Honorius the Heretic

[SiempreFiel]

Pope Honorius’ chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680). This fact is accepted by both, Catholics and Orthodox. As a result, this fact has been used extensively by the Orthodox as a proof that papal infallibility is simply false.

I firmly believe that this suppossed proof may in fact support the Orthodox position if and only if it is proven that the proof itself is true. If it is not proven that the proof is true, then the Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility will be convincingly corroborated.

Having said this, I encourage any Orthodox to step up to the challenge and prove to us that papal infallibility is false. The process of proving papal infallibility by using the case of Pope Honorius as proof is very simple and it only takes 4 steps:

1. 
   *]Was Pope Honorius teaching in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians?
   
   *]In the capacity mentioned above, was Pope Honorius teaching some doctrine of faith or morals?
   
   *]Is it sufficiently evident that Pope Honorius intended to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority?
   
   *]Was Pope Honorius demanding internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching?
   
   If the answers to the above questions are sufficiently demonstrated to be all “yes”, then papal infallibility is proven to be false. However, if at least one answer is “no”, then papal infallibility as taught by the Catholic Church unequivocally increases in credibility.
   
   May we be perfectly impartial
   
   May we be docile to the truth
   
   But most importantly, regardless of the conclusion…
   
   MAY GOD HELP US ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION

 

[SiempreFiel]

B.U.M.P.

 

[SiempreFiel]

Does this* mean that Catholics win by default? I’m just kidding.

Seriously though, where are the Orthodox???

*The fact that no Orthodox has taken up the challenge.

 

[SiempreFiel]

ORTHODOX:

Come out, come out, wherever you are!!!

 

[josephdaniel29]

Pope Honorius’ chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680). This fact is accepted by both, Catholics and Orthodox. As a result, this fact has been used extensively by the Orthodox as a proof that papal infallibility is simply false.

I firmly believe that this suppossed proof may in fact support the Orthodox position if and only if it is proven that the proof itself is true. If it is not proven that the proof is true, then the Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility will be convincingly corroborated.

Having said this, I encourage any Orthodox to step up to the challenge and prove to us that papal infallibility is false. The process of proving papal infallibility by using the case of Pope Honoriussupposed as proof is very simple and it only takes 4 steps:

1. 
   *]Was Pope Honorius teaching in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians?
   
   *]In the capacity mentioned above, was Pope Honorius teaching some doctrine of faith or morals?
   
   *]Is it sufficiently evident that Pope Honorius intended to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority?
   
   *]Was Pope Honorius demanding internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching?
   
   If the answers to the above questions are sufficiently demonstrated to be all “yes”, then papal infallibility is proven to be false. However, if at least one answer is “no”, then papal infallibility as taught by the Catholic Church unequivocally increases in credibility.
   
   May we be perfectly impartial
   
   May we be docile to the truth
   
   But most importantly, regardless of the conclusion…
   
   MAY GOD HELP US ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION

1. 
   You guys can’t even figure out all of the papal statements that meet these criteria. How am I supposed to know what Honorius “intended”?
   
   The dogma of papal infallibility is constructed in such a way as to be impossible to disprove. Depending on how you approach it any number of papal statements could be construed to either meet or not meet most of those criteria.
   
   Asking me to determine what Honorius intended is like me asking you to prove that George Bush “intended” to decieve the American people into war. It’s simply not possible.
   
   Yours in Christ
   Joe

 

[SiempreFiel]

You guys can’t even figure out all of the papal statements that meet these criteria. How am I supposed to know what Honorius “intended”?

If there’s ever the need and if it is expedient, the pope of Rome has the power to infallibly declare which doctrines are infallible and which ones are not.

The dogma of papal infallibility is constructed in such a way as to be impossible to disprove.

Depending on how you approach it any number of papal statements could be construed to either meet or not meet most of those criteria.

Asking me to determine what Honorius intended is like me asking you to prove that George Bush “intended” to decieve the American people into war. It’s simply not possible.

Since you believe that the dogma of papal infallibility is impossible to disprove because of how it is structured, can we conclude that the case of Pope Honorius cannot be used as a proof against papal infallibility?

Thank you for participating in this thread!!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If there’s ever the need and if it is expedient, the pope of Rome has the power to infallibly declare which doctrines are infallible and which ones are not.

Since you believe that the dogma of papal infallibility is impossible to disprove because of how it is structured, can we conclude that the case of Pope Honorius cannot be used as a proof against papal infallibility?

Thank you for participating in this thread!!

We don’t have to disprove it. You have to prove it.

Before we can even begin to judge the case of Pope Honorius after over a thousand years (and not a mere 40 years, as did the Sixth Council), you have to first sort out what it means since the dogma was proclaimed. Starting with, at a minimum, what definitions are infallible. I’ve yet to see complete agreement (which is the point, isn’t it?) with your church on this.

As for disproving it, the fact that the Council found it necessary to anathematize him, and that Pope John thought it necessary to have every Pope of Rome on ascension to the cathedra (the one in ex -), to swear an oath anathematize Honorius should tell you something.

 

[SiempreFiel]

We don’t have to disprove it. You have to prove it.

Nope!

You have to prove it since you happen to believe that the case of Pope Honorius disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility.

The burden of proof is on you. You claim that the case of Pope Honorius proves papal infallibility wrong? The burden of proof is on you.

Before we can even begin to judge the case of Pope Honorius after over a thousand years (and not a mere 40 years, as did the Sixth Council), you have to first sort out what it means since the dogma was proclaimed. Starting with, at a minimum, what definitions are infallible. I’ve yet to see complete agreement (which is the point, isn’t it?) with your church on this.

Once again, if there’s ever the need and if it is expedient, the pope of Rome has the power to infallibly declare which doctrines are infallible and which ones are not. This is not a problem for us.

As for disproving it, the fact that the Council found it necessary to anathematize him, and that Pope John thought it necessary to have every Pope of Rome on ascension to the cathedra (the one in ex -), to swear an oath anathematize Honorius should tell you something.

I,as a Catholic, do not deny that Pope Honorius I was a heretic.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Once again, if there’s ever the need and if it is expedient, the pope of Rome has the power to infallibly declare which doctrines are infallible and which ones are not. This is not a problem for us.

It’s not really an issue for us either, it’s not part of our tradition and never has been. Was there a dogma of papal infallibility in the pre-schism Church? If not it seems the burden of proof falls on you to prove to us that it was a legitimate addition. No?

I,as a Catholic, do not deny that Pope Honorius I was a heretic.

I agree and in my mind that in no way detracts from the honor and prestige of the papacy. I always try to make this clear I respect the office of the Bishop of Rome, particularly the current occupant and his predecessor. But, respect and prestige and honor are a long way from supremacy, universal jurisdiction and infallibility.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[SiempreFiel]

There seems to be some confusion as to who the burden of proof rests on, the Orthodox or the Catholics. Allow me to resolve this issue.

In principle, the burden of proof for any position rests on the participant(s) who sets forth the position.

Now, who is setting forth the position that the case of Pope Honorius disproves papal infallibility, the Orthodox or Catholics? The answer is, the Orthodox.

Now, based on the above, who is logically obligated to produce reasons in behalf of the claim, the Orthodox or Catholics? The answer is, the Orthodox.

It cannot get any clearer than that!

 

[sandusky]

Pope Honorius’ chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680).

When one slices through the qualifications of your post, your opening statement is what rings true; correct?

 

[SiempreFiel]

When one slices through the qualifications of your post, your opening statement is what rings true; correct?

No.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Siemprefiel,

I was going to start a new thread on Honorius in the apologetics Forum, but I see you have started one here.

I am planning to use brother Mickey’s post from the Papal Problems thread on Honorius as a springboard for discussion. Hope you don’t mind.

I will be posting on the matter within 3 days.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Gamera]

Honorius was not condemned for teaching heresy. Honorius was condemned for failing to sufficiently oppose heresy. Nobody claims that a pope cannot err by omission; infallibility is only the “negative” protection against a pope authoritatively teaching error in a matter of faith or morals.

 

[SiempreFiel]

Dear brother Siemprefiel,

I was going to start a new thread on Honorius in the apologetics Forum, but I see you have started one here.

I am planning to use brother Mickey’s post from the Papal Problems thread on Honorius as a springboard for discussion. Hope you don’t mind.

I will be posting on the matter within 3 days.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dearest brother Marduk,

Of course I don’t mind you stepping in in the discussion. Au contraire, I need more people participating in this thread! Especially Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters!

As you can see, I started this thread three days ago and participation has been dismal.

 

[ralphinal]

If not stopping a heresy makes you a heretic, how many nameless bishops, past and present in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are heretics? My guess is that the whole church long ago fell into heresy using that definition.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SiempreFiel,

*]Was Pope Honorius teaching in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians?

NONot only is there no proof that he did, but there is affirmative proof that he did not - the manner of his communication was a private letter to Sergius.

*]In the capacity mentioned above, was Pope Honorius teaching some doctrine of faith or morals?

NO, but we must admit that he made a judgment on a matter of doctrinal faith. Of course, opponents of the papacy must be honest and also admit that the Pope’s judgment on the matter did not favor either side of the issue (if one depends on the contents of Honorius’ letter)

*]Is it sufficiently evident that Pope Honorius intended to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority?

NO, but it must be admitted that he expected Sergius to submit to his judgment with “religious assent,” though not indeed with “assent of faith.” In fact, it was impossible for Serguis to give an “assent of faith” because, as noted, according to the contents of the Pope’s letter, Honorius did not judge in favor of either position.

*]Was Pope Honorius demanding internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching?

NO. In fact, we have on record that he instructed Serguis to keep silent on the whole issue.

If the answers to the above questions are sufficiently demonstrated to be all “yes”, then papal infallibility is proven to be false. However, if at least one answer is “no”, then papal infallibility as taught by the Catholic Church unequivocally increases in credibility.

I will return within two days to offer a positive proof for our Catholic belief, as requested by our EO brethren.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

If not stopping a heresy makes you a heretic, how many nameless bishops, past and present in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are heretics? My guess is that the whole church long ago fell into heresy using that definition.

But so many more bishops DID make historic efforts to stop heresy. So one cannot conclude that “the whole church long ago fell into heresy.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

As for disproving it, the fact that the Council found it necessary to anathematize him, and that Pope John thought it necessary to have every Pope of Rome on ascension to the cathedra (the one in ex -), to swear an oath anathematize Honorius should tell you something.

I wouldn’t expect any less. The Pope has the primary responsibility to preserve the unity of the faith. If he fails to do this God-given responsibility, he is justly condemned. How aweful indeed is the responsibility of the papacy, as the Lord Himself testified:
Woe is the servant who the Master has set over his household if the Master returns and finds that the servant has not properly fed the household!

This refers to all bishops, but the responsibility weighs even more upon the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ralphinal]

But so many more bishops DID make historic efforts to stop heresy. So one cannot conclude that “the whole church long ago fell into heresy.”

Blessings,
Marduk

I did not articulate my point very well. Right now, today, there is a heresy being taught in every place on earth. Where there are people, there are heretics. That is simple logic. If a bishop is not actively fighting that heresy, is he a heretic? If so, then all bishops are. Just look at the one in question: Arianism. How many bishops fell into it? Further, how many watched it grow without stopping it? The saints that we have from fighting it are saints because they were unique in making a stand. I think that the number was at one time 75% of the clergy were Arians. How many of the 25% left knew it and watched it happen silently? Are they then heretics as well? If so, where does it end? Are the small, vocal group the only one who are not heretics?