an important decree like the Tomb of Leo had to be studied and approved by the Council of Chalcedon before it was considered an infallible statement of the dogma of the Church.

Fr. John