Orthodoxy? Catholic? Or stay where I am?

[czarlazar]

The reality from post #156:
“The Council of Constantinople in 681 A.D…. voted to call Pope Honorius a heretic.” “a Council acting without the Pope has no doctrinal force."

So Pope Honorius was not charged with heresy legitimately because the Council charge was not approved. Simple.

I think this really helps paint the fundamental difference between Catholic and Orthodox. The Orthodox see a man can be influenced by the devil and do his deeds, even a “good” man; hence the reason and need for the ecu. councils. Whereas, apparently, as much as I can gather from this post, the Catholic view is that if you are called “Pope” even as a heretic, this same heretic can say “well, no, I’m the Pope so, no I am right and the WHOLE church is wrong because I am the bishop of Rome”. That just doesn’t seem logical.

 

[Peter_J]

I think this really helps paint the fundamental difference between Catholic and Orthodox.

I think the key word here is Catholic – not Catholics, plural, since you’re responding to only one Catholic.

 

[czarlazar]

I think the key word here is Catholic – not Catholics, plural, since you’re responding to only one Catholic.

It seems to be a Catholic belief all around

 

[Abu]

Rohzek #159
“a Council acting without the Pope has no doctrinal force."
That is a Catholic doctrine that I obviously don’t believe nor have supported for quite some time now

Thus encouraging the errors in the Orthodox Churches.

In* Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine *by Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr Peter Joseph, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 206, it is explained:
“1) Honorius did not pronounce a definition ex cathedra, for he said expressly, ‘It does not behove us to settle the question whether the number of operations is one or two.’ He had been misinformed by Sergius as to the point at issue, and thought that the controversy was, as he observed, ‘a war of words’ to be settled by ‘grammarians.’
“2) His words bear an orthodox sense; they were written to contradict the false doctrine, ascribed by Sergius to his opponent, ‘that there are two conflicting wills in Christ.’
“3) The decree of the Council of Constantinople must be regarded as condemnatory of the conduct of Honorius, not of his teaching as head of the Church. So much is clear from the words of Pope Leo II who explained that he had confirmed the decree, because Honorius had been negligent ‘in extinguishing the rising flame of heresy.’

“It is, however, much disputed whether the Fathers of Constantinople intended to stigmatise Honorius as a heretic in the modern acceptation of the term. The word seems to have been applied in those days to anyone whose action, apart from any positive teaching, was thought to favour heresy or schism.”

It is said that Pope Honorius 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. He simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Msgr 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.” [Msgr Ronald Knox and Arnold Lunn, *Difficulties, Eyre and Spottiswode, 1952].
catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

In the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Can. 751: “Heresy is the absolute denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith.

 

[Abu]

Three important facts re Pope Honorius I.

In *The Teaching Church Yesterday and Today *(Chap 3), in The Teaching Church in Our Time, Daughters of St Paul, 1978, Fr Robert I. Bradley,S.J., looks at the “case of Honorius”, and writes: “That Honorius was expected to be infallible by his fellow bishops is itself perhaps the most telling fact of all, for that fact alone puts in true historical perspective this truly providential event. Providential, for there were two other facts incidental to this event, in the light of which we can only say that it was a felix culpa. The first is that Honorius was formally condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople, not for teaching heresy (in the same way, for instance as Arius or Nestorius had been condemned), but for being negligent in teaching the truth. (This negligence occurred when he approved of an ambiguous formula, which the Monothelites took advantage of). The second fact is that the condemnation itself, although it was initiated and passed by an Ecumenical Council, was not considered as truly effective until it was ratified by the Bishop of Rome. The authority, therefore, whereby Honorius stands condemned is the authority of John IV, Honorius successor. The power and prestige of the Papal teaching office thus stood after the incident in exactly the same place where it had stood before: it was still the ultimate judge of doctrine, the center of consensus, the Rock of the Church. That that Rock could be a ‘scandal’ was a salutary reminder to the whole Church – and to the Popes themselves – that the Papacy had always been and would be through all time to come simply Peter written large.” [My underlining].

 

[Peter_J]

It seems to be a Catholic belief all around

I see. But can I assume that you agree, at least, that citing a post from Abu (or whoever) is no evidence of something being “a Catholic belief all around”?

 

[czarlazar]

Three important facts re Pope Honorius I.

In *The Teaching Church Yesterday and Today *(Chap 3), in The Teaching Church in Our Time, Daughters of St Paul, 1978, Fr Robert I. Bradley,S.J., looks at the “case of Honorius”, and writes: “That Honorius was expected to be infallible by his fellow bishops is itself perhaps the most telling fact of all, for that fact alone puts in true historical perspective this truly providential event. Providential, for there were two other facts incidental to this event, in the light of which we can only say that it was a felix culpa. The first is that Honorius was formally condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople, not for teaching heresy (in the same way, for instance as Arius or Nestorius had been condemned), but for being negligent in teaching the truth. (This negligence occurred when he approved of an ambiguous formula, which the Monothelites took advantage of). The second fact is that the condemnation itself, although it was initiated and passed by an Ecumenical Council, was not considered as truly effective until it was ratified by the Bishop of Rome. The authority, therefore, whereby Honorius stands condemned is the authority of John IV, Honorius successor. The power and prestige of the Papal teaching office thus stood after the incident in exactly the same place where it had stood before: it was still the ultimate judge of doctrine, the center of consensus, the Rock of the Church. That that Rock could be a ‘scandal’ was a salutary reminder to the whole Church – and to the Popes themselves – that the Papacy had always been and would be through all time to come simply Peter written large.” [My underlining].

I know I got this started, but perhaps we need a separate thread, as it seems to be not in the same sense of the org. post.

 

[czarlazar]

I see. But can I assume that you agree, at least, that citing a post from Abu (or whoever) is no evidence of something being “a Catholic belief all around”?

You may assume, yes

 

[Rohzek]

Thus encouraging the errors in the Orthodox Churches.

In* Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine *by Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr Peter Joseph, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 206, it is explained:
“1) Honorius did not pronounce a definition ex cathedra, for he said expressly, ‘It does not behove us to settle the question whether the number of operations is one or two.’ He had been misinformed by Sergius as to the point at issue, and thought that the controversy was, as he observed, ‘a war of words’ to be settled by ‘grammarians.’
“2) His words bear an orthodox sense; they were written to contradict the false doctrine, ascribed by Sergius to his opponent, ‘that there are two conflicting wills in Christ.’
“3) The decree of the Council of Constantinople must be regarded as condemnatory of the conduct of Honorius, not of his teaching as head of the Church. So much is clear from the words of Pope Leo II who explained that he had confirmed the decree, because Honorius had been negligent ‘in extinguishing the rising flame of heresy.’

“It is, however, much disputed whether the Fathers of Constantinople intended to stigmatise Honorius as a heretic in the modern acceptation of the term. The word seems to have been applied in those days to anyone whose action, apart from any positive teaching, was thought to favour heresy or schism.”

It is said that Pope Honorius 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. He simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Msgr 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.” [Msgr Ronald Knox and Arnold Lunn, *Difficulties,

Eyre and Spottiswode, 1952].
catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

In the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Can. 751: “Heresy is the absolute denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith.

1.) I never claimed that he taught ex cathedra, no matter what he said. In fact, I pointed out from the very beginning of this debate that he probably did not.

2.) Yes, he argued against Sergius’ topic about two contrary wills. But then he went on to talk about the sinless nature of Christ’s humanity and furthermore he then proceeded to define there being one will and one operation in the hypostatic union. He did not explicitly ascribe the will to either nature, but it still stands at odds with two wills. In his second letter he speaks about one maker Lord Jesus Christ in both natures, but saying maker (operatorem) could be understood as operation (operatione). Again, it is vague, but still incorrect. The implication of this passage that one might take is a favor towards applying it to solely the divine will, rather than the human will. Considering the fact that he said “And whence I confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, because truly he assumed our nature from divinity” tends to lend credence to that reading, even if he only considered Sergius’ problem a grammatical one (which it was most certainly not). Yes, he thought the problem best left to grammarians indeed, but at the same time he gave his personal opinion on the matter. He defined it vaguely and poorly. But at the same time he made some pretty clear statements that are contrary to orthodoxy. His personal opinion was later judged by both the council and by Leo II to be heretical.

3.) Like I said before, Leo II clearly condemned the man for heresy and failure to teach in the exact same sense as the council. Furthermore, the council condemned all of them in the same sense and degree. Look at post #155 where he rather keenly uses the word “consensit” rather than “permisit” in the second excerpt.

 

[Abu]

The fact that the Christ founded His Church and, no other, on St Peter supported by the other Apostles, with the specific mandate given to them in post #123, precludes all of the hype and confusion spread since and all false, differing views which some people and religious groups support and promote.

Only Christ’s Catholic Church has all of Christ’s Truths and only She can, and does, teach on each and every idea promoted to deviate from His Way, Truth and Life – such as contraception, IVF and cloning, for example.

 

[Novocastrian]

The fact that the Christ founded His Church and, no other, on St Peter supported by the other Apostles, with the specific mandate given to them in post #123, precludes all of the hype and confusion spread since and all false, differing views which some people and religious groups support and promote.

Only Christ’s Catholic Church has all of Christ’s Truths and only She can, and does, teach on each and every idea promoted to deviate from His Way, Truth and Life – such as contraception, IVF and cloning, for example.

This is a fun turn of phrase

 

[Per_Crucem]

This is a fun turn of phrase

 

[czarlazar]

The fact that the Christ founded His Church and, no other, on St Peter supported by the other Apostles, with the specific mandate given to them in post #123, precludes all of the hype and confusion spread since and all false, differing views which some people and religious groups support and promote.

Only Christ’s Catholic Church has all of Christ’s Truths and only She can, and does, teach on each and every idea promoted to deviate from His Way, Truth and Life – such as contraception, IVF and cloning, for example.

Well then, I guess thats that.

 

[Peter_J]

the specific mandate given to them in post #123

At least it wasn’t a mandate from the American people (or am I not taking the screen name Captain America seriously enough?)

 

[Peter_J]

You may assume, yes

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I think this really helps paint the fundamental difference between Catholic and Orthodox. The Orthodox see a man can be influenced by the devil and do his deeds, even a “good” man; hence the reason and need for the ecu. councils. Whereas, apparently, as much as I can gather from this post, the Catholic view is that if you are called “Pope” even as a heretic, this same heretic can say “well, no, I’m the Pope so, no I am right and the WHOLE church is wrong because I am the bishop of Rome”. That just doesn’t seem logical.

It cannot be a characteristic of Catholics, because for one thing, my profile lists my religion as “Catholic” and I posted an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia that directly contradicts what Abu said (that the condemnation of Honorius was never accepted by the pope). And the condemnation was even included in the office of the Roman liturgy (of the Roman Catholic Church).

However, while Honorius was condemned as a heretic, there is room to debate in what sense. If he was condemned after his death, he died in the bosom of the Church, and it is possible to defend what he wrote as having orthodox intentions (as I recall St. Maximus did), then it is worth distinguishing him from someone like Martin Luther who very knowingly taught many heresies and separated himself and others from the Church. There no reason to believe that if his letters had been condemned while he was living, he would not have repudiated them.

Another reason many Catholics are defensive when Honorius is brought up is that some people use it as a bludgeon to try and disprove papal infallibility, even though the circumstances are not relevant to the Catholic definition of papal infallibility. So I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive Abu for his zeal.

 

[Peter_J]

It cannot be a characteristic of Catholics, because for one thing, my profile lists my religion as “Catholic” and I posted an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia that directly contradicts what Abu said (that the condemnation of Honorius was never accepted by the pope). And the condemnation was even included in the office of the Roman liturgy (of the Roman Catholic Church).

I’ve only read a small number of Abu’s posts, but in more general level I think the problem is when people see “Such and such is a Catholic teaching” on a website and assume the statement is true until it is proven false.

 

[czarlazar]

To clarify, I didnt assume anything. I was only pointing out, that this specific comment in relation to the Pope(s), is commonly held and stated by many Catholics — at least in my personal experience.

 

[Peter_J]

To clarify, I didnt assume anything. I was only pointing out, that this specific comment in relation to the Pope(s), is commonly held and stated by many Catholics — at least in my personal experience.

But we have to ask ourselves what “many Catholics” means. It’s very easy to find, say, 15 or 20, or even more, Catholic posters on an Internet discussion forum who say X or Y … but that’s a drop in the bucket compared with Catholics overall.