Honorius the Heretic

[Allyson]

That would be up to the Orthodox and all those who don’t believe in papal infallibility. They have to come up with a proof against papal infallibility.

I did not pick the case!

Many Orthodox insist on using Pope Honorius’ case as proof against papal infallibility. As such, I’ve given them the opportunity to prove to us that Honorius’ case refutes papal infallibility.

So far, the Orthodox have not been able to produce evidence that would support their point of view beacuse of two interrelated reasons: (1) the criteria for teaching infallibly was not met; (2) there’s an anachronistic problem.

Nevertheless, the result is the same; Pope Honorius’ case does not serve as proof against papal infallibility.

Fair enough. When I was suggesting brining in another case, I meant another first millennium figure who has been used in the same way as Honorius as a refutation of papal infalliability/primacy, because it seemed that you were done with the case. I see though that you really already took the same position from the start.

I agree that there is an anachronism, and find that that goes the other way too. That it is difficult to the existence of infallibility from the case of Honorius.

What we need are all of the primary text to discuss and figure it out for ourselves, unfortunately, I don’t think any of us is so lucky as to have all these texts at our disposal.

Like I said in an earlier post, I find your original set of questions to be anachronistic, mainly because we have not established the standards by which we are to determine when and how Honorius acted in the roles now commonly attributed to the Pope, if he did at all. That is to says what would have constituted a ‘teaching action’ that deals with faith and morals? and in what capacity is it authoritative? The actual praxis of teaching was different from the praxis of today. Today there are encyclicals, apostolic letters, motu proprio’s, ect. That is the current praxis. I think that the praxis you are looking for in a proof must be established.

If you read in the first text I quoted, the letter of Honorius where he lends his support for one will and establishes his communion with Sergius was presented by Sergius after his own election to the synod to demonstrate the existence of communion, which was the custom. This is a public statement of Honorius’s communion with Sergius, and proclaims that he holds one will to be the case. Since this was all according to the custom (presumably canonical custome since it was to legitimize the office to which Sergius was elevated), would this not constitute an authoritative act? Perhaps even a teaching act?

I think that it just might, but I do not have access to the cannons so as to further explore this question.

I throw this out for discussion, because part of what you are asking for is discussion, not just proofs. Proofs are meaningless unless they are understood.

At least I am looking for some discussion. This is why I added some long tracts.

God Bless and Keep You Until Tomorrow,
R.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Allyson,

Tomorrow, I will present a positive defense of the Catholic position, at the request of our non-Catholic brethren.

I just want to make a very quick comments on the following:

If you read in the first text I quoted, the letter of Honorius where he lends his support for one will and establishes his communion with Sergius was presented by Sergius after his own election to the synod to demonstrate the existence of communion, which was the custom. This is a public statement of Honorius’s communion with Sergius, and proclaims that he holds one will to be the case. Since this was all according to the custom (presumably canonical custome since it was to legitimize the office to which Sergius was elevated), would this not constitute an authoritative act? Perhaps even a teaching act?

Unfortunately, Abbe Guetee is one of the most virulent anti-Catholic sources one will find, as even some of our Orthodox brethren here will admit. There are several factual errors in his relation of the matter. But I will address them tomorrow.

I think that it just might, but I do not have access to the cannons so as to further explore this question.

I pray my posts tomorrow shed some light on your concerns.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Allyson]

Dear sister Allyson,

Tomorrow, I will present a positive defense of the Catholic position, at the request of our non-Catholic brethren.

I just want to make a very quick comments on the following:

Unfortunately, Abbe Guetee is one of the most virulent anti-Catholic sources one will find, as even some of our Orthodox brethren here will admit. There are several factual errors in his relation of the matter. But I will address them tomorrow.

I pray my posts tomorrow shed some light on your concerns.

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Marduk,
I do recognize that he is very polemical, and I am not ashamed to use him, for I do so with care. I quoted only a brief historical summary, which I found to be without any particular slant. More importantly I quoted his quote of a primary text. I tried to stick to that more than the other. I am looking for critiques of him, but so far the only one I found was very poor.

If there is anything incorrect in the first quote in POST #28, please feel free to draw my attention to it. That is why I put it out there to begin with.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Mickey]

Brother Marduk,
I do recognize that he is very polemical, and I am not ashamed to use him, for I do so with care. I quoted only a brief historical summary, which I found to be without any particular slant. More importantly I quoted his quote of a primary text. I tried to stick to that more than the other. I am looking for critiques of him, but so far the only one I found was very poor.

I agree Allyson. God bless.

 

[East_and_West]

If Honorius did not declare Heresy for the entire Church to believe as truth, how does this case invalidate Papal infallibility? I still think that its amazing that God did not even allow a heretica Pope to teach heresy to the Church.

 

[Mickey]

If Honorius did not declare Heresy for the entire Church to believe as truth, how does this case invalidate Papal infallibility?

I believe that papal infallibility is invalidated by the fact that the early undivided Church did not know such an innovation.

 

[East_and_West]

I believe that papal infallibility is invalidated by the fact that the early undivided Church did not know such an innovation.

Uhhh. I disagree. St Iraneaus states that all must be in agreement with the Church of Rome because of her pre-eminant origin. If the Church could be in error, why would he say this?

 

[Mickey]

Uhhh. I disagree. St Iraneaus states that all must be in agreement with the Church of Rome because of her pre-eminant origin. If the Church could be in error, why would he say this?

The Councils did not err. The Church, with Her bishops, did not err. But there is nothing here about a supreme infallible pontiff. I’m sorry E & W–but I just do not see it.

 

[East_and_West]

The Councils did not err. The Church, with Her bishops, did not err. But there is nothing here about a supreme infallible pontiff. I’m sorry E & W–but I just do not see it.

It says we must be in agreement with the Church in Rome specifically. I think you are trying not to see it.

 

[ralphinal]

If Rome did not hold a place of pre-eminance, why did the Eastern Churches adopt the “Old Rome” title for Rome and the “New Rome” title for Constantinople, implying that it was either equal to or replacing Rome. It is one thing for the secular world to do this, as in the Empire that was the case. But when the Church does it, it has the same significance.

You could argue that it means that it is second only to Rome, but that still leaves Rome as #1.

 

[Mickey]

It says we must be in agreement with the Church in Rome specifically.

Regarding supreme infallibility at First Vatican Council:

As early as January 1870, at the initiative of Bishops Martin and Senestre a petition was sent to the pope; it immediately received the support of the majority of the Council members and thus anticipated the decision before any discussion on the subject. The petition asked for the proclamation of the pope’s supreme and infallible authority in matters of faith. Forty-six Council members from Austria-Hungary and Germany immediately sent a counter-petition, asking not to submit this subject for discussion; they were joined by 38 French, 27 American, 17 Eastern and 7 Italian bishops.
(The Vatican dogma)

 

[Mickey]

If Rome did not hold a place of pre-eminance, why did the Eastern Churches adopt the “Old Rome” title for Rome and the “New Rome” title for Constantinople

Nobody is arguing pre-eminence. The issue here is supreme infallibility of the Roman pontiff.

 

[East_and_West]

Regarding supreme infallibility at First Vatican Council:

As early as January 1870, at the initiative of Bishops Martin and Senestre a petition was sent to the pope; it immediately received the support of the majority of the Council members and thus anticipated the decision before any discussion on the subject. The petition asked for the proclamation of the pope’s supreme and infallible authority in matters of faith. Forty-six Council members from Austria-Hungary and Germany immediately sent a counter-petition, asking not to submit this subject for discussion; they were joined by 38 French, 27 American, 17 Eastern and 7 Italian bishops.
(The Vatican dogma)

What’s your point?

 

[ralphinal]

Nobody is arguing pre-eminence. The issue here is supreme infallibility of the Roman pontiff.

I know. I was actually getting to that. Two simple questions.

First, is it logical that the Holy Spirit would protect the teaching authority of the Church from teaching errors in matters of faith and morals? Yes or no question.

Second, and this one is more involved, did anyone ever say that it was not possible before the split between the EO and RC Church? One of the Church’s arguements is that it was never questioned so it did not have to be defined. Was it questioned between 33 a.d. and the beginnings of the split? I am not talking about the Honorius issue, I mean did any Early Church Father or Council ever say that the Pope was capable of error in teaching faith and morals?

 

[Mickey]

First, is it logical that the Holy Spirit would protect the teaching authority of the Church from teaching errors in matters of faith and morals?

This was the Council. There are seven.

I mean did any Early Church Father or Council ever say that the Pope was capable of error in teaching faith and morals?

Why would this issue be introduced since there was no such idea, dogma, or controversy in the early Church that tried to place some type of supreme infallibility on the bishop of Rome?

 

[ralphinal]

This was the Council. There are seven.

So the Holy Spirit can only protect the authority of the Church when it is Council? In other words, if no council is called, the Church can degrade into a state of heresy that it will never be pulled out of?

Why would this issue be introduced since there was no such idea, dogma, or controversy in the early Church that tried to place some type of supreme infallibility on the bishop of Rome?

I am saying that no one ever said that it was not there. Is it possible that the absence of the doctrine is an acceptance of it and not a denial? If it is not prohibited, is it allowed? Please keep in mind the limits placed on infallibility. It is not a blanket protection but a very limited one.

 

[Mickey]

So the Holy Spirit can only protect the authority of the Church when it is Council? In other words, if no council is called, the Church can degrade into a state of heresy that it will never be pulled out of

Councils were called to battle heresies. You are going in circles!

Is it possible that the absence of the doctrine is an acceptance of it and not a denial?

No. There would be multitudes of explicit documentation spelling out the extraordinary powers of the bishop of Rome. Even though limited (as you say) the dogma would have been written about extensively by the Church Fathers.

 

[Mickey]

Here is a question for you.
During the Roman Catholic Council of Constance, there were three Popes at one time. Which one was the supreme infallible pontiff?

 

[East_and_West]

Here is a question for you.
During the Roman Catholic Council of Constance, there were three Popes at one time. Which one was the supreme infallible pontiff?

I don’t know. But one of em was.

 

[Mickey]

I don’t know. But one of em was.