Honorius and infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter GrzeszDeL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure they inquire into the letter: the letter was written by a synod of bishops in Rome along with Pope St. Agatho. I don’t think this proves Gallicanism or conciliarism, though. Do *you *agree with Pope St. Agatho’s claims? Its entirely concieveable that they would have scrutinized it since Honorius was a heretic. However, as St. Francis DeSales points out, if a pope were a heretic, it would be the duty of the Church to depose him. Isnt this what happened in the Great Schism? This does not affect papal infallibility, however, because a pope who is a manifest heretic is *not *a pope, as the doctors I listed have stated.

Jay
 
40.png
ThomasAugustine:
Those claims sure sound like the claims of Vatican I.
Click to expand...
Actually it is a denial of Vatican I.

Vatican I bases papal infallibility squarely on the Pope’s office as the successor of Saint Peter.

Pope Agatho brings in both Peter and Paul - “she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ…”

And even when he is speaking specifically of Saint Peter, he merely assigns himself the work of “strengthening the brethren.” This is a long way from any claim to infallibity.

Agatho also falls into a bit of a contradiction. He says that the faith of the bishops of Rome cannot fail and yet at the same time he is saying that the faith of his predecessor Honorius did fail.

On balance, I do not see any claim here for papal infallibility.
 
I just realized that Grezes… had already posted those St. Agatho quotes.

Jay
 
Fr Ambrose:
On the contrary, the Council Fathers did not accept Agatho’s letter simply because it came from Rome. *They *scrutinised it carefully and only when *they *had decided it was consonant with the Apostolic faith did they give it their approval. There was no automatic deferral to Rome. The Council Fathers sat in judgement on Agatho’s letter.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand the nature of the claim being advanced, Father. We on the Catholic side of this discussion are not making claims about what the others at the council thought about St. Agatho and his letter, but rather about what Agatho’s letter indicates about how Agatho thought about himself. Agatho’s letter shows that he conceived of himself as the infallible head of the whole Church militant by virtue of his succession to Peter’s throne (just as was later reaffirmed at Vatican I and contrary to your repeated assertions that none of the Popes involved in Constantinople III thought of themselves in the way that Vatican I describes).
 
Many of the Fathers speak of St. Peter and St. Paul as founding the Church of Rome, but never is it declared that the Church is built on the promise of the keys given to St. Paul, but always St. Peter. To try to read some sort of dual foundation into that is absurd. St. Irenaeus and St. Augustine, for example, make it clear in their lists of successors in the Apostolic See that its from St. Peter, not St. Paul conjoined with him.

Jay
 
Incidentally, for the record, I (a Catholic) have maintained all along (here and elsewhere) that Honorius was a heretic.
 
40.png
GrzeszDeL:
I think you misunderstand the nature of the claim being advanced, Father. We on the Catholic side of this discussion are not making claims about what the others at the council thought about St. Agatho and his letter, but rather about what Agatho’s letter indicates about how Agatho thought about himself. Agatho’s letter shows that he conceived of himself as the infallible head of the whole Church militant by virtue of his succession to Peter’s throne (just as was later reaffirmed at Vatican I).
Click to expand...
Grz, I understand the slant with which Roman Catholics look back on Church history and interpret every occasion to bolster the claim of papal supremacy and infallibility. But is is just so obvious that this is NOT the understanding of the Church, of the other Patriarchates, of the Council Fathers, etc.
 
…remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, “Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that (thy) faith fail not. And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faithshould not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.

If this isnt convincing, what would be?

Jay
 
So now its an ad hominem attack on “prejudiced” Roman Catholics? I was a hardcore reformed presbyterian seminary student who totally opposed Catholicism. My conclusions certainly werent biased: especially since, as I stated before, an Anglican version of the Fathers set led to my conversion.

Jay Dyer
 
Fr Ambrose:
Agatho also falls into a bit of a contradiction. He says that the faith of the bishops of Rome cannot fail and yet at the same time he is saying that the faith of his predecessor Honorius did fail.
Click to expand...
And it is precisely in that seeming contradiction that the Catholic contention is vindicated. Holy Agatho is saying two things: 1) the Bishop of Rome must keep the faith and 2) Honorius, a particular individual who served as bishop of Rome lost the faith. From an Orthodox point of view Agatho is speaking nonsense, and that goes to show the failure of the Orthodox point of view. From the Catholic point of view, however, this contradiction is easily reconciled - the Bishop of Rome, qua Bishop of Rome, must hold the catholic Faith, while any given individual who happens to be the Bishop of Rome can privately go off the rails. That is precisely what happened in the case of Honorius; he forgot the true Faith and took up with a novelty. For all that, however, he never taught, in his capacity as Bishop of Rome, anything other than the catholic Faith. This is the point which St. Agatho (as well as a host of other Catholic saints) was making.
 
Fr Ambrose:
But it is just so obvious that this is NOT the understanding of the Church, of the other Patriarchates, of the Council Fathers, etc.
Click to expand...
Whatever… :rolleyes:
 
40.png
ThomasAugustine:
Many of the Fathers speak of St. Peter and St. Paul as founding the Church of Rome, but never is it declared that the Church is built on the promise of the keys given to St. Paul, but always St. Peter. To try to read some sort of dual foundation into that is absurd. St. Irenaeus and St. Augustine, for example, make it clear in their lists of successors in the Apostolic See that its from St. Peter, not St. Paul conjoined with him.

Jay
Click to expand...
Not St Irenaeus:

Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, 3,1,1, 180 A.D., J208
"…in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."
**St Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, chapter III,
“…the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.”
I think it was Victor who first decided to ignore Paul in his arguments for Easter celebrations on Sunday, he was told off by the other bishops of the Church and then ignored.

The rest is history.
 
Im not denying the Fathers say they both founded the Church: they argue that the Succession comes from St. Peter.
  1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
 
In Matt. 16, does Christ give the keys to St. Paul? St. Paul was not even converted yet, so obviously not. Did Christ rename Paul “rock” in John 1? No, it was St. Peter. A body cannot have two heads; it would be a monster. It has one head, St. Peter, from whom the office of the keys flow.

Jay
 
40.png
ThomasAugustine:
A body cannot have two heads; it would be a monster. It has one head, St. Peter, from whom the office of the keys flow.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are quite right. The Orthodox see the Roman Catholic Church as something of a two-headed monster.

Christ is the head of the Church and not any one of the Apostles. The Apostles in the Epistles which they sent to various churches, are quite clear about that.

Just to take a few examples from Saint Paul…

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church…" Ephesians 1:22

“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.” Ephesians 5:23

“And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” Colossians 1:18
 
40.png
ThomasAugustine:
In Matt. 16, does Christ give the keys to St. Paul? St. Paul was not even converted yet, so obviously not. Did Christ rename Paul “rock” in John 1? No, it was St. Peter. A body cannot have two heads; it would be a monster. It has one head, St. Peter, from whom the office of the keys flow.
Click to expand...
You seem to be deep in the middle of the fallacy of assuming the consequent, Jay. Just because it would be silly for the Church to have two heads does not mean that the Fathers did not trace the authority of Rome to both Peter and Paul. It seems fairly obvious to me that at least St. Irenaeus does just that. One need merely read the passage that you cited to see this. It is not without reason, after all, that the patronal feast of the Roman See is the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.

For all that though, the matter is moot. We really need not contend with the nonsensical idea that Agatho is not speaking of Papal supremacy because he mentions both saints. The idea is ludicrous and does not bear refutation. Any sane person can read Agatho and see plainly that he considered himself to be the head of the one sure guard-post of the catholic Faith. It is equally clear from Agatho’s letter than he traces this Roman infallibility to the See’s descent from Peter and Paul. If Vatican I mentions only Peter, what of it? Our interlocutors are straining at gnats here because they have not a logical leg on which to stand, and we ought not to dignify the fantasy with a serious rebuttal. Besides, the quote from Agatho’s letter which you already cited makes clear that Agatho traces the charism of infallibility to Peter specifically. That by itself suffices to settle the matter without the spurious business of trying to deny that Irenaeus meant that which he clearly wrote.
 
40.png
GrzeszDeL:
It is equally clear from Agatho’s letter than he traces this Roman infallibility to the See’s descent from Peter and Paul… Agatho traces the charism of infallibility to Peter specifically. .
Click to expand...
So what of the other successors of Saint Peter - the Patriarchs of Antioch. Are they infallible by virtue of their petrine succession? If not, why not?

Peter’s First See
The Evolution of the Patriarchate of Antioch

cnewa.org/cw29-2-pp12-17.htm
 
I have never thought about that fact in light of the feast of SS Peter and Paul. That was a good point. What would we say to Fr. Ambrose’s Antioch argument?

Jay
 
Fr Ambrose:
Yes, you are quite right. The Orthodox see the Roman Catholic Church as something of a two-headed monster.

Christ is the head of the Church and not any one of the Apostles. The Apostles in the Epistles which they sent to various churches, are quite clear about that.
Click to expand...
I am quite familiar with this argument: I used it as reformed Protestant. However, I think it falls flat for two good reasons. First, Christ was the Head of the Old Covenant Church, and yet there was a hierarchical earthly head, the High Priest. In fact, in every one of God’s historic covenants (Adam, Abraham, Moses and on), they are always made with a visible group of people hierarchically structured, having a single visible head.

Thus, it doesn’t detract from Christ’s glory to have an earthly head.
Second, the argument that Christ is giving St. Peter the keys of dynastic succession prophesied in Isaiah 22 strongly argues for the Roman Catholic view of an earthly vice regent. This was Cajetan’s argument against the reformers.

As Boniface VIII states, the pope and Christ are one person (not ontologically, obviously), not two.

Jay
 
Fr Ambrose:
So what of the other successors of Saint Peter - the Patriarchs of Antioch. Are they infallible by virtue of their petrine succession? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
I am glad that you asked, Father. The answer is that Peter received not one commission but two (Mt 16:19 & 18:18). He was both a bishop (the epicsopal ministry) like any other and the head of the bishops (the papal ministry).

While it is clearly possible and even desirable that there should be many bishops, it defeats the very logic of the papal ministry to have more than one pope. Just as there can be only one viceroy in Israel (2Kgs 19:2), so there can be only one viceroy in the Kingdom of Heaven. It makes no more sense to have more than one viceroy than it would make to have more than one king in the kingdom.

As such, while Peter can leave behind many episcopal successors, he can leave only one papal successor. In point of historical fact, the one papal successor which he left behind was Linus in Rome, and as such the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ (that is to say, the viceroy in the Kingdom of Heaven), while the Patriarch of Antioch is not. As Jane Austen said in Mansfeld Park, it could have all been different, but it was not.

The Pope’s infallibility, as Vatican I makes clear, derives from the Pope’s supreme authority. Because he can speak for the whole Church, and because the Church (by definition) cannot err, it must be the case that when the Pope does speak for the whole Church, he will be preserved from error. Meanwhile, the Patriarch of Antioch cannot speak for the whole Church (in the way that the Roman Pontiff can), and as such he is not protected by the same charism of infallibility. This would probably be a good point at which to address the matter of Papal ratification of councils, but I am trying to listen to the Presidential debates right now, so that question will have to wait for another time. Good night all. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top