Honorius the Heretic

[East_and_West]

:coffeeread: :hypno: :juggle: :knight2:

 

[ralphinal]

I think that Gregory XII was the valid one, but he too resigned in order to promote the reconciliation. We know John XXIII was an anti-pope (after all, we had another one, right?).

I know that councils are called to deal with heresies, but what if none is called? Who calls for them?

I still hold that as no one questioned the role of the Bishop of Rome prior to the EO split, not much was written about it.

I understand the EO position on this. I really do. I can see the points that you are making. It just seems to make sense to me that the Holy Spirit keeps the pope from teaching errors in Faith and Morals. For example, if the Pope could teach in error, what would keep one from really messing things up? I do not mean something like the filioque, I mean more like teaching that Mormonism is correct and we should all join it. No offence to the Mormons.

 

[Mickey]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_4_2.gif%between%smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_80.gif

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_4_3.gif

I love pizza!!!

 

[ralphinal]

Where did you get those cool pizza smilies?

 

[Mickey]

I know that councils are called to deal with heresies, but what if none is called? Who calls for them?

If a terrible heresy sprung up in the Orthodox Church, I am sure a council would be called–otherwise synods are called to deal with the small stuff.

I still hold that as no one questioned the role of the Bishop of Rome prior to the EO split, not much was written about it.

And I still hold that is because papal supremacy/infallibility did not exist.

I do not mean something like the filioque, I mean more like teaching that Mormonism is correct and we should all join it. No offence to the Mormons.

Mormonism is a cult–is it not?

I still hold that Latin Catholicism (and those in communion with Her) is an Apostolic Church. We share many things. But there are some real differences. I just happen to believe that Holy Orthodoxy has held to the faith of the early Church whereas Rome got a bit side-tracked.

 

[ralphinal]

If a terrible heresy sprung up in the Orthodox Church, I am sure a council would be called–otherwise synods are called to deal with the small stuff.

Dumb question, when the arian heresy was at its worse, who called the council and why did the arains even show up? They had the numbers, they could have dumpt the rest of us.

And I still hold that is because papal supremacy/infallibility did not exist.

I was presenting another argument. I have my reasons for accepting it.

Mormonism is a cult–is it not?

Depending on who you ask, yes. I have some issues calling it one, but that is me. I used it as an extreme case. What would keep a pope from doing it?

I still hold that Latin Catholicism (and those in communion with Her) is an Apostolic Church. We share many things. But there are some real differences. I just happen to believe that Holy Orthodoxy has held to the faith of the early Church whereas Rome got a bit side-tracked.

Funny, I think it is the other way.

The important part to me, anyway, is that we are BOTH valid and Apostolic. We can learn from each other about so many things and we can teach Protestants so much as well. Sometimes, we get too caught up in why we are not together instead of how close we are to each other

 

[Mickey]

Dumb question, when the arian heresy was at its worse, who called the council and why did the arains even show up? They had the numbers, they could have dumpt the rest of us.

Not a dumb question–but a long answer. This might be a good thread starter.

What would keep a pope from doing it?

It was never about the Pope–it was about Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit led Councils.

We can learn from each other about so many things and we can teach Protestants so much as well.

Yes. Sadly, the schism shows protestantism that Apostolic Christianity cannot be united. It is a poor example to the world. If the Church reunited, I believe protestants would begin converting by the millions!

 

[ralphinal]

Not a dumb question–but a long answer. This might be a good thread starter.
It was never about the Pope–it was about Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit led Councils.

Ok.

Yes. Sadly, the schism shows protestantism that Apostolic Christianity cannot be united. It is a poor example to the world. If the Church reunited, I believe protestants would begin converting by the millions!

If they can admit that they were wrong. You know, to me, other than Papal infallibility and the position of Rome in relation to the overall church, the issues that keep us apart are minor. I know the filioque seems big, but it is not an issue to those rites still aligned with Rome. It amounts to a difference in one little understanding that does not invalidate the other possibility. The Immaculate Conception is easy enough to deal with, if we can understand how it does not invalidate free will. I think everything else is pride on both sides.

 

[Mickey]

You know, to me, other than Papal infallibility and the position of Rome in relation to the overall church, the issues that keep us apart are minor.

Sadly, the biggest issue is infallibility/supremacy. The Orthodox will never compromise that issue. That is why I do not see reunificatin–in my lifetime anyway.

 

[ralphinal]

Sadly, the biggest issue is infallibility/supremacy. The Orthodox will never compromise that issue. That is why I do not see reunificatin–in my lifetime anyway.

I agree. I think that there may be some middle ground, but no one will ask me.

 

[East_and_West]

Sadly, the biggest issue is infallibility/supremacy. The Orthodox will never compromise that issue. That is why I do not see reunificatin–in my lifetime anyway.

This is the sad truth of the matter. Unforutnately I do not believe either side will change without some act of God. Let continue to pray that God does indeed act. UNITY IN TRUTH!!!

 

[East_and_West]

I love pizza!!!

Me too. Pizza is the reason that I have to spend two hours a day at the gym to remain in shape!!!

 

[mardukm]

Dear all,

The following is more of a positive proof for the Catholic side on the matter. For easy reference and more ready understanding, it is given in the form of a dialectic with numbering. In fact, the following is an exact reflection of the process of my thinking during my three-year swim across the Tiber:

1. Who is regarded a “heretic” by the early Church?
   i) One who has been excommunicated (Canon 6, Second Ecum Council) , ii) schismatics who create new congregations that lead others into schism (Apostolic Canon 31; Canon 6, Second Ecum), iii) one who communes with the excommunicated (Canon 2, Cncl of Antioch 341 AD - presumably even if the former does not hold any heretical views), iv) one who prays with the excommunicated (Apostolic Canon 10 – presumably even if the former does not hold any heretical views).
   1b) With respect to bishops specifically:
   v) If any bishop or presbyter neglects the clergy and the people, and does not instruct them in the way of godliness, let him be excommunicated.(Apostolic Canon 58); vi) If in the mother cathedrals a bishop should have been negligent against the heretics, let a meeting be held of the neighbouring diligent bishops, and let his negligence be pointed out to him, so that he can have no excuse. But if within six months after this meeting, if an execution was in his own province, and he had taken no care to convert them to Catholic unity, no one shall communicate with him till he does his duty. (Canon 123, African Code 419 A.D.; NOTE: “Execution” refers to the role of an executor, which is a defender of the Faith; iow, if there was occasion for a defender to rise up, i.e., against a heresy).
2. Why is there such a focus for Catholics that Honorius have taught his teaching publicly? Because that is how one judges if it affects the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility.
3. Does this not make this criterion for infallibility wholly artificial and designed simply to make the dogma rhetorically impregnable?
   No. The purpose of the criterion was simply to prevent extremists at the Vatican Council from heaping prerogatives on the Pope that he did not possess, or that God did not intend for him to possess to fulfill his responsibility as chief shepherd.
4. If it was not a mere rhetorical tool, why did the Vatican Council use public teaching as a criterion for the dogma of papal infallibility?
   It was in order to remain faithful to the Tradition of Scripture and the Fathers.

The criterion of Scripture:
Consider Jonah who was punished for not performing his God-given duty to preach.
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to drowned in the depths of the sea.”(Mt 18:6)
“Who, then, is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of his household to distribute to them their food at the proper time. Blessed is that servant whom his master on his arrival finds doing so. But if that servant says to himself, “My master is long delayed and begins to beat his fellow servants, and eat and drink with drunkards, the servant’s master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour, and will punish him severely, and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be waiting and grinding of teeth” (Mt 24:45-51)
“I repeat the request I made of you that you stay in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines…If you will give these instructions to the brethren, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound teaching you have followed…Attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word and the laying on of hands. Be diligent in these matters, absorbed in them so that your progress will be evident to everyone. Attend to yourself and to your teaching…Whoever teaches something different…” (1 Tim 1:3; 4:6,13-16; 6:3)
“And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well…Be eager to present yourself as acceptable to God, a workman who causes no disgrace, imparting the word of truth without deviation…The Lord stood by me and gave me strength, so that through me the proclamation might be completed” (2 Tim 2:2,15; 4:17)
“For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, holding fast to the true message as taught, so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents…As for yourself, you must teach what is consistent with sound doctrine…” (Tit 1:7; 2:1)
“Not many of you should become teachers, for you realize that we will be judged more strictly.” (Jam 3:1)

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

The criterion of the Fathers:
Who can help us on the day of judgment, or what kind of excuse shall we find for thus keeping silence for so long, with regard to the blasphemies made by you against him? If you injured yourself alone by your teaching, perhaps it would be less matter; but you have greatly scandalized the whole Church, and have cast among the people the leaven of a strange and new heresy. (Epistle of St. Cyril to Nestorius)

But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to teach or to deliver a different Faith to such as wish to be converted to the knowledge of truth…Let them be anathema (Definition of Faith, Council of Chalcedon)

But if [the Archbishop of Constantinople] shall prefer to embrace the novelty…he himself should know what kind of answer he will have to give for such contempt in the divine examination of Christ before the judge of all, who is in heaven, to whom when he cometh to judgment also we ourselves are about to give an account of the ministry of preaching the truth which has been committed to us, or for the toleration of things contrary to the Christian religion. (Pope St. Agatho at the Sixth Ecum)

See also point 1b above.

The Councils condemn bishops not according to their beliefs, but according to their PUBLIC TEACHING (or neglect of it). In full accord, the Vatican Council Fathers sought to establish the criterion of infallibility in terms of PUBLIC TEACHING, because it is for this, above all else, that God gave us our bishops, and it is for this, above all else, that they will be judged, as noted in the Scripture proofs above. Consequently, it is by the public teaching of the Pope that we must judge whether the dogma of papal infallibility is true or false.

Points 12 thru14 and 18a below are intimately related to this portion of the discussion.

1. So did Honorius actually publicly and positively teach heresy?
   No, as already answered above and in a previous post in this thread.
2. Can you prove that Honorius never taught publicly or positively the heresy of monothelitism?
   Yes.
   i)The Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened on November 7, 680, to judge the matter of monothelitism. The accused were Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, Peter, Cyrus and Theodore. These were conspicuous and notorious (in other words, their PUBLIC TEACHING obtained for them that reputation) for their heresy which, according to the opening session of the Council, “in no small degree brought confusion into the Church throughout the whole world, for they taught dogmatically that there was but one will in the dispensation of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, and one operation…” HONORIUS IS NOWHERE MENTIONED.
   ii) Pope St. Agatho’s opening letter to the Council read on November 15, 680, NOWHERE MENTIONS HONORIUS when he names the heretics.
   iii)The monothelite heresy NEVER INFECTED ROME NOR THE WEST.
   iv) When the monothelite heresy came to a head around 640 A.D., all the orthodox Catholic bishops of the world pleaded with the Pope of Rome to give judgment.
   St. Sophronius of Jerusalem to his legate Stephen, bishop of Dora: Thou shalt give an account to the God who was crucified for us in this holy place, in His glorious and awful advent, when He shall come to judge the living and the dead, if thou delay and allow His Faith to be endangered, since, as thou knowest, I am myself left, by reason of the invasion of the Saracens which is come upon us for our sins. Swiftly pass, then, from end to end of the world, until thou come to the Apostolic See, where are the foundations of the holy doctrines. Not once, not twice, but many times, make clearly known to all those holy men there all that has been done; and tire not instantly urging and beseeching, until out of their apostolic wisdom they bring forth judgment unto victory.
   The bishops of Cyprus in Synod: Christ, our God, has instituted your Apostolic chair, O holy head, as a God-fixed and immovable foundation. For thou, as truly spake the Divine Word, art Peter, and upon thy foundation the pillars of the Church are fixed, and to thee He committed the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. He ordered thee to bind and loose with authority on earth and in heaven. Thou art set as the destroyer of profane heresies, as Coryphæus and leader of the orthodox and unsullied Faith. Despise not then, Father, the Faith of our Fathers, tossed by waves and imperilled; disperse the rule of the foolish with the light of thy divine knowledge, O most holy. Destroy the blasphemies and insolence of the new heretics with their novel expressions. For nothing is wanting to your orthodox and pious definition and tradition for the augmentation of the Faith amongst us. For we — O inspired one, you who hold converse with the holy Apostles and sit with them — believe and confess from of old since our very swaddling clothes, teaching according to the holy and God-fearing Pope Leo, and declaring that 'each nature works with the communion of the other what is proper to it.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO NOTION IN THE ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT ROME HAD BEEN INFECTED WITH THE HERESY OF MONOTHELITISM (indeed, it had not been so; NOTE: No pleas came from the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch or Constantinople because their Patriarchs had succumbed to monothelitism).

There is no other conclusion possible except that Honorius never taught publicly or positively the heresy of monothelitism. NO ONE EVEN HAD AN INKLING THAT HONORIUS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE HERESY UNTIL SERGIUS BROUGHT FORWARD HIS PRIVATE LETTERS FROM HONORIUS regarding the matter during the Council at the first session, in response to the Council’s accusation against him and his co-horts.

BTW, the above quotes are just a very few of the multitude of quotes from the Fathers of the Church that evince the patristic belief in the infallibility of the bishop of Rome.:clapping:

1. Is it not possible that Honorius was not initially mentioned by the Sixth Ecumenical simply because he was already dead?
   NO. Several of the named persons being judged by the Council in its opening session were already reposed – Peter, former Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyrus, former Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, Theodore, former bishop of Pharan, etc… Truly, the Council was meticulous in its search at rooting out the heresy, in accord with the wishes of Pope St. Agatho. Yet they found no record of Honorius’ supposed heresy. Truly, Honorius’ exchange with Sergius was private and not intended for the Church Catholic. No one had knowledge of Honorius’ judgment except Sergius himself.

To repeat, there is no other conclusion possible except that Honorius never taught publicly or positively the heresy of monothelitism. In fact, we have proof positive since remnants of his letter to Sergius indicate that he gave instructions to Sergius to be silent on the entire matter – i.e., NOT to use the language of one OR two operations.

1. Did the Sixth Ecumenical Council or any subsequent condemnation by the Church ever accuse Honorius of publicly and positively teaching heresy?
   No. At the 13TH Session, the Council gives the names of those who were responsible for the heresy, having taught them dogmatically, which names were already given above. Honorius is not listed among them. Instead, he is rendered separate as one who followed them and confirmed the heresy.

The Church of Rome in subsequent decrees confirmed this viewpoint, separating Honorius’ name from the originators of the heresy, and condemning him because “he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.”

1. So how could the Sixth Ecumenical Council say that Honorius was a heretic?
   According to the broad definition given in #1 above, Honorius was a heretic for failing in his solemn and awful duty to combat heresy when the opportunity presented itself, and thereby confirming it.
2. Did Honorius confirm the heresy by teaching it?
   No.
3. How then was he judged to have confirmed the heresy?
   In two ways: 1) When the opportunity presented itself, he did not cut it off at its root (i.e., Sergius); 2) He also failed to positively confirm the orthodox teaching, instead implying to Sergius that it was just as worthy to keep silent on the matter of two operations as it was on the matter of one operation in the God-man.
4. To what does the term “infallibility” apply?
   To the public teaching of the Church, in doctrinal and moral matters.
5. Is the teaching of the Church intended to be anything BUT public?
   No. Christ intended it that way, so His Gospel will be spread throughout the world.
   “He said to them, ‘Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature.’”(Mk 16:15)
   “He commissioned us to preach to the people…” (Acts 10:42)
6. So if something was not intended to be made public, can we conclude that it is not meant to be a teaching of and for the Church?
   Certainly. NOTE: the reservation of the Holy Mysteries from the non-Christian is not at issue here, so I hope no one goes around proffering that straw man.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

1. Is an Ecumenical Council infallible with regards to doctrine?
   Definitely.
2. Is an Ecumenical Council infallible with regards to its judgment on persons?
   No. This is evident from the decisions of the Fifth Ecumenical Council which overturned the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council with respect to the persons of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas.

Further, the condemnation of Pope (St.) Dioscorus by the Fourth Ecumenical Council has likewise been put on the table once again, as well as that of Nestorius and Origen. The question is not whether the Ecumenical Councils were wrong in the doctrines that they regarded as heresy, but whether or not these doctrines anathemized by the Ecum Councils were fitfully assigned to the persons that were condemned.

1. Do you feel that the Sixth Ecumenical Council was wrong in condemning Pope Honorius as a heretic?
   No. According to the broad definition of “heretic” used by the Church Catholic during the first millennium, the condemnation of Pope Honorius as a heretic was indeed fitting.
2. Does this have relevance for future ecumenical discussions?
   Yes. The matter of HOW/ IN WHAT MANNER Pope Honorius was a heretic should be put on the table, and defined, in order to demonstrate that the incident does not and cannot be an occasion to demean the holy dogma of papal infallibility.

In fact, an honest investigation will reveal that Pope Honorius’ letter to Sergius was not in fact heretical in the modern sense (i.e., applied specifically and only to doctrinal matters). We actually have the testimony of the person who transcribed Honorius’ letters that when Honorius used the word “one will,” he was not using it to refer to the Divine Will (as if to say that Christ only had one will, i.e., the Divine Will). Instead, he asserts that Honorius only meant that there was no dichotomy between the Lord’s human will and the Lord’s Divine Will.

18a) Before proceeding, I would like to bring up an interesting canon from the Council of Neocaesarea (315 A.D.). As apostolic Christians should know, this is one of the local councils whose canons were approved by the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. Canon 9 of this council asserts:
A presbyter who has been promoted after having committed carnal sin, and who shall confess that he had sinned before his ordination, shall not make the oblation, though he may remain in his other functions on account of his zeal in other respects; for the majority have affirmed that ordination blots out other kinds of sins. But if he do not confess and cannot be openly convicted, the decision shall depend upon himself
I think this canon has important ramifications for the question of whether or not a Pope can be a private heretic and still be Pope – which would be an important consideration for an ecumenical gathering for reunion. Generalizing this canon, it seems that the answer to the question would be in the affirmative. If one’s personal beliefs do not cause scandal to the Church, if one upholds the teaching of the Church despite one’s personal beliefs, then there really is no reason why a Pope who is a private heretic cannot remain Pope.

1. On what basis do polemicists argue that the case of Honorius refutes the dogma of papal infallibility?
   By virtue of the fact that the Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned him as a heretic.
2. Is that it?
   Yes.
3. Are they aware that infallibility only applies to the public teaching of the Church (whether given though the Pope, an Ecumenical Council, or the bishops spread throughout the world teaching with one voice)?
   Yes. But polemicists intentionally refuse to recognize that the Catholic Church teaches that Ecumenical Councils and the bishops with one united voice are also organs of infallibility, aside from the Pope. They purposely spread the lie that the Catholic Church teaches that it is only the Pope who is infallible, and that all other infallibility depends completely on the Pope’s infallibility.
4. Do they argue that Honorius taught the heresy publicly?
   Yes.
5. On what basis do they claim that he taught the heresy publicly?
   Because The Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned him as a heretic.
6. Is that it?
   Yes.
7. Are they aware that heresy had different meanings in the early Church?
   Polemicists of non-apostolic Christian communities might not; but polemicists from apostolic Churches should be aware of it. Whether the latter actually use that context in their polemics against the papacy is another matter altogether.
8. Do they have an answer as to why the Sixth Ecumenical Council had no knowledge of Honorius’ supposedly “heretical” tendencies when the Council was first convened?
   NO.
9. Then why are they so willing to claim that he taught heresy publicly?
   As there is no proof but mere assumption, my guess is that it is out of sheer desperation to justify their rejection of the holy dogma of papal infallibility.

I believe I have answered every possible objection (plus some), as I have heard and contemplated them in my experience whilst I was an Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome. I pray this has given everyone some food for thought.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Allyson,

Regarding Abbe Guettee’s summary of events, here are the points that are misleading, with accompanying explanations which I hope will clarify the points at issue.

Honorius replied with his famous letter, in which he also only recognizes one will and one operation in Jesus Christ; he censured those who were in favour of admitting two

Fact: We have extant the explanation of none other than Saba, the person who actually transcribed the letter of Pope Honorius. He explained that when Honorius used the term “one will/operation”, it was not in reference to the Divine Will (i.e., that Jesus ONLY had a Divine Will). Rather, Honorius used the term to indicate that there was no contrariness between the two operations of Christ (human and Divine). In his own words: “Honorius, by professing a single will in Christ, does not do so in the heretical meaning of the Monophysites but simply wishes to exclude in Christ a duality of good and bad will, as is found in a sinful person.”

Here is the actual judgment of Pope Honorius from the fragments that we have:
“We profess a single will in Our Lord Jesus Christ because there was in him no will of the flesh, nor repugnance to the divine will. Moreover, if one were to accept the single or the dual operation, that is something to be left to the grammarians to decide; instead, one must abandon innovations through words that can give scandal and, especially, no spaek of ‘one or two operations’”

Fact: Pope Honorius did not censure anyone for admitting two wills/operations. What he censured was the possibility that the terminology “two wills/operations” could be misconstrued to mean that there was contrariness in Christ. In fact, it was in these very terms that Sergius presented the case to Honorius. This is why St. Maximos the Confessor himself defended Honorius, asserting that Sergius had deceived him.

Let the reader decide from the quotes given above if Honorius can be judged a heretic in the modern sense of the term.

Fact: The term “two wills/operations,” though wholly orthodox, was indeed an innovation, a development of doctrine. It was new to the ears of the whole Church, which is why an Ecumenical Council was necessary to settle the question. If it was too plainly obvious that the terminology was utilized by any Fathers before that time, a Council would not have been necessary. But the fact of the matter is that the terminology, the very idea itself, was a DERIVATION from the existing Faith of the Church in the two natures of Christ.

Honorius, having, read it, told the messengers of Sophronius that, for the good of the Church, it was best not to agitate that question. The messengers agreed to this, and Honorius wrote to the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, making the same request.

Part of this is sheer speculation.
Fact: The letter of Honorius to the Patriarchs is not extant, lost in antiquity.

Abbe Guettee makes suppositions based on more general facts of the whole episode. But it seems obvious he has to add this speculative portion, because he needs to justify his equally speculative statement that by virtue of this lost letter, “Sophronius saw that the faith was in peril”

But it certainly cannot be the case that the contents of the letter caused Sophronius concern that the faith was being imperiled. In fact, in a subsequent request to the bishop of Rome to make definitive judgment on the matter, he admits with high praises that the Apostolic See is the “foundation of the holy doctrines.”

IMHO, the contents of the Pope’s lost letter, which was also sent to the other Patriarchs, was a request to hold an ecumenical Council on the whole issue.

Abbe Guetee’s summary may indeed be considered factual. But he leaves out so much context that its main use is really only for polemical purposes.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Let us take another approach instead of retroactively exonerating the heretic Honorius with the 1870 definition of infallibility.

Honorius was condemned as a heretic–that is plain to see. We all agree with this.

It is difficult for me to envisage one of the Apostles (St Peter for example) holding heretical views (or to be silent concerning a Church destroying heresy).

But it is okay because he did not publically teach the heresy.

I can also not envisage a discovery of letters from one of the Apostles articulating heretical beliefs.

But it is okay because he did not teach it publically.

No. I do not buy into any of it.

 

[Mickey]

Me too. Pizza is the reason that I have to spend two hours a day at the gym to remain in shape!!!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey

Let us take another approach instead of retroactively exonerating the heretic Honorius with the 1870 definition of infallibility.

I already demonstrated that the dogma of infallibility is based on Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. If Honorius is exonerated, it will be based on the principles of the same Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

Honorius was condemned as a heretic–that is plain to see. We all agree with this.

It is difficult for me to envisage one of the Apostles (St Peter for example) holding heretical views (or to be silent concerning a Church destroying heresy).

Your difficulty rests in the anachronism of applying the modern restricted view of “heresy” to the case of Honorius, nothing more.

But it is okay because he did not publically teach the heresy.

Who said it was “OK”? IF Honorius was a heretic in the modern sense of the word, then God will judge him. But it is plainly obvious that the judgment of persons by Ecumenical Councils is not a matter of infallibility, and can be mistaken.

I can also not envisage a discovery of letters from one of the Apostles articulating heretical beliefs.

Me, neither. If such letters were discovered, the heresy can only be apparent, and not real. This will be determined by cautious examination, not prejudicial bias which refuses all the evidence.

No. I do not buy into any of it.

No need to buy. If it free of charge.

Blessings,
Marduk