Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?

[rev_kevin]

St. Paul didn’t have your view about women preaching. It’s not apostolic, it’s not biblical, and it’s not orthodox to permit women to preach or be priests. But seeing as how Baptists reject a priesthood, you’re in a completely different frame of thought about the roles of clergy, etc. anyway.

I don’t reject the priesthood, I just don’t believe they are the only ones who can spread the word of God.

I Cor. 5 “…If she prays or prophesies…” To prophesies means to preach. In both the Hebrew and Greek used prophesies means femal preacher.
The dictionary says prophecy is to speak under divide insperation, to preach.

Luke 2:36 Anna, a prophet…
Acts 21:9 He had 4 unmarried daughters who had the gift of prophecy.

Its clear in 1 Cor. 11:5 that women prayed and prophesied in public worship. Its also clear in chapters 12-14 that women are given spiritual gifts and are encouraged to exercise them in the body of Christ.
See according to Paul a woman cannot pray, speak or prophesies in church “unless” her head is covered. So here Paul is saying Yes they can preach if they cover their heads. Then later on in the same book Paul demands that women keep silent in church, they can’t speak at all. Seems Paul is contradicting himself here.

Now if Paul says a woman can’t speak or prophesies in church unless her head is covered, why did the CC now say women don’t have to have their heads covered in church? Isn’t that going against what Paul says? See you can’t have it both ways, Paul says no women pray, speak or preachers unless their heads are covered but the CC says forget that head cover stuff, women don’t need a head covering now inorder to pray, speak or preach in church. If you want to go by what Paul says then stick to what he say. Don’t pick and choose what fits your agenda. Don’t say one is ok and the other is not.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Using head coverings to distract away from teaching is a pointless exercise. The head coverings that is a cultural sign of respect that was relevant at the time and isn’t now. Disciplines and doctrines are two different things. Just like the priesthood. Celibacy, for example, is a discipline. The pope could reverse that next week and declare the clergy free to marry as Orthodox priests do. But the pope cannot declare women to be priests because this goes to the fundamental heart and soul of the fatherhood of the priesthood. So, head coverings are mere discipline, like fish on Fridays. Women in positions of power within the Church is another matter and it will not change, nor should it.

You’re seeking to make this all cultural, which it was not. Paul’s view of women no doubt was influenced by his Judaic upbringing but Paul is not the only person we’re dealing with here. Jesus, right? Why did Jesus have no female apostles? Certainly He was not a man who was afraid to buck the system and tick people off. And none of the apostles afterward were women. And on top of that for 2,000 years clergy remained all-male, as it should be. The priesthood is not a mere pastorship in a protestant church. It is a sublime and deep, mystical, grace-conveying, sacrament-bringing office that ultimately is sacrificial in nature. It is sacerdotal, not just ministerial preaching. This is true in Orthodoxy and Catholicism. It is more than just preaching.

I’m not picking and choosing anything to fit my agenda, rev. I would encourage you to holistically look at women as clergy over the last 2,000 years. Look at the Bible, the traditions of the Church, and all the precedents as well as what men like John Paul II have reiterated about the all-male priesthood and ask yourself if you, as a pro-women’s ordination champion, are in good company or if you’re in a minority seeking to take the views of women we possess in modernity and try to anachronistically apply them to the past.

God bless

I don’t reject the priesthood, I just don’t believe they are the only ones who can spread the word of God.

I Cor. 5 “…If she prays or prophesies…” To prophesies means to preach. In both the Hebrew and Greek used prophesies means femal preacher.
The dictionary says prophecy is to speak under divide insperation, to preach.

Luke 2:36 Anna, a prophet…
Acts 21:9 He had 4 unmarried daughters who had the gift of prophecy.

Its clear in 1 Cor. 11:5 that women prayed and prophesied in public worship. Its also clear in chapters 12-14 that women are given spiritual gifts and are encouraged to exercise them in the body of Christ.
See according to Paul a woman cannot pray, speak or prophesies in church “unless” her head is covered. So here Paul is saying Yes they can preach if they cover their heads. Then later on in the same book Paul demands that women keep silent in church, they can’t speak at all. Seems Paul is contradicting himself here.

Now if Paul says a woman can’t speak or prophesies in church unless her head is covered, why did the CC now say women don’t have to have their heads covered in church? Isn’t that going against what Paul says? See you can’t have it both ways, Paul says no women pray, speak or preachers unless their heads are covered but the CC says forget that head cover stuff, women don’t need a head covering now inorder to pray, speak or preach in church. If you want to go by what Paul says then stick to what he say. Don’t pick and choose what fits your agenda. Don’t say one is ok and the other is not.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

634 Synod of Cyprus.

The Pope sent a legate to that synod. So did St. Sophronius. Just because the Synod came out in favor of Monothelitism, are we going to accuse St. Sophronius of monothelitism? How does the outcome of this synod justify a claim that Pope Honorius “pressed” his views on the Church? That’s a big leap given other facts about the case:

1. If Honorius was publicly teaching monothelitism, then it would have been the belief of the Roman Church, and his legates would likewise hold it. But in fact, there is no trace of the Monothelite heresy in the Latin Church, whether before or after this Synod. In fact, when envoys were sent to the Emperor Heraclius to confirm the next Pope (who was elected just 3 days from the death of Honorius), and the Emperor attempted to have them confirm the Ecthesis (the Emperor’s decree supporting Monothelitism), the envoys refused. Pope Severinus likewise condemned the Ecthesis.
2. St. Maximos the confessor had sent legates to this Synod in defense of the orthodox position. If the legate from Rome sided with the monothelites, this would have put Honorius’ orthodoxy into question. But in fact, St. Maximos is the staunchest defender of the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius in the matter.
3. The universal gathering of bishops at the Sixth Ecumenical Council did not even have an inkling that this heresy existed anywhere in the Western Church.
4. Sergius did not appeal to Pope Honorius until after this Synod, and Pope Honorius’ response did not arrive to Sergius until the following year in 635. So whatever Pope Honorius’ private opinions may have been, it had absolutely no bearing on the 634 Synod of Cyprus.
5. The only source of this “fact” is from a contemporary Monothelite named George Reshaina. He doggedly opposed St. Maximus and this “fact” is contained in his polemic biography of the saint. It is possible that he manufactured the sending of the Roman legate in order to give more standing for the Monothelite synod at Cyprus.

I would not brush off Fr. Meyendorff so easily, he was one of the leading Orthodox thinkers and certainly quite knowledgeable on the subject.

I’m certain he is a good historian on facts. It’s his interpretations that I find questionable.

The difference between an appointment and an affirmation is minor, especially when the election leading to the appointment is itself questionable.

It’s not minor. There are Easterns who regularly point out and complain that the appointment of bishops by the Pope in the Latin Church is a big distinction from the electoral process in the East. I don’t understand why that distinction should be minimized all of a sudden in this discussion? The fact is, appointment is viewed by non-Latins and Protestants as a monarchical exercise of authority, so to present the historical data as such is very misleading.

The quote Anna provides makes clear that the sack was opposed by the pope at first and is not misleading.

I was not questioning that portion.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Please cite sources to support your disagreement.

Here are a few online sources affirming that the first Latin Patriarch was not appointed by the Pope:
fact-index.com/l/la/latin_patriarch_of_constantinople.html
orthodoxwiki.org/Fourth_Crusade
newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

I am familiar with Protestant claims, however Protestant claims are not the issue. Orthodox claims are the issue, and EO claim Apostolic Succession. And I doubt they would say their view of Apostolic Succession is the same view held by Protestants. But I may be wrong.

Would Orthodox friends please comment on Apostolic Succession?

I don’t think I said that the EO’s “view of Apostolic Succession is the same view held by Protestants,” did I? What I said was that the rationale used by EO to deny the continuation of the unique Petrine office of confirming the brethren in the Apostolic Succession is identical to the rationale used by Protestants to deny the continuation of
the Apostolic office in general. Namely - it just stopped. No explanation, no reasons, just a claim.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Dear friend in Christ: Infallibility is most often NOT properly understood.

Here from the current Code of Canon Law are some defintions and explainations.BOOK III

BOOK III.

THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI

Can. 747 §1. The Church, to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of faith so that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit it might protect the revealed truth reverently, examine it more closely, and proclaim and expound it faithfully, has the duty and innate right, independent of any human power whatsoever, to preach the gospel to all peoples, also using the means of social communication proper to it.

§2. It belongs to the Church always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it.

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident. Meaning specified as an Infallible Doctrine.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him

SUMMATION:

Infalibility applies ONLY to matters of Faith and or Morals

Infallibility must be specifically specified

HOWEVER: ANY and ALL Teaching by the Supreme Pontiff and or the Magisterium with the Pope on matters of Faith and Morals must be held with th same level of belief as a Infallible pronouncement.

Love and prayers,
Pat

So INFALLIBILITY can be broken down to this by my understanding of this: Its whatever we decide is infallible and if we are later found that its not then its not.

I will keep my opinion to this if a Pope or Bishops (properly assembled) ever supported the death of another Christian or not in the name of Jesus, by direct decree or support of secular authorities or by inaction, they are therefore not infallible. You cannot decree that which Jesus clearly did not state was right and be in oneness with our Lord.

Can you show me where Jesus in His words said it was alright to kill a heretic, kill a Muslim or other not of the faith even in the face of oblivion or sit back while Jews were being massacred across Europe saying nothing. Or sat back taking gold from the New World as the Spanish and others raped it, same for Africa and the slave trade that took innocent lives?

At some point when did these these become alright to Christ?

And if they did then God changed His mind and so maybe other things changed the Reformation, gay marriage, married priests, women priests and the like your offended by.

You can’t have it both ways do what Christ spoke to do and also do what is againat Christ.

 

[mardukm]

I think the Martyrs woulds would say “yes, actions under duress have legal and moral value.” What we do under duress speaks more about what we believe and who we are than at any other time.

That may have relevance for his morality, but that has no relevance on the question of whether him subscribing to a heretical formula under duress can be counted as an official act of the Petrine office. Would you agree to that?

Btw, are you aware that there are strong arguments against the idea that Pope Liberius actually “fell?” The legend seems to have been spread by the Arians themselves. I would suggest reading this: newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm#II

Pope Honorius may not have produced an Ex Cathedra teaching, but whether or not he intended to give a “definitive” teaching is debatable.

Would you agree that if it was not ex cathedra - i.e., an authoritative public teaching addressed to the whole Church proposed for her belief - then it does not touch upon the matter of infalliblity? I’ll agree with you that it was definitive - for he definitively instructed Sergius not to debate the matter in public.

Look at the section on Pope Honorius again:

Infallibility
Pope Honorius
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.

Ooops. Sorry, I was thinking of another Pope that non-Catholic or liberal Catholic polemicists sometimes use to try to refute papal infallibility.

Regardless - again, that looks like it is nothing more than background info. The actual reason that same article gives for the notion that Honorius was not exercising infallibility is because there is no place in his letters that states he is actually defining the matter at issue (monothelitism), not because he was misled or lacked theological acumen.

If I convert to Catholicism and I am expected to submit mind and will to the Pope, even in cases when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra; how would I know.

When you know, it will be the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

if the Pope’s decisions and teachings are legitimate or a result of coercion or the result of a lack of theological talent? How would I know that the Pope would not allow “heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings,” just as Pope Honorius did?

I would say Pope Honorius is a very poor example by which to judge the matter. Are you aware that when the Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened, no one had an inkling that the monothelite heresy had even infected the West in the least? That is because Pope Honorius never publicly taught his private opinion. I could agree with you if Pope Honorius publicly taught the Church, but he did no such thing. Read the Sentence against the Monothelites by the Sixth Ecum in their 13th Session. You will discover that Honorius is separated from the main body of heretics that are enumerated. We see from that sentence that their condemnation of Honorius is based entirely on “what we found written by him to Sergius.” Unlike the other heretics, he never publicly taught monothelitism to the Church.

The Pope’s position, action, or lack of action in any given situation has far reaching effects, even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra in matters of Faith and Morals.

Fair enough. But papal influence has no bearing on the question of infallibility, does it? Or is truth determined by the popularity of the speaker?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Anna_Scott]

That may have relevance for his morality, but that has no relevance on the question of whether him subscribing to a heretical formula under duress can be counted as an official act of the Petrine office. Would you agree to that?

Btw, are you aware that there are strong arguments against the idea that Pope Liberius actually “fell?” The legend seems to have been spread by the Arians themselves. I would suggest reading this: newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm#II

Would you agree that if it was not ex cathedra - i.e., an authoritative public teaching addressed to the whole Church proposed for her belief - then it does not touch upon the matter of infalliblity? I’ll agree with you that it was definitive - for he definitively instructed Sergius not to debate the matter in public.

Ooops. Sorry, I was thinking of another Pope that non-Catholic or liberal Catholic polemicists sometimes use to try to refute papal infallibility.

Regardless - again, that looks like it is nothing more than background info. The actual reason that same article gives for the notion that Honorius was not exercising infallibility is because there is no place in his letters that states he is actually defining the matter at issue (monothelitism), not because he was misled or lacked theological acumen.

When you know, it will be the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

I would say Pope Honorius is a very poor example by which to judge the matter. Are you aware that when the Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened, no one had an inkling that the monothelite heresy had even infected the West in the least? That is because Pope Honorius never publicly taught his private opinion. I could agree with you if Pope Honorius publicly taught the Church, but he did no such thing. Read the Sentence against the Monothelites by the Sixth Ecum in their 13th Session. You will discover that Honorius is separated from the main body of heretics that are enumerated. We see from that sentence that their condemnation of Honorius is based entirely on “what we found written by him to Sergius.” Unlike the other heretics, he never publicly taught monothelitism to the Church.

Fair enough. But papal influence has no bearing on the question of infallibility, does it? Or is truth determined by the popularity of the speaker?

Blessings,
Marduk

mardukm,

Before we continue, it would be helpful to me if you explained under what circumstances you submit mind and will to the Pope.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Anna,

Before we continue, it would be helpful to me if you explained under what circumstances you submit mind and will to the Pope.

I find that question strange. As far as Church authority, I submit to my bishop first and foremost, as I hope any other apostolic Christian would. On rare occasions, if there is a situation when the Metropolitan intervenes, I would submit to the metropolical synod. On even rarer occasions, if my patriarch has to intervene, I will submit to the patriarchal synod. On occasions even rarer than that, if the Holy Father has to intervene, I would submit to him. The fact is, it is a rare occasion I even have to think about the Pope in terms of faith and morals. I only think about him when I have to defend him against deprecators (which is often enough ).

In short, I have not yet found a circumstance where I have to submit mind and will to the Pope distinct from the submission I give to my bishop. Given the structure of the Catholic Church, it’s hard for me to imagine a circumstance when I’d have to choose between my bishop and the Pope. My metropolitan or patriarch will surely have resolved the matter before it even needs to get to the Pope.

Does that answer your question?

Blessings

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Brother Mardukm,

I like your thinking on numbers 1 and 2. Good analysis and conclusions. Compelling thoughts, both.

My concern is what we hear from the Maximus the Confessor biography:
When the two sides were presented to the emperor, the emperor persisted with Monothelitism and so with Honorius]–George of Reshaina

“and so with Honorius” clearly makes it obvious that the Monothelite heresy was owned by Honorius I and his position taken and fought for at the Synod of Cyprus. Why would it be stated this way? It’s like saying, “the Bush tax cuts were not renewed by the House of Representatives and Senate. The Congress sided with restoring taxes to pre-Bush levels and so with Obama.” What would that tell us Obama was fighting for? The Synod went with the position that obviously the legate of Honorius fought for. If Honorius was sending a legate to fight for a position, that position IS official teaching, right?

Let’s follow the logic here. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the Council of Nicaea (isn’t it funny how popes NEVER attended these crucial councils?..anyway) but rather sent two papal legates. Sylvester I recommended that the orthodox anti-Arian position be taken and it was these two legates who furthered his agenda. And it was a GOOD agenda! So the pope spoke through his legates against Arianism, in favor of orthodoxy, and we give him credit for helping to further the Nicaean Creed and its orthodox, true positions, right? Was the pope speaking ex cathedra when he asked his legates to further a positive agenda at Nicaea? If so, when then was it NOT ex cathedra and the same rules applying at the Synod of Cyprus when Honorius tried to further a sinful, heretical agenda? The Council of Nicaea goes on record as saying that the Pope played a large part in furthering the orthodox position. The Synod of Cyprus makes it clear that Honorius did the same thing but with a heresy. I don’t understand how credit can be given to the pope when the outcome is positive but not when it’s negative?

Dear brother Nine_Two,

The Pope sent a legate to that synod. So did St. Sophronius. Just because the Synod came out in favor of Monothelitism, are we going to accuse St. Sophronius of monothelitism? How does the outcome of this synod justify a claim that Pope Honorius “pressed” his views on the Church? That’s a big leap given other facts about the case:

1. If Honorius was publicly teaching monothelitism, then it would have been the belief of the Roman Church, and his legates would likewise hold it. But in fact, there is no trace of the Monothelite heresy in the Latin Church, whether before or after this Synod. In fact, when envoys were sent to the Emperor Heraclius to confirm the next Pope (who was elected just 3 days from the death of Honorius), and the Emperor attempted to have them confirm the Ecthesis (the Emperor’s decree supporting Monothelitism), the envoys refused. Pope Severinus likewise condemned the Ecthesis.
2. St. Maximos the confessor had sent legates to this Synod in defense of the orthodox position. If the legate from Rome sided with the monothelites, this would have put Honorius’ orthodoxy into question. But in fact, St. Maximos is the staunchest defender of the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius in the matter.
3. The universal gathering of bishops at the Sixth Ecumenical Council did not even have an inkling that this heresy existed anywhere in the Western Church.
4. Sergius did not appeal to Pope Honorius until after this Synod, and Pope Honorius’ response did not arrive to Sergius until the following year in 635. So whatever Pope Honorius’ private opinions may have been, it had absolutely no bearing on the 634 Synod of Cyprus.
5. The only source of this “fact” is from a contemporary Monothelite named George Reshaina. He doggedly opposed St. Maximus and this “fact” is contained in his polemic biography of the saint. It is possible that he manufactured the sending of the Roman legate in order to give more standing for the Monothelite synod at Cyprus.

I’m certain he is a good historian on facts. It’s his interpretations that I find questionable.

It’s not minor. There are Easterns who regularly point out and complain that the appointment of bishops by the Pope in the Latin Church is a big distinction from the electoral process in the East. I don’t understand why that distinction should be minimized all of a sudden in this discussion? The fact is, appointment is viewed by non-Latins and Protestants as a monarchical exercise of authority, so to present the historical data as such is very misleading.

I was not questioning that portion.

Blessings

 

[Anna_Scott]

I like your thinking on numbers 1 and 2. Good analysis and conclusions. Compelling thoughts, both. . . .

Gurney,
Please read my e-mail–spiritually urgent!

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Brother Mardukm,

The Synod of Cyprus makes it clear that Honorius did the same thing but with a heresy. I don’t understand how credit can be given to the pope when the outcome is positive but not when it’s negative?

Here’s the Cathoilc Encyclopedia take, which is that Honorius erred, but not in a doctrinal statement:

The reply of Honorius
It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing. Honorius entirely agrees with the caution which Sergius recommends. He praises Sergius for eventually dropping the new expression “one operation”, but he unfortunately also agrees with him that it will be well to avoid “two operations” also; for if the former sounds Eutychian, the latter may be judged to be Nestorian. Another passage is even more difficult to account for. Following the lead of Sergius, who had said that “two operations” might lead people to think two contrary wills were admitted in Christ, Honorius (after explaining the communicatio idiomatum, by which it can be said that God was crucified, and that the Man came down from heaven) adds: “Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin.” Other passages in the letter are orthodox. But it is plain that the pope simply followed Sergius, without going more deeply into the question. The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance. But before, and even just after, the Vatican Council such a view was sometimes urged, though almost solely by the opponents of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Part of a second letter of Honorius to Sergius was read at the eighth council. It disapproves rather more strongly of the mention of either one operation or two; but it has the merit of referring to the words of St. Leo which Sergius had cited.
newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

 

[Anna_Scott]

Dear sister Anna,

I find that question strange. As far as Church authority, I submit to my bishop first and foremost, as I hope any other apostolic Christian would. On rare occasions, if there is a situation when the Metropolitan intervenes, I would submit to the metropolical synod. On even rarer occasions, if my patriarch has to intervene, I will submit to the patriarchal synod. On occasions even rarer than that, if the Holy Father has to intervene, I would submit to him. The fact is, it is a rare occasion I even have to think about the Pope in terms of faith and morals. I only think about him when I have to defend him against deprecators (which is often enough ).

In short, I have not yet found a circumstance where I have to submit mind and will to the Pope distinct from the submission I give to my bishop. Given the structure of the Catholic Church, it’s hard for me to imagine a circumstance when I’d have to choose between my bishop and the Pope. My metropolitan or patriarch will surely have resolved the matter before it even needs to get to the Pope.

Does that answer your question?

Blessings

Not exactly, for you as one in communion with Rome, to whom do you submit mind and will and under what circumstances? Only to Ex Cathedra teachings? or other teachings as well?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My problem isn’t between Sergius and Honorius but between honorius and the synod of Cyprus. Sending a legate to further a heresy concerns me more than failing to respond appropriately with Sergius, etc.

Here’s the Cathoilc Encyclopedia take, which is that Honorius erred, but not in a doctrinal statement:

The reply of Honorius
It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing. Honorius entirely agrees with the caution which Sergius recommends. He praises Sergius for eventually dropping the new expression “one operation”, but he unfortunately also agrees with him that it will be well to avoid “two operations” also; for if the former sounds Eutychian, the latter may be judged to be Nestorian. Another passage is even more difficult to account for. Following the lead of Sergius, who had said that “two operations” might lead people to think two contrary wills were admitted in Christ, Honorius (after explaining the communicatio idiomatum, by which it can be said that God was crucified, and that the Man came down from heaven) adds: “Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin.” Other passages in the letter are orthodox. But it is plain that the pope simply followed Sergius, without going more deeply into the question. The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance. But before, and even just after, the Vatican Council such a view was sometimes urged, though almost solely by the opponents of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Part of a second letter of Honorius to Sergius was read at the eighth council. It disapproves rather more strongly of the mention of either one operation or two; but it has the merit of referring to the words of St. Leo which Sergius had cited.
newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

 

[tomarin]

Not exactly, for you as one in communion with Rome, to whom do you submit mind and will and under what circumstances? Only to Ex Cathedra teachings? or other teachings as well?

Surely Catholics are supposed to follow all of the church’s teachings in faith and morals? I’m not sure I understand where you’re going with this line of questioning.

 

[Nicea325]

Good question. My particular congregation would have no problem for a woman to be a pastor. See its not about man or woman, its about our Lord, its about our salvation. Its not just up to a man to be concerned about one’s salvation, to spread the Good News. Its up to all, men, and women. The sex of one preson should have nothing to do with preaching. If they feel its their calling then who are we to say, no you can’t because you are a woman.

How interesting. However, do you feel most Baptists men are against it or favor it?

 

[josephdaniel29]

So you actually believe that actions under duress have legal or moral value?

Catholics sure as hell think that the actions of the Orthodox hierarchs at Florence have legal and moral value. Those actions are trotted out constantly as “proof” that we Orthodox actually believe and accept Catholic teachings on purgatory, the filioque and papal supremacy.

In Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

Conversations with you are always so intelligent (despite your Valley accent ).

My concern is what we hear from the Maximus the Confessor biography:
When the two sides were presented to the emperor, the emperor persisted with Monothelitism and so with Honorius]–George of Reshaina

“and so with Honorius” clearly makes it obvious that the Monothelite heresy was owned by Honorius I and his position taken and fought for at the Synod of Cyprus.

Why would it be stated this way?
Actually, I need to ask the source of your statement from George Reshaina. I found it at a Wiki site, but it appears not to be a direct quote from him. It seems to be a summary of elements found in George Reshaina’s book, but I suspect the “so with Honorius” was a commentary addendum by the author of the article.

In fact, according to Joseph Patrich in his book The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church…, George Reshaina gives effusive praise to the hierarchs who supported the Monothelite heresy - Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria, and Archbishop Arcadius of Cyprus – but no Pope Honorius (Patrich cites pp 316-318 in George Reshaina’s book for this information). Don’t you find that not a little strange? If Pope Honorius through his legate was “pressing” monothelitism at the Synod of Cyprus, why doesn’t he include Pope Honorius in his list?

The fact is, the first time the idea of monothelitism even entered the mind of Pope Honorius was when Sergius posed the question to him. This, Sergius did after the Synod of Cyprus. Whatever else Honorius may have written to Sergius, we know for a fact that he instructed Sergius to avoid debating the matter in public. Seriously — if Honorius was “pressing” his monothelite views in a Synod, don’t you find it not a bit peculiar that he would be instructing Sergius to not promote the matter either way?

As I’ve always maintained, Honorius’ personal belief was never taught publicly to the Church. No one apart from the main engineers of the Monothelite heresy ever had an inkling of Pope Honorius’ role in the mess, and this was not discovered until Sergius had produced the letter of Honorius at the Council. George Reshaina is generally believed to have died in 680 (when the Sixth Ecum began), so he would not have been aware of Pope Honorius’ involvement. Hence, his own silence as to Honorius’ role in the monothelite heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[schaick]

In my discussions with critics of papal infallibility, Honorius I is always mentioned for the monothelite heresy and his part in it. I do not want to discuss Honorius. We’ve done that in depth. But what I’d like to discuss is the topic of other examples of popes making fallible decisions if papal infallibility is supposedly not true? Most people would point out that the papacy has an amazingly awesome track record of holy teachings, strong moral stances, and excellent theological guidance for the Church. Honorius is pretty much the only example that opponents of infallibility can point to and debate with some success. But I rarely hear other popes challenged as fallible. I’d love to hear everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and thoughts on this. Blessings to all.

I would consider any Pope that developes a dogma or doctrine claiming it needs to be believed for you to be saved that does not have biblical evidence to be a heretic.

The Bible is very clear on what is needed- adding anything extra into the equation is preaching a false Gospel.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joe,

Catholics sure as hell think that the actions of the Orthodox hierarchs at Florence have legal and moral value. Those actions are trotted out constantly as “proof” that we Orthodox actually believe and accept Catholic teachings on purgatory, the filioque and papal supremacy.

From what I’ve read on the matter, there were a few bishops who repented when arriving back to the East, confessing that they felt forced. But the majority of bishops did not (because they genuinely supported the union) and were deposed by the people. So your reasoning is not persuasive.

On the other hand, the sufferings of Pope Liberius (the one concerning the issue of being coerced) is well attested to from many contemporary sources – never mind that his “fall” was most likely a fabrication by the Arians.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Watch your “h” bombs, my bruthah!

Catholics sure as hell think that the actions of the Orthodox hierarchs at Florence have legal and moral value. Those actions are trotted out constantly as “proof” that we Orthodox actually believe and accept Catholic teachings on purgatory, the filioque and papal supremacy.

In Christ
Joe