Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[LionHeart777]

I would like to ask is there a way that the Roman Catholic Church can get rid of a bad Pope? We all know that there have been corrupt Popes such as Pope Alexander VI, one of the Borgia Popes. There have been heretical Popes such as Honorius I. What does the Roman Catholic Church do if the Pope is corrupt or heretical? In our Church, if we have a corrupt, heretical incompetent or mentally ill Patriarch, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate can depose him. That happened a few years ago in Jerusalem.

Archpriest John W. Morris

(Emphasis mine)

Fr. Morris,

I tried to respond to this (today) when you asked in another thread. You can see my responses here and here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would like to ask is there a way that the Roman Catholic Church can get rid of a bad Pope? We all know that there have been corrupt Popes such as Pope Alexander VI, one of the Borgia Popes. There have been heretical Popes such as Honorius I. What does the Roman Catholic Church do if the Pope is corrupt or heretical? In our Church, if we have a corrupt, heretical incompetent or mentally ill Patriarch, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate can depose him. That happened a few years ago in Jerusalem.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Fr. John-

Anti-Catholicism makes strange bed-fellows. I hear about Pope Honorius regularly when interacting with Protestants who reject many of the doctrines that you and I share. These folks, like you, seek some means, any means, to undermine the papacy.

According to these individuals, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, “To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine.”

Knowing that you would not intentionally undermine the faith of a fellow Christian - even one with whom you disagree concerning the infallibility of the pope - I’m sure you welcome this clarification.

 

[theistgal]

Fr. John-

Anti-Catholicism makes strange bed-fellows. I hear about Pope Honorius regularly when interacting with Protestants who reject many of the doctrines that you and I share. These folks, like you, seek some means, any means, to undermine the papacy.

According to these individuals, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, “To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine.”

Knowing that you would not intentionally undermine the faith of a fellow Christian - even one with whom you disagree concerning the infallibility of the pope - I’m sure you welcome this clarification.

Well written, Randy! I agree, I think the “Honorius as heretic” canard should be dropped.

 

[Peter_J]

Fr. John-

Anti-Catholicism makes strange bed-fellows. I hear about Pope Honorius regularly when interacting with Protestants who reject many of the doctrines that you and I share. These folks, like you, seek some means, any means, to undermine the papacy.

To be honest, I sometimes get the impression that, for many posters, protestantism is somehow so bad that just mentioning it is enough to score points against someone.

Kind of makes you think.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t get it. I thought Rome accepted the third council of Constantinople together with the EO, which anathematizes Honorius by name as a monothelite.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. John-

Anti-Catholicism makes strange bed-fellows. I hear about Pope Honorius regularly when interacting with Protestants who reject many of the doctrines that you and I share. These folks, like you, seek some means, any means, to undermine the papacy.

According to these individuals, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, “To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine.”

Knowing that you would not intentionally undermine the faith of a fellow Christian - even one with whom you disagree concerning the infallibility of the pope - I’m sure you welcome this clarification.

Pope Honorius was condemned for heresy by name by the 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 780.
The official decree of the council states:
The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we
had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this
royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some
time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.

I do not know what could be clearer. Honorius I accepted the monothelite heresy and was justly condemned for heresy by the 6th Ecumenical Council.
I am not trying to undermine anyone’s faith. However, this is supposed to be a discussion between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Therefore, I have to state the Orthodox position. We reject the doctrine of papal infallibility. No one man is infallible.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

I don’t get it. I thought Rome accepted the third council of Constantinople together with the EO, which anathematizes Honorius by name as a monothelite.

I agree. Honorius I of Rome was anathematized and, for a long time, future popes would anathematize him as part of the papal oath. Popes can believe and even teach heresy.

The real problem is that most Catholics do not understand that papal infallibility is limited (by Vatican I) to when the pope meets all four conditions at the same time:

1. speaks ex cathedra,
2. defines,
3. doctrine concerning faith or morals,
4. and that it must be held by the Church.

A pope can promote heresy and be gross immorality but the gates of hell will not prevail.

 

[malphono]

frjohnmorris;11304912:

There have been heretical Popes such as Honorius I.

Anti-Catholicism makes strange bed-fellows. I hear about Pope Honorius regularly when interacting with Protestants who reject many of the doctrines that you and I share.

Ah, yes, the whole Honorius thing … again. The argument is tired and stale on both sides, and I say that leaving the Protestants out of the picture entirely. The extremist EO polemic on the matter has become just plain boring, while the ultamontanist RC polemic is equally, if not more, boring. Personally, I find it rather amusing that the ultramontanists who eventually won at Vatican I, insisted on sweeping the entire matter under the rug. Strange bed-fellows, indeed, but in a rather different way.

These folks, like you, seek some means, any means, to undermine the papacy.

I’m not defending any other poster here, but it seems to me the above quote is pushing things just a wee bit too far. As I see it, it’s not so much a matter of “underminging” the ultramontanist (and ultimately RCC in fact if not in theory) position of the “Absolute petrine” view, as it is one of debunking it. And as far as I’m concerned, it needs to be debunked yesterday. The longer the “Absolute Petrine” myth persists, meaning the the longer Vatican I is not formally and officially reinterpreted, the longer it will be for an even remotely serious consideration of unity.

 

[malphono]

The real problem is that most Catholics do not understand that papal infallibility is limited (by Vatican I) to when the pope meets all four conditions at the same time:

1. speaks ex cathedra,
2. defines,
3. doctrine concerning faith or morals,
4. and that it must be held by the Church.

True in theory, but I think you’ll have to agree that it’s not so true in fact. The ambiguities of Vatican I will never “go away” on their own.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I agree. Honorius I of Rome was anathematized and, for a long time, future popes would anathematize him as part of the papal oath. Popes can believe and even teach heresy.

The real problem is that most Catholics do not understand that papal infallibility is limited (by Vatican I) to when the pope meets all four conditions at the same time:

1. speaks ex cathedra,
2. defines,
3. doctrine concerning faith or morals,
4. and that it must be held by the Church.

A pope can promote heresy and be gross immorality but the gates of hell will not prevail.

The real problem is that Vatican I gives the Pope authority previously reserved only to Ecumenical Councils. Only an Ecumenical Council can definitively make proclamations on the official teaching of the Church. The fact that it took the Roman Catholic Church until 1870 to proclaim this doctrine shows that it was an innovation. During the age of the undivided Church the ultimate authority on the doctrine of the Church was an Ecumenical Council. Popes submitted their opinions on doctrine to an Ecumenical Council for ratification. Only after it was ratified by an Ecumenical Council did the papal opinion become the official doctrine of the Church. The Popes has no authority to unilaterally proclaim doctrine.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[bilop]

The real problem is that Vatican I gives the Pope authority previously reserved only to Ecumenical Councils. Only an Ecumenical Council can definitively make proclamations on the official teaching of the Church. The fact that it took the Roman Catholic Church until 1870 to proclaim this doctrine shows that it was an innovation. During the age of the undivided Church the ultimate authority on the doctrine of the Church was an Ecumenical Council. Popes submitted their opinions on doctrine to an Ecumenical Council for ratification. Only after it was ratified by an Ecumenical Council did the papal opinion become the official doctrine of the Church. The Popes has no authority to unilaterally proclaim doctrine.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father

How is the Council to decide? Majority vote? Of all bishops, or a subset?

God Bless

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father

How is the Council to decide? Majority vote? Of all bishops, or a subset?

God Bless

Generally decisions are made by consensus. The issues are thoroughly discussed and a consensus is reached.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

The real problem is that most Catholics do not understand that papal infallibility is limited (by Vatican I) to when the pope meets all four conditions at the same time:

1. speaks ex cathedra,
2. defines,
3. doctrine concerning faith or morals,
4. and that it must be held by the Church.

Even that isn’t quite right (although it how what Wikipedia says, IIRC). “Ex cathedra” isn’t one of the conditions, but rather the term for a statement that fulfills *all *of the conditions.

 

[Zekariya]

Even that isn’t quite right (although it how what Wikipedia says, IIRC). “Ex cathedra” isn’t one of the conditions, but rather the term for a statement that fulfills *all *of the conditions.

This reply is solely to show that I used Wiki’s brevity to refer to a legitimate source.

Vatican I, Session 4 (July 18, 1870):
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, 1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, 2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
Source: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

 

[Zekariya]

The real problem is that Vatican I gives the Pope authority previously reserved only to Ecumenical Councils. Only an Ecumenical Council can definitively make proclamations on the official teaching of the Church. The fact that it took the Roman Catholic Church until 1870 to proclaim this doctrine shows that it was an innovation. During the age of the undivided Church the ultimate authority on the doctrine of the Church was an Ecumenical Council. Popes submitted their opinions on doctrine to an Ecumenical Council for ratification. Only after it was ratified by an Ecumenical Council did the papal opinion become the official doctrine of the Church. The Popes has no authority to unilaterally proclaim doctrine.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father, I was not trying to convince you of papal infallibility. I was trying to show that Pope Honorius’ being anathematized as a heretic should not pose any theological problem for Catholics. Many Catholics believe that everything that the pope writes is infallible and this is incorrect.

 

[Peter_J]

Vatican I, Session 4 (July 18, 1870):
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, 1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, 2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
Source: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

Exactly.

 

[bilop]

Generally decisions are made by consensus. The issues are thoroughly discussed and a consensus is reached.

Archpriest John W. Morris

But what if there is no consensus? What if the Church is bitterly divided? Like with the Arian heresy? Do you just not invite the bishops you consider heretical?

God Bless

 

[Nine_Two]

But what if there is no consensus? What if the Church is bitterly divided? Like with the Arian heresy? Do you just not invite the bishops you consider heretical?

God Bless

Even Nicea reached consensus on Arianism, in spite of the bitter divide in the church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

Exactly.

I believe brother Zekariya was referring to the first two conditions when referring to “ex cathedra.” “Ex cathedra” concisely means that he is using his primatial, Petrine authority, and he can do this even when he is not defining on faith and morals. Of course, we normally attach that term to infallible decrees, but this is not necessarily always so.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

Catholics of the High Petrine perspective understand Ex cathedra decrees as basically nothing more than what goes on at an Ecumenical Council, but without the formal setting of an Ecumenical Council. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that even when dispersed throughout the world, the Magisterium can teach infallibly. Catholics generally do not constrain the Church’s infallibility to a Council.

It is Catholics of the Absolutist Petrine prespective, on the other hand, who believe that the Pope can unilaterally define doctrine. But this is not what Vatican 1 taught.

I’ll explain the matter more fully (along with the explanation of the terms “High Petrine” and “Absolutist Petrine”) in a thread I will be starting soon.

Humbly,
Marduk

The real problem is that Vatican I gives the Pope
authority previously reserved only to Ecumenical Councils. Only an Ecumenical Council can definitively make proclamations on the official teaching of the Church. The fact that it took the Roman Catholic Church until 1870 to proclaim this doctrine shows that it was an innovation. During the age of the undivided Church the ultimate authority on the doctrine of the Church was an Ecumenical Council. Popes submitted their opinions on doctrine to an Ecumenical Council for ratification. Only after it was ratified by an Ecumenical Council did the papal opinion become the official doctrine of the Church. The Popes has no authority to unilaterally proclaim doctrine.

Archpriest John W. Morris