Honorius the Heretic

[ralphinal]

oh my. I did not notice what a simple sinner’s initials were.

Hey guys, let us all be charitable for a minute and be kind. You two are like a couple of nine year olds.

 

[Allyson]

And I will throw something else into the mix. Has anyone ever heard of the Keenan Catechism? I have just read that the third edition of this Catechism in 1854 calls the idea of Papal infallibility “a protestant invention”!

This Catechism has the approbation of four bishops!

I must delve further into this.

Interesting, you’ll have to tell what you find out about the context of the text.

R.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

(2) there’s an anachronistic problem…

yes, infallibility wasn’t a dogma until over a thousand years later.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

That’s the anachronism that SiempreFiel referred to.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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?

He also joined in the rebuke (yes, that’s the word used) of the ENTIRE Church of Pope Victor.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

No, in the oft quoted quote, St. Irenaeus specifically says he is using Rome as AN EXAMPLE, because to cite all the Apostolic Sees (of which the East had many: Irenaeus came from one) would be too long.

Just a few lines up from the preferred quote, he states:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times;

In fact, St. Irenaeus is making an point of the multiple testimonies of the many Churches in agreement, versus the disagreement of the Gnostics. If all Rome had to do would be to speak, and close the case, he could have said so.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

No. The Church’s infallibility is a revealed Truth, not a reasoned one.

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?

The Fifth Council struck Pope Vigilius from the Diptychs.

St. Cyprian translated, it seems, and disseminated Firmilian (3rd cent.) afffirmative argument that the Pope could (and according to him, did) err in teaching faith and morals

The Fourth Council accepted Pope Leo’s tome, but only after they had examined it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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?

That’s how He has done it.

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.

Limited to the point of meaninglessness.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t know. But one of em was.

How do you know?

We opt for “none of the above.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

Is the pizza a peace offering?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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?

Christ. The Holy Spirit.

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.

Since Mormonism (and the filioque) trangress the boundaries the Fathers set, that is easy. Don’t do it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So much, when the answer was in your first post:

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).

If I remember correctly, in the Roman canon it speaks of sins of commission and ommission. St. Sophronius did his job, Honorius failed to do his.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I had three slices of Giordano’s pizza for breakfast today.

I had forgotten that you are also one of Daley’s serfs.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Guilty as charged.

Gotta stock before Great Lent starts.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Was their a dogma? Well, was their a precedent of heresy in the Roman Church?

All things being equal, and Rome having always come down on the side of what was considered orthodox… working hard against the Catholic apologists explination of the Honorarius episode to insist - against all better explination - that Honorarius was a heretic would - if we conceded (I do not) - only serve to have ONE Pope in the first millenia who could even possibly be argued to have been in heresy…

That being the case, and all other things being equal, demanding that the worse case scenario - that Honorarius was in heresy - serves to put ONE POPE ALONE (against Catholic explinations) outside of orthodoxy in the first millenia… And the case for his heterodoxy, ain’t that strong.

This is telling.

No. It is not one Pope. Popes Zosimos and Vigilius dragged their feet with heretics. Pope Victor was “rebuked” by the entire Church (though that was more on discipline). Pope Stephan VI’s antics were unorthodox at best, etc…

As for your time line:

For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

The Arian schisms (343-98);

Interesting: the Eastern Church produced the Universal Ecumenical Creed in 381, without any (name removed by moderator)ut at all from Rome or the West.

The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415);

This is also interesting, as St. John received his ordinations from those Rome had condemned.

The Acacian schism (484-519);

Here you got us, except that the populace, i.e. the Faithful, in New Rome and elsewhere refused to condemn the Fourth Council. While the bishops outside of New Rome refused to sign the terms of Hormisdas, even the bishops under Hormisdas in Illyrium. (Hormisdas told the emperor to use force to get their signatures). And Patriarch John wrote in his own terms, i.e. equality between New and Old Rome.

Concerning Monothelitism (640-681);

St. Sophronius of Jerusaelm was the one who kept the Faith. 625-38 it would have been better to be in schism from Rome.
Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43).

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides.

No. You’re forgetting Honorius again.

And the Fifth Council and Vigilius.

And the Creed, which you accepted from us while we were in “schism.”

Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.)

Who wrote the Creed again?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Doubtless if collecting examples of novelty or cherry picking the rich, rich library of Catholic faith for evidence of confusion or inconsistency is your goal, that will be a GREAT thing for you to do.

On another thread Mickey maintains it was impossible to learn if all papal bulls were infallable (which they are not) even when Mickey was a Catholic… But nowadays, without understanding the Catholic Faith (or is that the case?) copious amounts of time are spent (1) telling us we are wrong and (2) parroting the most polemic assertions against us…

Can’t find straight answers on Papal infaillabilty, but you can find an obscure catechism from 154 years ago as evidence against us?

Something does not seem right.

Yes, the brushing aside of the authority of four of your bishops with the power to authorize a text as an authoritative position.

The key: 154 years ago, ie. before Vatican I. In a brief 17 years the dogma went from Protestant invention to eternally proclaimed dogma of Scripture and the Church Fathers.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Mick,

I write:

Can’t find straight answers on Papal infaillabilty, but you can find an obscure catechism from 154 years ago as evidence against us?

And I get:

Hmmm? Out of my laziness, I did not yet place you onto my ignore list and behold…what do I see…more insults, anger, arrogance, and attacks. It is no secret that I do not agree with papal infallibility and I am researching every angle of it. I did not know the status of Papal bulls, and there were some very kind Catholic Christians who answered the question for me (in between the nasty sarcastic insults of A.S.S.)

Now instead of continuing to be a*** pedantic jerk***, (your words not mine), do you have anything constructive to say about the Keenan Catechism or will you just continue to attack me personally?

Classic Mickey:

you paint yourself as the victim when you get a repsonse and characterize the responses of disagreement as “insults, anger, arrogance”

This is really just tantamount to ***ad hominem ***attacks and personally insulting me. I am the one being insulted constantly in this exchange, by you Mickey.

A.S.S.? Come on

At no point, no where, have you been personally attacked. I have defied you to note and quote with examples where you have been personally attacked. You can’t because you haven’t been.

But time, and time, and time again you want to say I have “angry” (oh I am getting there!) “arrogant” “insulting” responses.

It beats having to defend your statements or answer objections, I suppose.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

No. It is not one Pope. Popes Zosimos and Vigilius dragged their feet with heretics. Pope Victor was “rebuked” by the entire Church (though that was more on discipline). Pope Stephan VI’s antics were unorthodox at best, etc…

Is dragging feet on heretics heresy? If Victor was rebuked on discipline was that heresy? Can you explain Stephan’s heresy?

Interesting: the Eastern Church produced the Universal Ecumenical Creed in 381, without any (name removed by moderator)ut at all from Rome or the West.

I don’t follow how this precludes vast schism and heresy - which Rome did not fall into.

This is also interesting, as St. John received his ordinations from those Rome had condemned.

It follows that those who ordain saints will always themselves be orthodox?

And the Creed, which you accepted from us while we were in “schism.”

This is a red herring - does the time line say that all the east all throught and everywhere had fallen into schism wholly during those periods Isa?

Who wrote the Creed again?

Writing an orthodox creed precludes possible heresy or heretical parties that needed to be stopped?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Yes, the brushing aside of the authority of four of your bishops with the power to authorize a text as an authoritative position.

The key: 154 years ago, ie. before Vatican I. In a brief 17 years the dogma went from Protestant invention to eternally proclaimed dogma of Scripture and the Church Fathers.

Before being definatively defined, it isn’t problematic.

Can any four Orthodox bishops ever be found to be in error?

Were their orthodox parties (saints no less) that sided with error before it was condemed as such in the first councils?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Is dragging feet on heretics heresy? If Victor was rebuked on discipline was that heresy? Can you explain Stephan’s heresy?

mardukhm posted the canon on negligence on heretics. complicity.
That Victor made discipline a dogma, yes.
The argument with Stephen gave us the saying “outside the Church there is no salvation.”

I don’t follow how this precludes vast schism and heresy - which Rome did not fall into.

So Rome claims.

Your time line stated we needed Rome to pull us out of heresy. Yet we were the side with the Creed.

It follows that those who ordain saints will always themselves be orthodox?

Your timeline talks about schism: St. John purposely chose in the Meletian schism, and it wasn’t on Rome’s side.

This is a red herring - does the time line say that all the east all throught and everywhere had fallen into schism wholly during those periods Isa?

It’s your timeline.

Writing an orthodox creed precludes possible heresy or heretical parties that needed to be stopped?

No, confessing it does.