Honorius and infallibility

[Fr_Ambrose]

GrzeszDeL:

. 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 .

He also left behind Saint Evodius of Antioch. There is constant reference in the early writings of the Church to the Petrine succession of the bishops of Antioch. This is an historical fact for the early Church and consequently for the Orthodox today.

Peter founded the Church of Antioch in 34 AD, and he remained there for 5-7 years. Paul (and Barnabas) came to Antioch to see Peter there and it was in Antioch that the dispute between Peter and Paul flared up about whether converts had to be circumcised. In order to resolve this Peter and Paul took the dispute to James in Jerusalem and James called all the Apostles to a Council in Jerusalem to make a determination.

Early than this, Antioch had received a large number of Christian refugees who fled Jerusalem after the martyrdom of Saint Stephen the deacon, a period of martyrdom in Jerusalem which Paul himself had initiated while he was still the uncoverted Saul!

To succeed him in Antioch Saint Peter consecrated Euodius (Evodius) as bishop of that city. Euodius was succeeded as bishop in Antioch by the great Saint and holy martyr Ignatius who was himself consecrated by either Saint Peter or Saint Paul. The present Patriarch Ignatius of Antioch is the 170th successor of Saint Peter.

Here is a complete list of the apostolic succession of the bishops of Antioch from the holy Apostle Peter
web.archive.org/web/20040209135915/http://www.antiochian.org/Patriarchate/patriarchs.htm
Tiny Url tinyurl.com/6s6q2

So the Church of Antioch founded by Saint Peter is a little bit older than Rome, and like Rome it has an unbroken apostolic succession going back to Saint Peter.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

ThomasAugustine:

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

Dear Jay,

On another thread you have posted that Pope John Paul II is an apostate.

Obviously in the light of that he and Christ cannot possibly be one.

So the papacy is now non-existent and there is no Pope and the Roman Catholic Church is without a Head.

 

[ThomasAugustine]

It would seem to be the case that JP2 is quite clearly not a Catholic and a manifest heretic. I have been dealing with this for the past year or so, reading all the pro-sedevacantist and anit-sedevacanitst materials. I have not made any final decisions, but as time proceeds, I feel forced to sedevacantism. JP2 is pretty close to universalism in Crossing the Threshhold and holds that the Old Covenant is still valid as a means of salvation for Jews, while also saying Christians and Moslems worship the same God. *Mortalium Animos *calls Assisi type ecumenism not just sinful, but a total rejection of the Catholic faith.

Sincerely,

Jay Dyer

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

ThomasAugustine:

It would seem to be the case that JP2 is quite clearly not a Catholic and a manifest heretic.

sedevacantism.

I see that this topic is banned from the Apologetics Forum but it is permitted here on Non-Catholic Religions.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Fr Ambrose:

He also left behind Saint Evodius of Antioch. There is constant reference in the early writings of the Church to the Petrine succession of the bishops of Antioch. This is an historical fact…

Right, but Evodius was an episcopal successor of Peter, not a papal successor. As I pointed out earlier, Peter wore two hats, so not all of his successors are successors in quite the same way. In fact, Linus was (to the best of my knowledge) not a successor of Peter in the way that Evodius was, as Linus was ordained a bishop by Paul, not Peter. As such, Linus does not trace his episcopal succession back to Peter. This, of course, scarcely matters, because Paul was just as much a bearer of the episcopal charism as was Peter, and so his ordinations are just as potent. In any case, one way or another, the Papal succession passed to a Roman, not an Antiochian; it could all have been different, but it wasn’t.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GrzeszDeL:

Right, but Evodius was an episcopal successor of Peter, not a papal successor.

Since the Church knows only three types of the Priesthood - deacon, priest and bishop- Rome’s addition of a fourth type, the papacy, means nothing to the East.

… the Papal succession passed to a Roman, not an Antiochian;.

Linus was not a Roman. Linus was British, so if such a thing as Papal succession as a separate and fourth Order did exist, then it passed not to a Roman but to a Briton.

 

[steve_b]

GrzeszDeL:

Porca miseria! Certo Lei ha voluto dire “capisce” o “capisci,” ma non “capiche”. Che significa questo, “capiche”?

slang for capisca

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Fr Ambrose:

Since the Church knows only three types of the Priesthood - deacon, priest and bishop- Rome’s addition of a fourth type, the papacy, means nothing to the East.

Knowing that you are too clever to mean this, I will not belabor the obvious in explaining it further.

Linus was not a Roman. Linus was British, so if such a thing as Papal succession as a separate and fourth Order did exist, then it passed not to a Roman but to a Briton.

Strange as it may seem, I was born in Missouri, and yet I am now a Michigander. Mutatis mutandis, Linus was a Roman.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Actually, I think that everyone on this Forum has denied it and thery have referenced large numbers of Catholic websites which deny it.

Which brings us to the point of my message which you have not addressed. Catholics claim that the Ecumenical Councils are infallible because they were “ratified” by the Popes. However, the “ratification” does not satisfy the criteria of Vatican I.

This means that there is room for doubt and people may, quite legitimately, question and deny such doctrines as Ephesus’ ever-virginity of Mary. By merely “ratifying” the Councils the Popes have not exercised their infallibility and declared the conciliar dogmas as de fide and of necessary assent for salvation.

The Popes chose not to exercise their infallibility, as per the later definition of Vatican I. The faithful may question the teachings and may, if they wish, debate them further, without offence to the Faith.

We seem to be talking past each other. Honorius didn’t fulfill all of the following requirements with Sergius to violate the Church’s teaching on infallibility. Here is the explanation of papal infallibility

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

 

[ThomasAugustine]

…from the New Advent article on “infallibility:”

“A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ. But in this case many theologians hoId that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope. This, however, is a hypothetical case which has never actually occurred; even the case of Honorius, were it proved that he taught the Monothelite heresy, would not be a case in point.”

The Honorius example doesn’t really work because he was condemned posthumously. But, what can be seen, is that it certainly isnt un-Catholic, as I have said, to hold that a Pope can become a manifest heretic.

Jay

 

[Myhrr]

steve b:

We seem to be talking past each other. Honorius didn’t fulfill all of the following requirements with Sergius to violate the Church’s teaching on infallibility. Here is the explanation of papal infallibility

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

The pope has supreme unhindered power over the whole Church, or that’s the claim in CCC 882, so a pope can at any time decree that a particular teaching of his is to be obeyed with complete submission of intellect and will, but not requiring faith in the teaching, even if he decides to teach heresy. That’s the only infallible teaching, the rest, as they say, is commentary. So in this Honorius was still infallible, an infallible heretic.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

ThomasAugustine:

But, what can be seen, is that it certainly isnt un-Catholic, as I have said, to hold that a Pope can become a manifest heretic.

Right; I am pretty sure that we all agree on that point. I do not recall that anyone has said otherwise here.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Myhrr:

The pope has supreme unhindered power over the whole Church, or that’s the claim in CCC 882, so a pope can at any time decree that a particular teaching of his is to be obeyed with complete submission of intellect and will, but not requiring faith in the teaching, even if he decides to teach heresy. That’s the only infallible teaching, the rest, as they say, is commentary. So in this Honorius was still infallible, an infallible heretic.

Whatever…

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

The pope has supreme unhindered power over the whole Church, or that’s the claim in CCC 882, so a pope can at any time decree that a particular teaching of his is to be obeyed with complete submission of intellect and will, but not requiring faith in the teaching, even if he decides to teach heresy. That’s the only infallible teaching, the rest, as they say, is commentary. So in this Honorius was still infallible, an infallible heretic.

Whew!!! That’s a pretty wicked spin on that curve ball.

---

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Coupled with the Church’s explanation of infallibility I posted yesterday, one needs to ask at this point, when was this exercise of power employed by Honorius? Answer? It wasn’t!!!

It’s easy to run wild with hypotheticals. Let’s keep this conversation focused on the facts.

 

[Myhrr]

steve b:

Whew!!! That’s a pretty wicked spin on that curve ball.

Sorry, you missed it.

---

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Coupled with the Church’s explanation of infallibility I posted yesterday, one needs to ask at this point, when was this exercise of power employed by Honorius? Answer? It wasn’t!!!

It’s easy to run wild with hypotheticals. Let’s keep this conversation focused on the facts.

So let’s focus, CCC 882 overrules anything the RCPC claims is the definition of infallibility. Thus a pope can teach heresy unhindered by anyone. However, Honorius taught and promoted heresy, the analysis of this by subsequent pontiffs is on record, therefore, you have an Infallible Vicar of Christ teaching heresy.

*“Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall **be cast out of the holy Church of God”, that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, **Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to **the pious and great emperor, “and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary **to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema. And in addition **to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them **cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we **have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and **confirmed his wicked dogmas”. **
*

Honorius’ letter to Sergius confirmed that he followed Sergius’ opinion in all things and confirmed Sergius’ wicked dogmas, therefore, Honorius is a heretic.

continued/

 

[Myhrr]

continued to** Steve b**

The First Vatican Council defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra – **that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church – is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility **with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent”

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17-19; John 21:15-17). As Vatican II remarked,** it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, **when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

zpub.com/un/pope/infal.html ’

Honorius was condemned a heretic for promoting heresy: he did so by virtue of his office as Bishop of Rome by a definitive act, writing to Sergius at Constantinople confirming his brother, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in his faith, i.e. the wicked dogmas etc., this meets criteria for calling him an Infallible teacher of heresy.

Of course, the decisions of the popes which subsequently condemned Honorius are also infallible teachings so both the definitions of Honorius and subsequent Popes condemning him are irreformable:

“Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”.

Which is as infallibly defined in CCC 882 and means even when these definitions are heretical.

 

[Myhrr]

P.S. to all - I’ve just read something which might be of interest here, that Vatican I was never officially closed and until this is done there can be no subsequent ecumenical councils, so I think by this rule Vatican II is not an Infallible council, such as Trent. Does this also mean that Vatican I can’t yet be classed Infallible?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vatican_Council

The outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War interrupted the council. It was suspended following the capture of Rome and never resumed, nor was it ever officially closed. It is therefore still in session and no other ecumenical council may be held.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

There is no doubt that Honorius held and supported heresy, but there is another side to this bishop which should bring us to look on him with kindness…

"Pope Honorius was much respected and died with an untarnished reputation. Few popes did more for the restoration and beautifying of churches of Rome, and he has left us his portrait in the apsidal mosaic of Sant Agnese fueri le mura. He cared also for the temporal needs of the Romans by repairing the aqueduct of Trajan. His extant letters show him engaged in much business. He supported the Lombard King Adalwald, who had been set aside as mad by an Arian rival.

"He succeeded, to some extent, with the emperor’s assistance, in reuniting the schismatic metropolitan See of Aquileia to the Roman Church. He wrote to stir up the zeal of the bishops of Spain, and St. Braulio of Saragossa replied.

His connexion with the British Isles is of interest. He sent St. Birinus to convert the West Saxons. In 634 he gave the pallium to St. Paulinus of York, as well as to Honorius of Canterbury, and he wrote a letter to King Edwin of Northumbria, which Bede has preserved.

In 630 he urged the Irish bishops to keep Easter with the rest of Christendom, in consequence of which the Council of Magh Lene (Old Leighlin) was held; the Irish testified to their traditional devotion to the See of Peter, and sent a deputation to Rome “as children to their mother”. On the return of these envoys, all Southern Ireland adopted the Roman use (633)."

newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

 

[Myhrr]

Fr Ambrose:

There is no doubt that Honorius held and supported heresy, but there is another side to this bishop which should bring us to look on him with kindness…

In 630 he urged the Irish bishops to keep Easter with the rest of Christendom, in consequence of which the Council of Magh Lene (Old Leighlin) was held; the Irish testified to their traditional devotion to the See of Peter, and sent a deputation to Rome “as children to their mother”. On the return of these envoys, all Southern Ireland adopted the Roman use (633)."

newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

So, it’s come to this.

Be it known we’re at war here Father Ambrose, let battle commence!

Schismatics with your calenar innovations! We’re still with Colman here in the South - we don’t recognise your robber council of Magh Lene.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Myhrr:

So, it’s come to this.

Be it known we’re at war here Father Ambrose, let battle commence!

Schismatics with your calenar innovations! We’re still with Colman here in the South - we don’t recognise your robber council of Magh Lene.

Calm down You know as well as I do that most of Ireland had accepted the Nicene (popularly and mistakenly called Roman) calculation for Caisc several decades before the Council/Witan of Whitby in 664.

Ireland was quite right to go onto the system mandated by an Ecumenical Council. People in their anti-Roman fervour tend to forget that it was not in fact a matter of Ireland and Britain accepting the “Roman calculation” for Easter but of accepting the Nicene calculation which Rome had herself adopted.

The Irish were being perfectly “Orthodox” in their change to the Nicean calculation.