How do we reconcile Popes Liberius, Zosimus, Honorius, and Vigilus with claims of Papal infallibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter josephback
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

josephback

Guest
I was reading “The Age of Faith” by Will Durant today and he makes several mentions of popes sanctioning error. Is it true that Pope Zosimus absolved Pelagius of error? If so, did this meet the requirements for an infallible pronouncement?
 
The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer (Papa Stronsay) have a whole webpage dedicated to Pope Liberius in which they defend him against the accusation of error.

As for Pope Honorius, when he wrote that Christ’s will was one he was referring only to his human will, which indeed is one, unlike ours, which have been divided by original sin. What this means is that our wills are conflicted between serving God and committing sin, whereas Christ’s human will is singularly devoted to God. Honorius as not denying that Christ had a divine will as well and this can be seen if one take dingo account the context of what he wrote - ie, the question that he was responding to.

As for the other cases, I don’t know about them off the top of my head. What I do know is that when the Fathers of Vatican I were researching before the definition of papal infallibility was made, about 40 instances of popes being mistaken in their opinions were found. That is why the definition has specific parameters for infallibility, and if one considers the instances of papal error in light of these parameters, one finds that the definition allows for such cases (eg, of popes erring in private letters not mean to be binding on all the faithful).
 
Honorius was condemned by an Ecumenical Council twice. I don’t know how you can even defend that, he is a heretic.

The answer is simple really. The concept of “Papal Infallibility” did not exit in the First Millennium.
 
Even granting that you are correct in your assertion that Pope Honorius believed a heresy, he did not promulgate the alleged heresy in a document binding on all the faithful (a requirement in Vatican I’s definition). His letter was to only one person, Patriarch Sergius. If I am mistaken about my belief that Honorius was misunderstood or wrote ambiguously, I apologize and I welcome correction as long as it is done in a spirit of fraternal charity.
 
Marocchino said:
Even granting that you are correct in your assertion that Pope Honorius believed a heresy, he did not promulgate the alleged heresy in a document binding on all the faithful (a requirement in Vatican I’s definition). His letter was to only one person, Patriarch Sergius. If I am mistaken about my belief that Honorius was misunderstood or wrote ambiguously, I apologize and I welcome correction as long as it is done in a spirit of fraternal charity.
Click to expand...
If the Church of the first millennium did not adhere to papal infallibility to begin with, however, it is anachronistic to argue that the doctrine is untouched by the Pope Honorius episode because the letter to Patriarch Sergius did not meet the criteria for ex-cathedra statements laid down over a thousand years later.
 
In response to Constantine, on further research I discovered that I had picked my opinion on Pope Honorius from St. Robert Bellarmine, but that his opinion is probably wrong. So mea culpa.

In response to Trebor, when the Church defines something infallibly, by an act of the pope or in an ecumenical council, She is merely clarifying something that had always been believed. Therefore, it is not anachronistic for me to apply Vatican I’s def. to the Honorius case.
 
When Will Durant was fourteen he got angry when a priest told him masturbation was a mortal sin. On this basis Durant became an atheist for the rest of his life ( he died in his late nineties ).

I wouldn’t trust anything he says about religion.
 
Marocchino said:
In response to Trebor, when the Church defines something infallibly, by an act of the pope or in an ecumenical council, She is merely clarifying something that had always been believed. Therefore, it is not anachronistic for me to apply Vatican I’s def. to the Honorius case.
Click to expand...
You’re assuming here that the early Church believed that the pope had such authority to “clarify” a matter of doctrine. Yet, where can we read today the ex-cathedra proclamation of, e.g., St. Mary as Theotokos?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top