G
Good_Fella
Guest
Continued.
The attack against Pope Honorius l is a red herring cast by Christians who oppose the doctrine of papal infallibility, Meanwhile they confuse the charism of inafallibilty with human impeccability. Honorius was not condemned by the holy fathers for having officially taught Monothelitism in his divine office, but because of his apparently permissive stance on this heresy. When Pope Leo ll confirmed the anathema borne by the Council, he pointed out that the offense consisted of Honorius having failed to take measures in extinguishing Monothelitism once and for all at its early stage and for having promoted it by his negligence.
Pope Honorius may have been expected to reach a dogmatic decision on the question of one will in Christ, but the fact is he never did. Meanwhile his reply in a letter to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was not an authoritative declaration of confirmation of the faith. He did not pronounce anything ‘ex-cathedra", from the Chair of St.Peter. The pontiff merely sided with Sergius’ cautionary move to discard the formula of “two operations” in Christ. But that was because it smacked of Nestorianism. It also appears that Honorius and Sergius asserted one will in Christ insofar he possessed no contrary human will which was vitiated by sin. Honorius expressed himself so ambiguously that it appeared he had embraced a form of Monophysitism (Cf. John Chapman, Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. Vll). Unfortunately the controversy flared up after the pontiff passed away. So he wasn’t around any longer to explain himself in his letter to Sergius. Still Honorius hadn’t come to a final conclusion for or against the patriarch’s christology during his pontificate. It was more a matter of engaging in theological speculation when he shouldn’t have been for so long. Thus, since Pope Honorius made no “ex-cathedra” pronouncement on this matter, the question of papal infallibilty does not arise. And although his letter to Sergius was formally an official one in reply to a formal consultation, it wasn’t as public as an encyclical is in its address to the entire Church.
Suffice it to say, The Council of Constantinople ratified the decision reached by Pope Martin l and the bishops at the Lateran Synod in Rome (649 A.D) on this question of one or two wills in Christ. This wasn’t a general council, since not all the bishops of the Church attended. And that was because these Eastern bishops who had absented themselves were Monothelites. Rome had spoken!
"And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
Luke 22, 31-32
The canon of Scripture was finally settled at the Council of Rome in A.D. 382 under the jurisdictional authority of Pope Damasus l. The “Decree of Damasus” was ratified by the Council of Hippo (393) and the Council of Carthage (397).
The same canon was implicitlly affirmed by Nicea ll (787) and explicitly by Florence (1442) and Trent (1546).
We have an infallible statement being made by Pope Benedict Xll in his Apostolic Constitution Benedictus Deus ( 1336 A.D.) which meets the five criteria defined by Vatican Council l.
- (The Roman Pontiff speaks)
“The Apostolic Constitution, Benedictus Deus, of Pope Benedict Xll” - (Speaks ex-cathedra)
“with apostolic authority” - (We pronounce, declare, and define)
“define the following” - (That doctrine concerning faith and morals)
- (Must be held by the whole church)
“which is to remain in force forever”
:heaven: