Orthodoxy and St peter

[mardukm]

Look, I’ve seen the same debate and it is indeed straightforward and easy to discern. He was a heretic. I have never seen anything on the Latin side that has proven otherwise. I surely understand that it became imperative, especially after 1870, to somehow trivialize his heresy in an attempt to protect the doctrine of infallibility…but for me…it just doesn’t pass the smell test.

That you think the matter has anything to do with “papal infallibility” merely demonstrates your consistent ignorance of Catholic teaching.

How does the fact of Honorius’ condemnation as a heretic affect the Church’s teaching on papal infallibility?

Watch carefully, readers. Mickey will either slink away in silence because he cannot respond, or he will make some senseless jab that is not a response to the question. That’s the best EO polemics has to offer on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Straight from the fathers of Constantinople III:

He never taught it as the Faith of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

How does the fact of Honorius’ condemnation as a heretic affect the Church’s teaching on papal infallibility?

Read post #47…that answers it sufficiently. The reason the heretic Honorius causes so much strife for the Catholic apologist…is because he almost single handedly dismantles the idea of the 1870 doctrine of papal infallibility.

Watch carefully, readers. Mickey will either slink away in silence because he cannot respond, or he will make some senseless jab that is not a response to the question.

Watch carefully readers as Markudm resorts to hurling ad hominems when he cannot respond charitably.

 

[Mickey]

Straight from the fathers of Constantinople III:

Indeed!

 

[MartyrForJesus]

Which shows one how reliable a source like Dummies.com really is.

Pope Leo was dead, Patriarch Michael did not excommunicate him, and they don’t even know it.

From my experience it doesn’t matter what source you bring forth, you always get told it’s ‘unreliable’.

My understanding is that the Cardinals excommunicated the Eastern Church in the name of Pope Leo, but Pope Leo had died at the time the excommunication was issued so it’s validity has been disputed. Patriarch Michael in turn excommunicated the Western Church.

 

[Marybeloved]

Straight from the fathers of Constantinople III:

A sentence passed on a dead man based upon letters that were used to support both the heretical and orthodox position. Hardly a fair (or just) trial by any standards. :shrug:Nor one that can be said to have conclusively established the guilt of the dead accused.

Council fathers are NOT infallible in their judgment of an individual as a heretic. They are infallible only in the judgment of a certain proposition (teaching/doctrine) of faith as heresy- not people.

Based on what we have from those letters, we can judge that they may very well have been wrong. Orthodox have been telling us that the Fathers are not infallible where they indicate that from Rome can come no error (a doctrine, not a factual trial of a person)- In this case, they most certainly were NOT infallible. They were not defining any truth of the faith, after all. Their condemnation of the Heresy was/is infallible, their condemnation of Honorius or other individuals is most certainly NOT. And this man was in the grave 40 years when they accused and condemned him of Heresy- again, hardly a just trial by any standards. They could have been dead wrong. The man did not stand trial, his letters were used to support the heresy (as well as the truth) and that was the only reason they were brought up at the council.

 

[Cavaradossi]

From my experience it doesn’t matter what source you bring forth, you always get told it’s ‘unreliable’.

My understanding is that the Cardinals excommunicated the Eastern Church in the name of Pope Leo, but Pope Leo had died at the time the excommunication was issued so it’s validity has been disputed. Patriarch Michael in turn excommunicated the Western Church.

You are mistaken; the mutual anathemas were between the hierarchs. Nobody excommunicated those uninvolved, like the laity and a majority of the clergy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

That you think the matter has anything to do with “papal infallibility” merely demonstrates your consistent ignorance of Catholic teaching.

How does the fact of Honorius’ condemnation as a heretic affect the Church’s teaching on papal infallibility?

Watch carefully, readers. Mickey will either slink away in silence because he cannot respond, or he will make some senseless jab that is not a response to the question. That’s the best EO polemics has to offer on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

In bringing up Honorius in this thread I had no intention to comment on papal infallibility (of course, I cannot speak for Mickey or his motivations, although I am typically in agreement with him); I intended to provide evidence contrary to the idea that no doctrinal error can come from a pope, which you and several other Eastern Catholic posters have always maintained is not what Vatican I teaches, as the pope can only be guaranteed infallibility when speaking ex-cathedra. It is therefore surprising to me, given your nuanced understanding of Vatican I, that you would perceive the mentioning of Honorius as an attack upon Papal Infallibility rather than as a rebuttal against the position that popes are protected from teaching or endorsing heresy outside of speaking ex-cathedra—an idea which is not taught by Vatican I, and an idea which you have stated is erroneous, if my recollection is correct.

Despite my contrarian ways, I am not always necessarily making an argument which runs contrary to your understanding of the Christian faith

Merry Christmas!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Honorius never issued a dogmatic decree in regards to the controversy of Christ’s wills.

Papal infallibility isn’t even an issue in this case, gross implication with no basis, nor was he condemned for teaching heresy

He is considered condemned in the same sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion are, never having “resisted” the Church, have been condemned.

Everyone gets this, in fact the CC teachs this much. The point of contention is, he was not speaking ex-cathedra, thus “infallible”. Thus he wasn’t teaching heresy. This wasn’t even an encyclical. Nor was he resisting the church.

There is no infallible arguement. I’ll tell ya why. What authority, what theological qualification did he intend to give his teaching on morals or faith? First It avoids issuing a solemn dogmatic definition engaging infallibility thus “ex-cathedra”. It did not promulgate any definitions, it wasn’t even an encyclical. Nor was he engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium during a Ecumenical Council by vote. It impossible to meet any of the requirements as infallible.

Its not the non-Christians or heritics, we worry about, but our own rebellious Christian children who persecuted the Church.

 

[Mickey]

Council fathers are NOT infallible

That is convenient when it does not agree with your argument. In Holy Orthdoxy we look to a consensus of the Fathers…we are told overwhelmingly that Honorius was a heretic. We believe it. So did the West up to the 19th century…then something changed.

 

[Marybeloved]

That is convenient when it does not agree with your argument. In Holy Orthdoxy we look to a consensus of the Fathers…we are told overwhelmingly that Honorius was a heretic. We believe it. So did the West up to the 19th century…then something changed.

What a neat misquotation of my post you’ve done there- half-quoting something to destroy the context in which it was said. I said they are infallible only when teaching the faith- NOT trying individuals. How about we proceed with honesty in these debates? Whether or not some person believed this/that or is guilty of something is a question of fact- determined on the evidence and facts presented before the judges (here, the Council fathers) which may be inadequate. It has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the revelation of our faith, and that’s all infallibility protects: the teaching/expounding/explaining/doctrines of the truth (revelation) of Christ for the benefit of the people.