Papal Infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psalm89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Psalm89

Guest
This has probably been asked before, but it’s the first time for me. The 6th Ecumenical Council appears to have condemned the Pope, Honorius.

the Synod says: "After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign…to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor…them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine.

Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!..

My confusion:
  1. The Pope’s teachings are infallible and he is never a heretic.
  2. The 6th Ecumenical Council is infallible.
  3. The Council appears to call Honorius a heretic.
Please explain how this works. :ehh:
 
I’m not familiar with the issue you relate but be cautious about what infallibility means. In regards to the Pope he is only infallible on issues of Faith and Morals, and then only when speaking in an official capacity (Ex Cathedra is the term). The letter you referenced may not have been speaking on matters of faith and morals and/or it may not have been written in the Pope’s official capacity.

Hope this helps. Good luck on your search. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone much more knowledgeable than me doesn’t stop by shortly to help you out.
 
Honestly, Psalm89, I’m not following you around. It’s just that you bring up such fascinating topics!!! 😃

A pope is only infallible when proclaiming a teaching on a matter of faith or morals and difinitively binding all of the faithful to that teaching by virtue of his authority as the successor of Peter as the head of the entire Church and holder of the keys. In other cases, it is possible for the pope to commit error and even to teach error when acting merely as a bishop.

In regard to the infallibility of an ecumenical council, the same basic restriction applies; proclaiming a teaching on a matter of faith or morals and difinitively binding all of the faithful to that teaching. The authority behind the infallibility is actually with the pope who must ratify what the council teaches.

The council you cite specifically refers to a letter from Pope Honorius to an individual (Sergius) and clearly does not fall within the realm of infallible teaching.

Another interesting note is that the act of anathematizing an individual is also not a universal teaching as is the act of anathamatizing what they taught. Therefore, the anathema of persons listed in the document would not, in my understanding, fall within the context of infallible teaching as well. Anathemas of what was taught by Pope Honorius would be, but not anathemas of Pope Honorius personally.

It should also be noted that, while the council declared that Pope Honorius’ name should be struck from the Church, he is still listed as having been the pope. At best, this can be considered a most severe repremand of a personal, non-infallible teaching of a former pope. It may also imply doubt that Pope Honorius died in a state of grace (although certainly not a judgment on the point) and an unwillingness on the part of the Church to offer forgiveness to him due to the gravity of his sin.

I would have to study more on that specific council to provide a more detailed answer.
 
Insight for ya Mutant. I looked Honorius I in the Catholic encyclopedia and here is what I learned.
  1. He is a heretic, no question about it.
“It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned.”
  1. He is a heretic for his silence and non-condemnation of Sergius.
“…showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius’s contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban.”
  1. He also tried to pollute the Roman Church, but failed.
“…but by profane treachery attempted to pollute its purity”. In this form Honorius is certainly not exculpated, yet the pope declares that he did not actually succeed in polluting the immaculate Roman Church.

So it follows a Pope can be a heretic and try to pollute the teachings of the church by teaching (“…because we have found by [Honorius] letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas.")

He can be in league with other heretics, and can be anathematized with them (“the confirmer of the heresy [Honorius] and contradictor of himself”).

But as long as he does not state doctrine specifically ex cathedra Papal infallibility is upheld.

“The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.”

The odd thing to me is that it means that JP2 could agree with Muslims about the nature of Jesus just being a prophet, (or any other heresy for that matter) and contradict himself and the church, and then totally confirm the heresy, but as long as JP2 doesn’t speak specifically ex cathedra then papal infallibility is upheld.

I see how this works, but no wonder Protestants deny papal infallibility. These are some mighty fine theological hairs being split. 😃 :rolleyes:
 
40.png
Psalm89:
The odd thing to me is that it means that JP2 could agree with Muslims about the nature of Jesus just being a prophet, (or any other heresy for that matter) and contradict himself and the church, and then totally confirm the heresy, but as long as JP2 doesn’t speak specifically ex cathedra then papal infallibility is upheld.
Click to expand...
That is the mystery of it. Rarely do Popes make infallible statements. The last one was Pope Pius XII’s definition of the dogma of Mary’s Assumption into heaven.

The human being isn’t infallible. When the Pope speaks from the chair and says, “Mary was assumed into heaven bodily” it is like hearing the voice of God. At that moment, the Holy Spirit is protecting the Pope from error, because Jesus must fulfill His promise that the Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church.

In other words, all kinds of heresy can proliferate among Catholics, all the way up the hierarchy. However, this heresy will never enter a dogmatic statement of the Church. NEVER! God has promised this. Isn’t that incredible?
Peace,
Ryan
 
I think the issue of Honorius is a beautiful example of just how infallible the Church actually is, rather than an example that should raise doubts. Even a POPE was powerless against God’s promise to maintain the Church’s teachings. Nothing can stand against the orthodoxy of the Church, as it is supernaturally protected.

One could envision that if Honorius had attempted to teach his heresy Ex Cathedra, he would have fallen over dead before he could open his mouth. That is how serious the protection of Church dogmas is. Another example of this supernatural protection is the survival of orthodoxy in the face of Arianism, a heresy that was upheld, sometimes by violence, in the post-Constantine Roman Empire. Rub that in the face of those who say that the Church was controlled by the Empire after Constantine’s conversion (he died a heretic himself, IIRC).
 
I’m not sure if Honorius was a true heretic, or just a bad theologian trying too hard to get along, especially with Sergius who seemed to be pretty good at muddying up the issues. In any case, Honorius’s defect was in not clarifying a doctrinal issue when he should have.

The entire episode is rather complex. If you want to read the whole story, you can find it in this article at newadvent.com:

newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Here is an excerpt:

"It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter. It condemned nothing, it defined nothing.

Honorius entirely agrees with the caution which Sergius recommends. He praises Sergius for eventually dropping the new expression “one operation”, but he unfortunately also agrees with him that it will be well to avoid “two operations” also; for if the former sounds Eutychian, the latter may be judged to be Nestorian."
JimG
 
Psalm89, let me try to address each of your last points using your same numbering.
  1. He very well may have been a heretic, but you are still misstating the doctrine of Papal Infallibility; you see the infallibility is only a negative protection, you are giving it more power than the Church even claims, of course that makes it easier for you to tear it down. It does not guarantee that the pope is personally without error, nor that he will always say the right thing at the right time. It is only a protection from error when the pope speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Which has already been pointed out by many others.
  2. You say, “he is a heretic for his silence”, but silence isnt covered by the papal infallibility umbrella, and it has never been claimed by us to do so.
  3. When you say, “as long as he doesnt speak ex cathedra while in error then papal infallibility is upheld” you are still missing the point. If he doesnt teach something ex cathedra then papal infallibility cannot be upheld because it doesnt even apply. How can infallibility protect against something that never occured?
In conclusion: Your argument actually affirms papal infallibility as it is taught by the Catholic Church. You have successfully demonstrated that even a bad or heretical pope **cannot **teach error when instructing all the faithful on matters of faith and morals.
It is also worthy of mention that in the nearly 2,000 years of the papacy, this is the only argument that can be put forth as a counter to the doctrine of papal infallibility and as it is now clear that this is actually an arguement in favor of infallibility.
 
40.png
Psalm89:
So it follows a Pope can be a heretic and try to pollute the teachings of the church by teaching (“…because we have found by [Honorius] letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas.")

He can be in league with other heretics, and can be anathematized with them (“the confirmer of the heresy [Honorius] and contradictor of himself”).

But as long as he does not state doctrine specifically ex cathedra Papal infallibility is upheld.

…

The odd thing to me is that it means that JP2 could agree with Muslims about the nature of Jesus just being a prophet, (or any other heresy for that matter) and contradict himself and the church, and then totally confirm the heresy, but as long as JP2 doesn’t speak specifically ex cathedra then papal infallibility is upheld.

I see how this works, but no wonder Protestants deny papal infallibility. These are some mighty fine theological hairs being split. 😃 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes, and that is why all Catholics MUST continuously pray for any pope. If we would only understand the true power of prayer and the very great need for it we would do so without hesitation. I think that too many Catholics rely too much on the doctrine of papal infallibility. By that I mean that they develop an attitude that, since the pope cannot err when preaching ex cathedra, our prayers are unnecessary. However, our prayers are needed to help provide the grace the pope needs to remain faithful outside of his ex cathedra statements. God will always provide the grace for us - individually and to the Church - but He requires our willing cooperation in that grace. We need to ACT and our primary action as Christians is prayer.
40.png
Ghosty:
One could envision that if Honorius had attempted to teach his heresy Ex Cathedra, he would have fallen over dead before he could open his mouth. That is how serious the protection of Church dogmas is.
Click to expand...
It makes one wonder how many times just such a thing has happened. There have been some pretty bad popes!
 
It makes one wonder how many times just such a thing has happened. There have been some pretty bad popes!
Click to expand...
And some pretty short lived ones, too. I’m certainly not trying to equate short-term papacies with heresy, but it does make you think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top