It also bears pointing out the the Eastern Orthodox approved of Papal authority in two reunion councils–the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons in 1274 and the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1439.
Well they couldn’t very well deny it in Council without anathemizing folks like St. Maximos the Confessor (who’s writings on the matter could make the ultra-Montanists blush).
Montalban wrote:
The letter was certainly examined by the whole church.
That doesn’t matter one whit in terms of Papal Infallibility, however. As Mardukm pointed out, the Church wasn’t even
aware of the existance of the letter in question. That automatically takes it out of the running with regards to Papal Infallibility, since it wasn’t addressed to the whole Church, but privately to another Patriarch regarding a theological dispute, not unlike the Tome of Leo. In the case of the Tome, it was approved, and in the case of Honorius’ letter it was condemned (although those in the know at the time, including St. Maximos the Confessor, insisted that it was due to Honorius utter failure to condemn the heresy and understand what was going on, not because he held to a heretical idea of Monothelitism. In fact, from Honorius work it’s clear that he completely missed the point of Monothelitism, and was speaking of “will” in a totally different manner, namely the Pauline manner in which the “body” and “soul” are divided in will against eachother).
Odd, I always thought that the belief in the Pope’s infallibility stems from the authority of Christ, not the church.
Perhaps you didn’t read what I said carefully, or perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. I said it stems from the infallibility of the Church, and is vested in the Pope by Christ. As Mardukm pointed out, there is only one infallibility, and it is promised to the Church as a whole, and exercised by the Pope, by Councils, and even by constant Tradition. Papal Infallibility addresses it only as exercised by the Pope. This is made clear by the definition of Papal Infallibility as laid out by Vatican I:
We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 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.
It’s the infallibility of the Church, as exercised specially by the successor of Peter. Just because the ex cathedra decisions don’t require the affirmation of the Church in order to be true, this doesn’t mean it’s not the Church’s infallibility. The reason that it can’t be based on “Church ratification” is because that then raises the question of “who is the Church”, which can not be answered without a single, unmovable reference point that can speak for itself. Christ, knowing this, set Peter aside with the task of “strengthening the brethren”, praying specifically for him that his Faith would not fail, and there is almost shocking unanimity among the Fathers that the See of Rome inherited the special prerogatives of Peter (whatever they may be, though I’d argue that Christ here makes it pretty clear), even over the See of Antioch.
There is nothing on Heaven or Earth more powerful than the prayer of Christ, so I’ll stick with His prayers
Peace and God bless!
