Dear brother Hesychios,
This is where I think your argument is more like a straw man, although I donāt believe it is deliberate.
I really donāt see how the rest of your post relates to the topic of Honorius. But perhaps that is because we are each working off of different conceptions of the papacy. I do believe you have a misunderstanding of the papal prerogatives, and perhaps (and hopefully) my responses to your subsequent statements will help clear things up.
Universal Jurisdiction puts all the power of the church in the hands of a man who could in fact be (as demonstrated elsewhere) a heretic, or incompetent, or completely corrupt and dissolute but there is no way to correct the situation.
Your interpretation of ā
universal jurisdictionā as putting ā
all the power of the Church in the hands of [one] man,ā is seriously off base (forgive my forthrightness). That is not how the Catholic Church operates (though you may find some Latins proposing such an impossible scenario). First of all, if a certain region has a lawful bishop, V1 forbids the Pope from acting as if that bishop did not exist. In fact, V1 constrains the Pope to uphold and defend the prerogatives of that bishop. Secondly, it is Catholic dogma that not only is the papacy of divine institution, but also the episcopate. Having Faith in God that He will preserve His Church, there will never be a time when the only bishop left on earth is the Pope. Thirdly, and finally, you will notice that under the heading āSupreme Authority of the Churchā in our Canons, the preliminary canon asserts ā
Just as, by the decree of the Lord, Saint Peter and the rest of the Apostles for one College, so for a like reason the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the Successors of the Apostles, are united together in one.ā The collegial character of Catholic ecclesiology is blatant and obvious. I do not know where you get the idea that āuniversal jurisdictionā is something akin to one-man rule.
There is no recourse to his decisions,
I think you meant āno recourse
from his decisions.ā This is an example of the eisegetic mishandling non-Catholics often perpetrate against Catholic teaching (ie., taking little snippets out of context). This statement from the canons is based on the following Vatican 1 decree:
And because, by the divine right of apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the whole Church ,We also teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful; and that one can have recourse to his judgment in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. We declare that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is not subject to review by anyone; nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on its decision. Therefore, those who say that it is permitted to appeal to an ecumenical council from the decisions of the Roman Pontiff (as to an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff) are from the straight path of truth.
A few things obtain from the true context of the statement you criticize:
(1) The ādecisionā of the Roman Pontiff is given as a response to
an appeal to him as Supreme Judge of the Faithful. This is nothing more nor less than the canonical prescription of the Council of Sardica, affirmed by 2 Ecumenical Councils. I believe it also involves decisions regarding marriage issues by the Roman Rota. Non-Catholics who think this statement āno recourse from his decision,ā is a prescription for the Pope to micromanage the Church and make any decisions he pleases, contrary to Tradition or local customs, and contrary to the prerogatives of local bishops, are simply wrong.
(2) Appeals to the Pope are governed by the canons, procedures which ensure that the prerogative of the local bishop, who is often the judge of first instance, is not demeaned.
(3) The statement ānor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on its decisionā should not be understood to mean that the Pope is above reproach. A ājudgmentā is a formal juridical act. The statement is merely repeating what it states elsewhere ā that a formal decision by the Pope on a matter that has been appealed to him is not subject to review. However, the Pope can certainly be admonished by his brother bishops (which has occurred many times in the history of the Church).
(4) In theory, an appeal to an ecumenical council is possible. What is forbidden is to assume that an ecumenical council
without the Pope (ā
as to an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff) can pass judgment on a papal judgment.
(5) Besides all this, Canon law forbids the Pope from issuing decrees that violate the rights of individuals.
and no mechanism to remove him.
There are a few examples in history of Popes who abdicated due to pressure from his fellow bishops.
At least in the more distant past Popes could be, and sometimes were, admonished or censured when they screwed up like any other patriarch. In recent centuries that is not possible and more so now than ever.
You wonāt find a responsible, professional Catholic apologist who will admit to this caricature. Popes are not above correction. Do you have any documentary support otherwise? Needless to say, I cannot conscientiously agree with the some of the response provided by brother Gurney.
And if necessary in the past Eastern Catholic patriarchs (which is what the Orthodox patriarchs were) could remove the Pope from the dyptichs in admonition, even ultimately break communion as a last resort to protect their flocks. No Eastern Catholic patriarch under the Pope could attempt such a thing today, so even that historical check and balance is gone.
Perhaps thatās because there has been no reason to. Some schisms did occur over disciplinary matters in the 20th century. Just recently, a Curial decision regarding the election of an Eastern Catholic bishop in Canada was overturned through the outcry of the Canadian Eastern Catholics. So I truly believe your belief that the Eastern/Oriental Catholics are powerless is an erroneous caricature of Catholic ecclesiology.
I know what the standard defense would be here: āchurch teaching is not effected so itās ultimately going to be OKā. Acknowledging for the moment the fact that Orthodox really believe that church teaching has been affected (it is not what I am trying to address in this post) these men taught by their own life examples and damaged the prospects for salvation for many who witnessed it and lost faith, not to mention the ultimate fracturing of the church itself. That is poor stewardship and I am quite sure it was not what Christ had in mind when he praised the faith of Peter.
As stated, if such a thing actually occurred (which I personally find highly improbably in this day and age), bishops can put pressure on the Pope to abdicate.
That concept (of Universal Jurisdiction) of the Papacy would definitely need to be corrected if we want to see Orthodox-Catholic reconciliation and unity going forward.
Or perhaps there are some Orthodox and Catholics who simply have serious misunderstandings of the papal prerogatives, and it is the conflict between these two extremes that is the real problem.
We know that they are only human, history demonstrates how even bishops of Rome can make mistakes, and we need to be able to admonish them, correct them
This is possible, as noted above.
or even remove them if necessary
But to what Tradition can you appeal to justify this? There was a time when it seemed like the whole Church was against the Pope (Vigilius), and the actions of the bishops affirmed that the Pope cannot be deposed. Indeed, he can be corrected and admonished, but there does not seem to be anything in Tradition that could justify your statement.
while hoping and praying to God that the occasion never arises.
That is a good exhortation.
Blessings,
Marduk
The fracturing of the One Church was the fault of many, and some very very poor politicking by both sides. It was more than the filioque or a popeās fault, it was pride and ego and sadly historical isolation and mistrust by both ends of the spectrum. **
