Infallibility arguments

[wyam]

The forum i’m in at: contenderministries.com/w-agora//view.php?site=contenders&bn=contenders_apologetics&key=1090301730&first=1090517595&last=1088369346 ,
had this post:
“Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.). (This means that Honorious made doctrinal statements which are contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.) He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. So here we have “infallible” popes condemning another “infallible” pope as a heretic. In 1870, the First Vatican Council abolished “infallible” papal decrees and the decrees of two “infallible” councils. [Note 2]”
If anyone if familiar with this pope, any help would be appreciated.
Or even if you would like to join the discussion & get a lot of catholics involved at the above site ( www.contenderministries.com )
Thanks
wyam

 

[PhilVaz]

<< If anyone if familiar with this pope, any help would be appreciated. >>

You can always check Dave Armstrong’s site for these kinds of questions, looks like he has at least two links

An older article on Dave Palm’s site

Article that appeared in This Rock by Steven O’Reilly

The two choices are (1) Honorius was privately a heretic, (2) Honorius was not really a heretic (his letter was misinterpreted) and was condemned for “negligence” or failure to teach the truth.

Some Catholic apologists resolve this with (1), others with (2). What can be shown is that Honorius did not violate the definition of papal infallibility of 1870, since these were private letters where he implied “monothelitism” (one will in Christ), etc.

For more complete coverage, Dom John Chapman the great patristics scholar I know has a whole book on this subject written early 20th century

Chapman’s article on Pope Honorius I in the old Catholic Ency (1913) online is quite detailed, print that one out if you can.

Phil P

 

[martino]

I am trying to go off memory here, but I will be as accurate as possible. Honorius was not condemned as a heretic. He was condemned however for failing to respond appropriately to a growing heresy. In response to a private letter, he neither affirmed nor condemned the heresy, he basically failed to stand up for the truth at a crucial point in time. This may have made him a bad pope but it was certainly not heresy. Another important point is that the letter in question was only a private letter, therefore he was not teaching ex cathedra to begin with, so even if he had made a heretical statement (which he didnt), it would not have amounted to heresy. Honorius was declared “anathama” because he made a statement that was used to foster heresy, when he could have made a statement to end the heresy right then and there. His failure act appropriately is what got him condemned.

There is a chapter on this subject in the book “Pope Fiction” by Patrick Madrid and he goes into much more detail. I hope this helps.

 

[The_Barrister]

1. The Sixth Council did not condemn Honorius’s papal teachings; instead, they condemned him for being negligent in his pastoral duties for failing to come down harder on the Monthelites. See? They condemned him for putting up with heretics by his silence, not for teaching heresy or being a heretic.
2. In order to prove that Honorius was condemned for being a heretic, it must be shown that he was a) speaking ex cathedra, and b) that his teaching was heretical. Neither of these are true. First, Honorius only approved silence agaisnt the Monothelites, and that did not constitute a dogmatic teaching - he didn’t define Christ differently than had been previously defined. Second, there is nothing to prove that he was speaking ex cathdra in this anyway.

So, there was no heresy in Honorius’ letters, and he was not condemned for a heresy, but rather for conniving with heretics. Therefore, his condemnation by the Sixth Council is immaterial to the issue of his infallibility on the issue of Church doctrine.

In that regard, the post you referenced was a rather shallow attack on Catholic doctrine, something I’ve come to expect from people who detest the Catholic faith, but do so on the basis of lies rather than fact.

I’m not aware of First Vatican condemning any prior “infallible” papal decrees or counsel decrees; in fact, one of the first holdings of the Council: “Likewise, all other things which have been transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecumenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly and profess; in the same way whatever is to the contrary, and whatever heresies have been condemned, rejected and anathematised by the church, I too condemn, reject and anathematise.” Session 2.

Considering how the author of that post was disingenous regarding Honorius, I would expect the other part of the post to be incorrect.

Hope this helps.

 

[wyam]

Thanks a lot for the help.
This forum is helping me tremendously in dialoging with the other forum members.
waym