Cornerstone of our Catholic Faith: 2 Thess 2:15

[in_servitude]

Hi Lincoln,

I know the above wasn’t addressed to me but I’m not so sure what you are trying to prove/demonstrate with Honorious. Honorius commited a papal error and was condemned as a heretic by later councils and in the papal oath. That is all true but, so what?

The Catholic Church teaches infallibility. To disprove the theory of infallibility, one only need to show one single instance of one single teaching of error, even if only for a very brief period of time.

If one can take down the theory of infallibility, then one can take down the Catholic Church. That is the basic approach anti-Catholics take. I come from the point of view that we are engaged in spiritual warfare. These attacks will always be coming at the Catholic Church because the source cannot be eliminated.

Even so, the evidence against Honorious looks very damning. However, people have to use inferences, indirection, and half-truths to make their case against Honorious. They’re not able to point something that Honorious said and say, “There’s a Pope teaching error.”

This thread is about Sacred Tradition. Many protestants would like to see that claim shot down.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Lincoln,

I know the above wasn’t addressed to me but I’m not so sure what you are trying to prove/demonstrate with Honorious. Honorius commited a papal error and was condemned as a heretic by later councils and in the papal oath. That is all true but, so what?

Another post sought to say Honorius was condemned only for a failure to act, by posting as much my purpose was to indicate that the council, and indeed a great many popes after it did not view it as much. So in essence, my post was a response to that. I do indeed think it pertains to the infallibility debate. But as a Protestant, naturally the condemnation of sola fide and the proclamation of many other doctrines we disagree with demonstrate to us Protestsnts the fallibility of the pope.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[in_servitude]

But as a Protestant, naturally the condemnation of sola fide and the proclamation of many other doctrines we disagree with demonstrate to us Protestsnts the fallibility of the pope.

What I see you saying is, “We disagree with the doctrine taught by the Pope, therefore the Pope is teaching error.”

 

[Lincoln7]

What I see you saying is, “We disagree with the doctrine taught by the Pope, therefore the Pope is teaching error.”

In servitude,

More: Popes are viewded to have proclaimed contrary to sacred scripture, therefore the pope is fallible.

regards

Lincs

 

[Porknpie]

In servitude,

More: Popes are viewded to have proclaimed contrary to sacred scripture, therefore the pope is fallible.

regards

Lincs

Lincoln - that is a lame duck above. Name one instance where a Pope has erred on faith and morals?

 

[in_servitude]

Popes are viewded to have proclaimed contrary to sacred scripture, therefore the pope is fallible.

Popes are **viewed **as proclaiming contrary to scripture? There’s the Pope, and then there’s those that **view **the Pope. According to you, some of those that **view **the Pope say that past Popes teach in opposition to scripture. Some must view them as teaching in opposition to scripture, while others do not. So, the viewers are unable to agree. But, it seems that you have decided that you are sufficiently qualified to declare what is correct, and what is error - like a self-made mini-Magisterium.

I do sincerely appreciate the discussion. It’s been illuminating.

 

[Lincoln7]

Popes are **viewed **as proclaiming contrary to scripture? There’s the Pope, and then there’s those that **view **the Pope. According to you, some of those that **view **the Pope say that past Popes teach in opposition to scripture. Some must view them as teaching in opposition to scripture, while others do not. So, the viewers are unable to agree. But, it seems that you have decided that you are sufficiently qualified to declare what is correct, and what is error - like a self-made mini-Magisterium.

I do sincerely appreciate the discussion. It’s been illuminating.

Not quite a reflection of my position. But let’s apply it to yours; have you not also decided you are sufficiently qualified to declare what infallible guide to follow; namely the pope of Rome? Was your choice infallible? If not, you can have no more certainty than any Protestant. We simply arrive back at the starting point; one following scripture as their rule of faith (hence the term canon), the other following the magisterium. Sola scriptura, or sola ecclessia.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Lincoln - that is a lame duck above. Name one instance where a Pope has erred on faith and morals?

Porknpie,

I have been presenting as much with the Honorius case. But as I’ve said; condemnation of sola fide, purgatory, the propitiatory Sacrfice view of the Eucharist…

Regards

Lincs

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Not quite a reflection of my position. But let’s apply it to yours; have you not also decided you are sufficiently qualified to declare what infallible guide to follow; namely the pope of Rome? Was your choice infallible? If not, you can have no more certainty than any Protestant. We simply arrive back at the starting point; one following scripture as their rule of faith (hence the term canon), the other following the magisterium. Sola scriptura, or sola ecclessia.

Kind regards

Lincs

You are exactly right on where it all ends up in the final factor. I am sure you have notice that some do not understand what Sola Scriptura means or teaches. Alot of time from my experience is trying to correct their misrepresentation or strawman argument. The down side is many times they wont listen.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Porknpie,

I have been presenting as much with the Honorius case. But as I’ve said; condemnation of sola fide, purgatory, the propitiatory Sacrfice view of the Eucharist…

Regards

Lincs

There are the Letters of Liberious too !

 

[Pwrlftr]

Another post sought to say Honorius was condemned only for a failure to act, by posting as much my purpose was to indicate that the council, and indeed a great many popes after it did not view it as much. So in essence, my post was a response to that. I do indeed think it pertains to the infallibility debate. But as a Protestant, naturally the condemnation of sola fide and the proclamation of many other doctrines we disagree with demonstrate to us Protestsnts the fallibility of the pope.

Kind regards

Lincs

Lincoln,

Honorius was condemned as a heretic for the letter he wrote but it is my understanding that this was a private letter. The doctrine of papal infallibility was not formally defined until 1870 and was worded such that it has very narrow application. From reading your posts I bet you have already read the definition so I won’t bother copying and pasting here.

You say that the condemnation of sola fide and other various doctrines you hold to be true demonstrate the falibility of the pope but to disprove papal infallibility wouldn’t you necessarily have to prove it to be false using the Vatican Council’s definition? I don’t think it’s very convincing to say “I belive X to be true and the Pope rejects X so therefore the pope is fallibile”.

 

[Ignatius]

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours

In this verse, Paul teaches that all revelation is not in the Bible (his letter, for example) but it includes traditions (teachings) that have been given verbally. In practical terms, not all Christian faith has been captured in New Testament writings.

This seems to refute the stance of sola scriptura, “Bible alone” Christians who anathamize Catholics for adherence to tradition.

It’s just a pure guess why Paul would write such a thing. What was the question he was addressing?

The first thing that comes to mind is that in Judaism, there was a distinction between the written Torah (given by God) and the oral Torah (Moses). Jews accepted both equally. This is not to say that Paul is imposing the Torah on new Christians. It’s just that now in the Christian faith, that something similar applies particularly in Biblical times.

This verse stands out as a Biblical command to accept sacred tradition – in other words – Roman Catholicism.

We’re not all ‘Roman’ Catholics. The Catholic Church is a communion of 23 Sui Juris Churches in communion with each other and with The Holy See.

There is a lot more to The Catholic Church and the Romans.

See here: forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=119

 

[Ignatius]

Lincoln,

Honorius was condemned as a heretic.

Actually, that is incorrect. Honorius was condemned only for a failure to act more forcefully than he did. He never embraced the heresy, just did not act forcefully enough against it.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Actually, that is incorrect. Honorius was condemned only for a failure to act more forcefully than he did. He never embraced the heresy, just did not act forcefully enough against it.

Wasn’t he condemned as a heretic in the papal oath?

 

[Bryan77]

Its my understanding that Honorius was a heretic. His letter just didn’t fulfill the requirements to be under infallibility. Heretic? Yes. Discrediting infallibility? No.

So what if papal infallibility wasn’t “defined” until later. His heresy didn’t fit the definition anyways, so its a moot point.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Its my understanding that Honorius was a heretic. His letter just didn’t fulfill the requirements to be under infallibility. Heretic? Yes. Discrediting infallibility? No.

So what if papal infallibility wasn’t “defined” until later. His heresy didn’t fit the definition anyways, so its a moot point.

That is my understanding as well. To me, this seems to be the best explanation.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Actually, that is incorrect. Honorius was condemned only for a failure to act more forcefully than he did. He never embraced the heresy, just did not act forcefully enough against it.

The decree of the 6th general council has him condemned for formal heresy. He was not alone in that. There were others who were condemned along with him. Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics also use this as an example of which refutes Papal Infallibility. You see Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics likewise reject Papal infallibility. It was never a universal belief of the church. What we have is from time to time some Popes from the Roman See claim this along with other things. Objective evidence on Hornorius being condemned as a heretic and for dangerous heresy is in the decrees of the 6th general council itself. Basically a claimed infallible general council condemning a claimed infallible Pope.

 

[Lincoln7]

Relating to the question of ex cathedra; I find the councils language condemning him as ‘Pope of old Rome’ as evidence of the anathema being pronounced upon him in his official capacity, not to mention the key line of the letter “we confess one will…” Sounds very much like an official statement.

The key point in all of this that Schaff makes; "This case of Honorius is as clear and strong as any fact in Church history. Infallibilists have been driven to desperate efforts. Some pronounce the acts of the Council, which exist in Greek and Latin, downright forgeries (Baronius); others, admitting the acts, declare the letters of Honoring forgeries, so that he was unjustly condemned by the Council (Bellarmin)—both without a shadow of proof; still others, being forced at last to acknowledge the genuineness of the letters and acts, distort the former into an orthodox sense by a non-natural exegesis, and thus unwillingly fasten upon œcumenical Councils and Popes the charge of either dogmatic ignorance and stupidity, or malignant representation. Yet in every case the decisive fact remains that both Councils and Popes for several hundred years believed in the fallibility of the Pope, in flat contradiction to the Vatican Council. - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.vi.xiii.html

Regards

Lincs

 

[Porknpie]

Requirements for papal infallabilty below.* Honorius was not speaking ex cathedra. *

*1. The pronouncement must be made by the official successor to Peter.

2.* The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals.

3.* The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra (from the chair) of Peter, and must be intending to proclaim a doctine that binds the entire Church to assent.**

New advent.com has a good summary.

The charge against Pope Honorius is a double one: that, when appealed to in the Monothelite controversy, he actually taught the Monothelite heresy in his two letters to Sergius; and that he was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the decrees of which were approved by Leo II. But in the first place it is quite clear from the tone and terms of these letters that, so far from intending to give any final, or ex cathedra, decision on the doctrinal question at issue, Honorius merely tried to allay the rising bitterness of the controversy by securing silence. In the next place, taking the letters as they stand, the very most that can be clearly and incontrovertibly deduced from them is, that Honorius was not a profound or acute theologian, and that he allowed himself to be confused and misled by the wily Sergius as to what the issue really was and too readily accepted the latter’s misrepresentation of his opponents’ position, to the effect that the assertion of two wills in Christ meant two contrary or discordant wills. Finally, in reference to the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, it is to be remembered that there is no ecumenical sentence affirming the fact either that Honorius’s letters to Sergius contain heresy, or that they were intended to define the question with which they deal. The sentence passed by the fathers of the council has ecumenical value only in so far as it was approved by Leo II; but, in approving the condemnation of Honorius, his successor adds the very important qualification that he is condemned, not for the doctrinal reason that he taught heresy, but on the moral ground that he was wanting in the vigilance expected from him in his Apostolic office and thereby allowed a heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings.

 

[in_servitude]

Not quite a reflection of my position.

Perhaps I didn’t **view **your statements properly. I suppose that can happen.

But let’s apply it to yours; have you not also decided you are sufficiently qualified to declare what infallible guide to follow; namely the pope of Rome? Was your choice infallible?

Nope - I’m not sufficiently qualified to infallibly declare anything. Imagine if I was an illiterate rice farmer in some desperate economic conditions. In that situation, I would also struggle to be the infallible decider. But, given the idea that Protestants are left to their own devices, void of Sacred Tradition, looking at “internal and external evidence” for what is actually Sacred Scripture and what is infested by the author of lies, the picture looks nonsensical. You have avoided discussing the reality of spiritual warfare. Satan was busy in the Catholic Church trying to tear it down from the start - John 6 is a good reference for that.

If not, you can have no more certainty than any Protestant. We simply arrive back at the starting point; one following scripture as their rule of faith (hence the term canon), the other following the magisterium. Sola scriptura, or sola ecclessia.

I need not be infallible as a protestant must be. As I’m tossed about in this battle between Christ and Satan, I can keep myself tethered to the Rock as the visible source of Truth as provided by Christ.