Honorius and infallibility

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

This cannot happen in any other Church. If, for example, the Russian patriarch were to advocate a heresy such as Monothelitism and wrote letters to other Monothelites encouraging them (which is what Honorius did with the monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius) the Russian patriarch would be deposed very quickly by the Synod of the Russian Church.

Isn’t the Church of Constantinople Orthodox? So was Sergius deposed very quickly?
Fr Ambrose:

The Roman Catholic Church is unique in Christendom in that its leader may be heretical but remain in office.

That is very untrue. Honorius was condemned after his death and only on the evidence of a private letter. You have yet to prove he taught Monothelism or admitted he was a Monothelist.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

Isn’t the Church of Constantinople Orthodox? So was Sergius deposed very quickly?

At that period the Church of Constantinople was part of the Catholic Church and therefore it was subject to the immediate jurisdiction of the Pope in Rome.

Unfortunately,the Pope of that time was also espousing the same heresy as the Patriarch and so he supported the heretical Patriarch (who was after all subject to the Pope) and naturally he did nothing to remove him.

We must thank the Lord that the bishops gathered at the 6th Ecumenical Council called the shots for what they are - opposed the common heresy of both the Pope and the Patriarch.

That is very untrue. Honorius was condemned after his death and only on the evidence of a private letter. You have yet to prove he taught Monothelism or admitted he was a Monothelist.

Are you not Catholic? Do you not accept the decisions of the Councils of the Holy Roman Church on this matter?

[caveat: the above is of course written from the viewpoint of Roman Catholic history]

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

At that period the Church of Constantinople was part of the Catholic Church and therefore it was subject to the immediate jurisdiction of the Pope in Rome.

I thought you believed the Pope had only Primacy in honor since the beginning of the Church. So the Orthodox Church really came from the Catholic Church, the Church the Christ established. Sorry, this should be in another thread but could not help to point out this irony.
Fr Ambrose:

Are you not Catholic? Do you not accept the decisions of the Councils of the Holy Roman Church on this matter?
[caveat: the above is of course written from the viewpoint of Roman Catholic history]

Of course, I accept the Church’s teaching authority. However, you as an orthodox would not accept the explanations of a Catholic. The definition you would accept is that whatever the Pope says is infallible which is not how infallibility is defined. You would not accept the Catholic criterion of ex-cathedra. If you are to hit against infallibility base it on Catholic definitions and not as how you understand infallibility.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Fr Ambrose:

At that period the Church of Constantinople was part of the Catholic Church and therefore it was subject to the immediate jurisdiction of the Pope in Rome.

Unfortunately,the Pope of that time was also espousing the same heresy as the Patriarch and so he supported the heretical Patriarch (who was after all subject to the Pope) and naturally he did nothing to remove him.

We must thank the Lord that the bishops gathered at the 6th Ecumenical Council called the shots for what they are - opposed the common heresy of both the Pope and the Patriarch.

It is interesting you said that the Pope had jurisdiction over the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time.

A Pope may hold privately heretical or heterodox opinions, but cannot and must not bind the entire Church to them, nor promote them as official Church teaching. This has been stated in this thread and in others many times. The Pope you were referring to was guilty of at least negligence, that is, not doing anything to stop its advance.

But he never taught Monothelitism as official teaching. Teaching heresy as official doctrine and not doing anything to stop its spread are two different things.

Gerry

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

I thought you believed the Pope had only Primacy in honor since the beginning of the Church. So the Orthodox Church really came from the Catholic Church, the Church the Christ established. Sorry, this should be in another thread but could not help to point out this irony.

and

Gerry wrote:- It is interesting you said that the Pope had jurisdiction over the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time.

Yikes, you have to read the caveat which I put at the bottom of that post…

"[caveat: the above is of course written from the viewpoint of Roman Catholic history]"

---

---

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

RobedWithLight:

A Pope may hold privately heretical or heterodox opinions

Well, that’s a weird thing for the Vicar of Christ, the bishop who stands in place of Christ on earth! It hardly inspires confidence in the Petrine office. How can God’s representative hold any sort of heretical opinions?!

The Pope you were referring to was guilty of at least negligence, that is, not doing anything to stop its advance… Teaching heresy as official doctrine and not doing anything to stop its spread are two different things.

Now this is merely repeating the party line.

WHERE in any of the 13 points above does the Church specify that Honorius was anathematized for “negligency.” This is a modern exculpation but it just doesn’t wash. Pope Saint Leo II writes

“…also Honorius, who did not illuminate the Apostolic See with the doctrines of the Apostolic tradition, **but by profane prodition attempted to subvert **the immaculate faith; and all, who died in his error…”

One cannot say that Honorius kept it to himself, that he kept it private. The Council and subsequent popes judged him to have a more positive role than you’d like to give him. He supported and encouraged heretics and an heretical Patriarch in the heresy. He promoted the heresy. The words of Saint Leo II are proof that it was an active attempt to “subvert the immaculate faith” and by “profane prodition” or, to translate those words into modern English by “blasphemous treachery.”

 

[hlgomez]

Yikes, you have to read the caveat which I put at the bottom of that post…

"[caveat: the above is of course written from the viewpoint of Roman Catholic history]"

Fr. A,

You’re just trying to avoid REALITY in the past. You cannot find any solid documentation that states Constantinople wasn’t part of the Catholic Church before. That’s why you’re using a catholic document on this issue.

If you really want to make your point, then show evidence that comes from your source. DOn’t use any catholic source IF you don’t want to stand by your position when someone else sees your double-sidedness on various issues.

It only shows how much you wanted to hide the real identity of the Orthodox Church that when confronted with history, will try to invent some falacious claims just to detach themselves and say they were never part of the Church of Rome and therefore under the authority of the successor to Peter.

Pio

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

hlgomez:

You’re just trying to avoid REALITY in the past. You cannot find any solid documentation that states Constantinople wasn’t part of the Catholic Church before.

Constantinople was and is part of the Catholic Church, as also are the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Russia, Greece, etc. Up until the 11th century so was the Church of Rome.

If you really want to make your point, then show evidence that comes from your source. DOn’t use any catholic source IF you don’t want to stand by your position when someone else sees your double-sidedness on various issues.

I find it fascinating to consider things from the Roman Catholic perspective of church history. Frankly, I find that Roman catholics do not have a grasp of this. For example, they write as if the Orthodox Churches were already separate and independent of the Church of Rome even in the early centuries. For example, somebody referred to the 6th Ecumenical Council as an *Eastern *council - as if somehow it were disconnected from the Church of Rome.

Others write that the Coptic Orthodox went into schism from the Byzantine Orthodox in the 4th century. Such a view of history is a major anachronism when presented by a Roman Catholic. According to RC history there was NO such creature as the Orthodox Church in the 4th century. So the Copts in fact went into schism from the Church of Rome and abandoned the authority of the Pope.

But (repeating myself here) Roman Catholics write as if they accept an Orthodox viewpoint and they treat the Eastern Churches as if they were separate entities and not under the control of Rome, as their official slant teaches. In a de facto sort of way they acknowledge the reality of the Orthodox view of the structure of the early Church, a grouping of independent Churches - and this contradicts the official Roman Catholic position!

I don’t know if I am expressing myself too well about this.

 

[hlgomez]

Constantinople was and is part of the Catholic Church, as also are the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Russia, Greece, etc. Up until the 11th century so was the Church of Rome.

I find it fascinating to consider things from the Roman Catholic perspective of church history. Frankly, I find that Roman catholics do not have a grasp of this. For example, they write as if the Orthodox Churches were already separate and independent of the Church of Rome even in the early centuries. For example, somebody referred to the 6th Ecumenical Council as an *Eastern *council - as if somehow it were disconnected from the Church of Rome.

:whacky: :whacky: :whacky:

But (repeating myself here) Roman Catholics write as if they accept an Orthodox viewpoint and they treat the Eastern Churches as if they were separate entities and not under the control of Rome, as their official slant teaches. In a de facto sort of way they acknowledge the reality of the Orthodox view of the structure of the early Church, a grouping of independent Churches - and this contradicts the official Roman Catholic position!

:whacky: :whacky: :whacky:

Clearly, you don’t understand what is the Catholic Church.

Pio

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

hlgomez:

:whacky: :whacky: :whacky:

:whacky: :whacky: :whacky:

Clearly, you don’t understand what is the Catholic Church.

Pio

Are you saying that the Christians and bishops of 4th century Egpyt were not part of the Catholic Church and subject to the petrine office of the Pope?

Ditto for the Christians and bishops of Constantinople in the 10th century? Are you saying that they were not under the authority of the Vicar of Christ in Rome?

This is music to my ears. You seem to be espousing the Orthodox position.

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

and

Yikes, you have to read the caveat which I put at the bottom of that post…

"[caveat: the above is of course written from the viewpoint of Roman Catholic history]"

---

---

I read that and understood that but apparently you did not understand the irony of what i said.

You said that it will never happen in the Orthodox Church that a heretic will stay in office because your bishops and laity would be up in arms.

So I asked if Contantinople was Orthodox and you gave me an answer from history that you purport to be Catholic.

so you didn’t really answer my question. are we dancing again?

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

Are you saying that the Christians and bishops of 4th century Egpyt were not part of the Catholic Church and subject to the petrine office of the Pope?

Ditto for the Christians and bishops of Constantinople in the 10th century? Are you saying that they were not under the authority of the Vicar of Christ in Rome?

This is music to my ears. You seem to be espousing the Orthodox position.

Father, we are also discussing your position and therefore your statements should also conform and be consistent throughout with what you are saying as an Orthodox.

What is not consistent is answering the issue from the Orthodox viewpoint and using Catholic History as basis???

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

Father, we are also discussing your position and therefore your statements should also conform and be consistent throughout with what you are saying as an Orthodox.

What is not consistent is answering the issue from the Orthodox viewpoint and using Catholic History as basis???

“Consistency? Bah! humbug!”
Granddad, circa 1946

“Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.”
Oscar Wilde

“Consistency is the quality of a stagnant mind.”
John Sloan

 

[jimmy]

Fr Ambrose:

It’s an interesting perspective. Because of the particular circumstances created at Vatican I for the exercise of papal infallibility, the Vicar of Christ may, in theory at least, be a heretic.

This cannot happen in any other Church. If, for example, the Russian patriarch were to advocate a heresy such as Monothelitism and wrote letters to other Monothelites encouraging them (which is what Honorius did with the monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius) the Russian patriarch would be deposed very quickly by the Synod of the Russian Church.

If the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church expressed seriously heretical doctrine he too would eventually be removed from office.

The Roman Catholic Church is unique in Christendom in that its leader may be heretical but remain in office.

There have been many heretical bshops in office in history who have not been removed from office.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Greg,

Where’d you go?
I’m surprised that you haven’t responded back since this subject matter seems to be your forte, and I was hoping to see a good discussion in the hopes I could learn something because I like the logical way in which you present your arguments.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Dan-Man916:

Greg,

Where’d you go?

Egads! I leave this board for a few days to get a paper off to the publishers’ and this place goes all fruit-loops. I really must say, to Fr. Ambrose’s great credit, that he is much better at thinking like a Catholic (and thus hoisting us on our own petards) than most of my fellow Catholics and I are at thinking like Orthodox Xians. That said, I think the whole line of replies to Fr. A’s history-from-a-papist-point-of-view are largely a distraction from the meat of this thread.

If I may be permitted, I would like to state a few (I hope) uncontroversial points from which a more sound conclusion might be built:

1. Honorius was a heretic; an ecumenical council has said so, and thus it must be true. The whole tradition of the Catholic Church (rightly considered) understands Honorius to have been anathematized, and anyone who tries to wiggle out of this, however well-intentioned he might be, is actually defending heresy, not Catholicism.
2. Popes, speaking in their official capacities as the Petrine successors, have confirmed that Honorius was a heretic (superfluous as this point might be, in light of the conciliar decrees).
3. Honorius’ heresy was not merely private, as it was expressed in a letter to one of his brother bishops.

With those point clearly in view, the matter of Honorius and Papal infallibility comes down to this - was Honorius’ (public) heresy expressed in terms which call into question the soundness of chapter IV of Pastor Æternus? Contrary to Fr. Ambrose’s claim, I must insist that the answer to this question is “no.”

Pastor Æternus claims that the Pope “possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” when (and only when) “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.” We have copies of Honorius’ letter to Sergius, the one which earned him his condemnation. It defines nothing, one way or another, and certainly never invokes Honorius’ standing as the Petrine successor. As such, its error is irrelevant to the truth of the claims made in Pastor Æternus.

One is harder pressed to understand Fr. Ambrose’s insistance that Sts. Agatho and Leo think otherwise. Nothing which either of these holy men wrote applies any less well to a man who failed to uphold the truth than it might to a man who affirmatively endorsed falsehood. We all agree that Honorius was a heretic, but it is not obvious to me whence we might conclude that Honorius was some sort of heresiarch.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Finally, as long as we are on the subject of Papal infallibility, I would just like to point out that Constantinople III is, like so many of the great councils, a profound example of the historic pedigree of the Vatican I claims. Pope Agatho (a Greek by birth, no less!) makes quite clear in his letter to the council that he is the head of the whole Church militant by virtue of the Petrine office.

[The Church]
has never erred from the path
of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and 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 faith should 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

In other words, Agatho understands himself, in his office as Roman Pontiff, to be the successor of Peter. It is also evident from the quote that he considers himself unique in that status. Moreover, Agatho believes that

the evangelical and apostolic uprightness of the orthodox faith, which has been established upon the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from all error, [that faith I say] the whole number of rulers and priests, of the clergy and of the people, unanimously should confess and preach with us as the true declaration of the Apostolic tradition, in order to please God and to save their own souls.

In other words, Agatho believes that the Roman Pontiff infallibly teaches the true Faith because of this Petrine charism, and that one must hold the same faith as the Faith taught by Rome in order to be saved. Far from casting doubt on the claims of Pastor Æternus, Constantinople III endorses these ideas.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Well, that’s a weird thing for the Vicar of Christ, the bishop who stands in place of Christ on earth! It hardly inspires confidence in the Petrine office. How can God’s representative hold any sort of heretical opinions?!

Oh come now! Jesus said to Peter, those who hear you hear me. Then says He’s going to build His Church on Peter, and give him the keys to His kingdom. To which a few chapters later in the story, Peter denied even knowing Jesus. Did Jesus know ahead of time that this was coming from His head guy? Sure! Did it stop Him from making Peter His head guy? Nope! You may think that’s weird, but that’s what God permitted.
Fr Ambrose:

WHERE in any of the 13 points above does the Church specify that Honorius was anathematized for “negligency.” This is a modern exculpation but it just doesn’t wash. Pope Saint Leo II writes

“…also Honorius, who did not illuminate the Apostolic See with the doctrines of the Apostolic tradition, **but **by profane prodition attempted to subvert the immaculate faith; and all, who died in his error…”

Leo added an important qualification to the condemnation, that Honorius wasn’t condemned for teaching heresy but that he failed to end a heresy that was allowed to continue.
Fr Ambrose:

One cannot say that Honorius kept it to himself, that he kept it private. The Council and subsequent popes judged him to have a more positive role than you’d like to give him. He supported and encouraged heretics and an heretical Patriarch in the heresy. He promoted the heresy. The words of Saint Leo II are proof that it was an active attempt to “subvert the immaculate faith” and by “profane prodition” or, to translate those words into modern English by “blasphemous treachery.”

In his letters, Honorius specifically told Sergius to keep it quiet. That’s part of the record. So you’re incorrect on that point. That ***ALONE ***disqualifies this case as an example of infallible teaching by a pope.

And Honorius never said this was to be believed by the entire Church.

I have mentioned these points to you in other threads. But you continually define infallibility for a pope your way, not the way Vatican I defines infallibility, then you attack your definition as if it is our definition. Your strawman argument is the same from thread to thread. Sometime, try applying the Vatican I definition of infallibility for popes, to the Honorius case, and you’ll see the argument goes nowhere.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

I have mentioned these points to you in other threads. But you continually define infallibility for a pope your way, not the way Vatican I defines infallibility, then you attack your definition as if it is our definition. Your strawman argument is the same from thread to thread. Sometime, try applying the Vatican I definition of infallibility for popes, to the Honorius case, and you’ll see the argument goes nowhere.

I have not been focused on Honorius’ personal charism of infallibility (although others keep bringing it in) but on the undisputed fact that he was a heretic. If you have followed me from thread to thread you should have picked up on that?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I have not been focused on Honorius’ personal charism of infallibility (although others keep bringing it in) but on the undisputed fact that he was a heretic. If you have followed me from thread to thread you should have picked up on that?

I HAVE followed your comments. You constantly associate the heresy of Honorius with denying infallibility for the popes… I would be happy to quote you if you disagree.

I’m saying, apply Vatican I definitions of infallibility for the popes, not your own, and you’ll see that your argument doesn’t disprove infallibility.