Honorius and infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter GrzeszDeL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steve b:
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.
Click to expand...
In the convolutions in which this debate has entangled itself, I may have said that. I really do not remember. So if you would show me where I would of course acknowledge it. However, I do know that I have pointed out several times that neither Honorius nor the Popes who succeeded him had any notion that they were infallible. That doctrine was an innovation as yet unheard of and it would never have entered their heads.

My thrust in this discussion is to rebutt those people who are so terrified of allowing the possibility of Popes being heretics that they deny outrightly that Honorius was a heretic and try to slide out of it by claiming that he was merely lax in opposing heresy.

To answer this I bring in the 6th Ecumenical Council which condemned him as a heretic. I also bring in the two Popes, Agatho and Leo II, who condemned him as a heretic.
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.
Click to expand...
That is true. One cannot disprove a negative.

And under the conditions of Vatican I’s definition of infallibility, even the Ecumenical Councils may be false and teaching heresy since the Popes never satisfied the criteria of Vatican I when they ratified them. Their teachings, such as the ever-virginity of the Mother of God, may therefore be lawfully disputed in good conscience by Catholics.
 
I have put some tie into this question, and its certainly a difficult one. However, one flaw I have seen several writers make on this thread is the idea that for Honorius to be a heretic, he would have to have promoted something ex cathedra. This is false. Leo XIII makes it clear in Satis Cognitum that a heretic is someone who denies any dogma of the faith at any point whatsoever; not when its pronounced dogmatically. This would lead to saying that the Roman Pontiff can err in his universal ordinary magisterium. Vatican I, however, is quite clear that universal ordinary magisterium is also infallible. A formal heretic is a baptized person who contradicts Church dogma. However, I dont see it as contrary to Vatican I to hold that a pope can become a heretic: St. Francis DeSales and St. Robert Bellarmine were no Gallicans and would certainly have held to papal infallibility. Cajetan holds that a heretical pope can hold jurisdiction, and Bellarmine refutes the notion, I think. However, Pope St. Agatho’s letter to Constantinople III, interestingly, claims infallibility. The best answer seems to me to be that he was a heretic (as St. Francis DeSales posits in “Catholic Controversy” and mentions John XXII also), but since his condemnation was posthumous, the question of a living heretical pope didn’t arise. However, were a living pope to espouse heresy, and it is certainly not uncatholic to hold this opinion, he would hold no jurisdiction. i think Bellarmine’s arguments on this point are quite irrefutable.

Jay
 
Fr Ambrose:
In the convolutions in which this debate has entangled itself, I may have said that. I really do not remember. So if you would show me where I would of course acknowledge it. However, I do know that I have pointed out several times that neither Honorius nor the Popes who succeeded him had any notion that they were infallible. That doctrine was an innovation as yet unheard of and it would never have entered their heads.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ; see #37.
 
40.png
ThomasAugustine:
However, were a living pope to espouse heresy, and it is certainly not uncatholic to hold this opinion, he would hold no jurisdiction. i think Bellarmine’s arguments on this point are quite irrefutable.
Click to expand...
I was with you right up until the last sentence. I will grant that I have never read Bellarmine except as he is quoted by Sedevacantists, but if their quotes are a fair representation of his thinking, then I consider his case to be eminently refutable. Indeed, it seems to me that the idea that a pope might lose his jurisdiction rather vacates the entire logic of the Petrine office in the first place. I will grant you that it is not contrary to the faith to hold that a Pope can fall into heresy, but I deny that it makes sense to assert that he might thus lose his office.
 
Grez…Its certainly a difficult issue, and what your saying is Cajetan’s opinion. Cajetan makes some plausible arguments at first, but St. Bellarmine deals with Cajetan’s arguments and disects them.

Jay
 
Here’s the entire section where Bellarmine deals with this, and particularly Cajetan.

homestead.com/popemichael/deromanopontifice.html

Beware of this site, though, this guy is a nut; I cant find this long of an excerpt of the work anywhere else, though.

St. Alphonsus Liguori (1787), Doctor of the Church**: ** “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” (Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232)
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church**:** “Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…” (The Catholic Controversy, TAN Books, pp. 305-306)
 
Fr Ambrose:
I do know that I have pointed out several times that neither Honorius nor the Popes who succeeded him had any notion that they were infallible. That doctrine was an innovation as yet unheard of and it would never have entered their heads.
Click to expand...
hopefully by now, you’ve seen in various threads here, the defense for papal infallibility. It didn’t just start with Vatican I
Fr Ambrose:
My thrust in this discussion is to rebutt those people who are so terrified of allowing the possibility of Popes being heretics that they deny outrightly that Honorius was a heretic and try to slide out of it by claiming that he was merely lax in opposing heresy.
Click to expand...
It’s not that anyone denies Honorius was condemned for heresy, but that he didn’t violate the definition of how Vatican I defined infallibility for the popes. Capiche?

Popes can violate yours and my definition all day long. That’s not relevant to the discussion. It’s how Vatican I defines infallibility. And that’s the standard for judgement. Not any other standard.

If one is going to attack a Catholic belief, then attack that belief based on how Catholics defined it. Don’t define it on your terms, then attack that position as it is the Catholic position.
Fr Ambrose:
That is true. One cannot disprove a negative.
Click to expand...
disprove a negative? Please explain
 
steve b:
It’s not that anyone denies Honorius was condemned for heresy, but that he didn’t violate the definition of how Vatican I defined infallibility for the popes. Capiche?
Click to expand...
Porca miseria! Certo Lei ha voluto dire “capisce” o “capisci,” ma non “capiche”. Che significa questo, “capiche”? :hmmm:
 
Fr. Ambrose-have you read Pope St. Agathos’ letter to the Third Council of Constantinople? Its interesting that he claims infallibility of the Apostolic See and the council accepts the letter unanimously.

Jay
 
Hi Jay,

To save myself from the search, is there an online source for what you posted and where is it?

Thanks,

Maria
 
steve b:
It’s not that anyone denies Honorius was condemned for heresy,
Click to expand...
Actually, I think that everyone on this Forum has denied it and thery have referenced large numbers of Catholic websites which deny it.
but that he didn’t violate the definition of how Vatican I defined infallibility for the popes. Capiche?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Some Notable Quotables are:

And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere, which is chiefly to be loved and fostered, and is to be preached with confidence, which conciliates with God through its truthful confession, which also renders one commendable to Christ the Lord, which keeps the Christian empire of your Clemency, which gives far-reaching victories to your most pious Fortitude from the Lord of heaven, which accompanies you in battle, and defeats your foes; which protects on every side as an impregnable wall your God-sprung empire, which throws terror into opposing nations, and smites them with the divine wrath, which also in wars celestially gives triumphal palms over the downfall and subjection of the enemy, and ever guards your most faithful sovereignty secure and joyful in peace.
 
For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, 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 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. For woe is me, if I neglect to preach the truth of my Lord, which they have sincerely preached. Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which I am bidden to give to the exchangers, i.e., to teach to the Christian people and imbue it therewith.
 
Fr. Ambrose:

You said “everyone on this forum has denied he was a heretic.” I said he was a heretic.

jay
 
40.png
ThomasAugustine:
Fr. Ambrose-have you read Pope St. Agathos’ letter to the Third Council of Constantinople? Its interesting that he claims infallibility of the Apostolic See and the council accepts the letter unanimously.
Click to expand...
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.

“But the high, magnificent, yet true expressions, which St. Agatho had used of his See, namely, that resting on the promise of the Lord it had never turned aside from the path of truth, and that its Pontiffs, the predecessors of Agatho, who were charged in the person of Peter to strengthen their brethren, had ever discharged that office, this the Fathers of the Council hear and receive. But not the less they examine the matter, they inquire into the decrees of Roman Pontiffs, and, after inquiry held, approve Agatho’s decrees, condemn those of Honorius: a certain proof that they did not understand Agatho’s expressions as if it
were necessary to receive without discussion every decree of Roman
Pontiffs even deride, inasmuch as they are subjected to the supreme
and final examination of a General Council: but as if these expressions taken as a whole, in their total, hold good in the full and complete succession of Peter, as we have often said, and in its proper place shall say at greater length.”

(Bossuet, Defensio Cler. Gal. Lib. VII., cap. xxiv.)
newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm
 
40.png
ThomasAugustine:
Fr. Ambrose:

You said “everyone on this forum has denied he was a heretic.” I said he was a heretic.

jay
Click to expand...
Please take care in editing posts. You have altered my meaning. What I said was: "Actually, I think that everyone on this Forum has denied it " :tsktsk:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top