Papal Problems...:(

[Mickey]

You probably already know this, but Honorius was condemned as a heretic not because of anything he taught, but only because he refused to object to those teachings.

There were many issues. It was a sad time in history. He was a heretic.

 

[Image_of_God]

There were many issues. It was a sad time in history. He was a heretic.

Yes, he was, but he did not teach heresy.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Originally Posted by Servus Pio XII
Not one Orthodox disputes primacy…they dispute infallibility and supremacy.

Please don’t bait, baiters never win.

just one question: what do you understand for infallibility? and supremacy?

 

[Allyson]

Originally Posted by Mickey
There were many issues. It was a sad time in history. He was a heretic.

Sorry to interject in this exchange, but I see that both of you agree that he was a heretic. So I would ask if it really matters if he taught heresy, but I already know the answer to that.

 

[Allyson]

Originally Posted by Servus Pio XII
Not one Orthodox disputes primacy…they dispute infallibility and supremacy.

Please don’t bait, baiters never win.

just one question: what do you understand for infallibility? and supremacy?

Contrarily, on might ask what primacy means to you? (Rhetorical Question) For therein lies the crux of the dispute.

I’ll let Servus Pio XII answer for himself how he understands these issues (Supremacy and Infalliability*), but for myself, I understand that historically primacy has always been understood apart from supremacy and infallibility - although I find that the three are confounded together in the modern Catholic mind, and primacy with supremacy for even longer - so to say that the Orthodox dispute primacy is to misrepresent their historical eccelsiology and thus to bait them.

So please everyone, no baiting. I quite agree with Servus Pio XII on this point. The discussion of infallibility need not imply a dispute over primacy.

God Bless,
Rosemary

• Infallibility seeming to me to be strongly linked to supremacy, but neither being a necessary conclusion from primacy.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Respecting what each of us believe is a better way of discussing this. these terms are hard to explain i believe, but it might be just a matter of misinterpretation than anything else.
here is what we know, that the chair of Peter being in Rome is spoken of from the beginning, Linus mention it. so does many of the Fathers of the Church. and unless someone stole it, it remains there to this day.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Marduk gave a good explanation on this subject

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367748&postcount=73
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367755&postcount=74
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367761&postcount=75
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367763&postcount=76
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367841&postcount=77
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3369282&postcount=80
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3369706&postcount=89

Bottomline,

To refute papal infallibility using Honorius as an example, two things*** must*** be established.

1. 
   *]That Honorius, exercising his office of Pastor and Teacher, defined a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church.
   *]That this doctrine, thus defined, was heretical.
   Since it was agreed upon between Sergius and Honorius the subject they discussed was to be kept quiet, Honorius therefore did NOT teach monothelitism, he did NOT define it as doctrine, and did NOT say it was to be held by the Universal Church. ALL these points must be met to satisfy the technical definition of the doctrine of infallibility. The problem is, controversialists insist on framing the argument on THEIR terms rather than the terms of the doctrine.

1. 
   All this hair splitting to get around the condemnation of Ecumenical Councils and Popes alike.
   
   Even if it were as you say above, then infallibility is useless, as a heretic is holder of the office of the charism. But then, the fact that we can’t get an agreed list of these “infallible” teachers already tells us that it is useless.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

just one question: what do you understand for infallibility? and supremacy?

Infallibility - as defined by Vatican I, on those statements made “to all Christians on matters of faith and morals invoking fully his office as Supreme Teacher of the Universal Church”.

Supremacy - I can quote canon law twice:

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

to verify this teaching’s eradication as viable of the conciliar form of ecclesiastical governance, I quote:

Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

I would contend, not opining whether infallibility is right or wrong, that true collegiality cannot actually be claimed if one bishop (Pontiff) has veto power over all of the rest of the bishops combined.

That is neither collegial nor conciliar.

Whether it is right or wrong, I don’t opine, but I will contend that Papal Supremacy and Infallibility effectively destroy the conciliar model of Church governance.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Pope Gregory I excommunicated and/or threatened with excommunication several Eastern churches and bishops. He also rejected 3 canons from the first Council of Constantinople.

Pope Leo I rejected the 28th canon of Chalcedon, a canon that pertained especially to the Eastern Churches. (According to the then Archbishop of Constantinople, this was indeed within Leo’s authority to do.)

Pope Leo II made statements interpreting the Third Council of Constantinople in a way - according to the Eastern Orthodox position - contrary to the Council’s intentions.

And so on and so on.

And they were rebuffed.

The popes were clearly trying to assert immediate authority over the Eastern Churches long before the 800s.

And they were rebuffed.

Allyson, as an Easterner, who are typically very knowledgable, you ought to know that the term “heretic” was no nearly so nuanced and refined as it is today. In the early Church, if you taught heresy, you were a heretic. If you allowed someone else to teach heresy, you were a heretic. If you were materially heretical, you were a heretic. In some cases, they even called schismatics heretics. It is entirely consistent with the usage of the term in place during the time of Honorius for a person to be regarded as a heretic without positively teaching heresy.

In fact, Leo II proves this to be the case. For he, in one and the same document, calls Honorius a heretic and also says that he was guilty, not of teaching heresy, but of permitting heresy to fester in the Church. If heresy refers only to one who positively teaches something heretical, then Leo contradicted himself within the same document.

In fact, the Council also would have contradicted themselves, because they accepted, approved, and applauded Pope Agatho’s letter, which stated in several places that the Roman Church had never taught heresy.

Only if you read Vatican I into it.

The problem is that the flowery language often produced in favor of ultramontanism, is also present in addresses to the other patriarchs, and the emperors.

Therefore, when they condemned Honorius for heresy, it couldn’t have referred to his having taught heresy, as they had already rejected the notion that this had occured.

No. They hadn’t.

This explains why on every single occassion that he is listed, Honorius is listed separately from those, such as Sergius, who had taught the heresy. The Council did not recognize Honorius’ crime as the same as theirs, and so did not list him with them.

I didn’t mean that at all, no. Let me try to give an example of what I meant:

In a discussion with a Protestant, I say that baptism regenerates, bringing us to new birth in Christ. The Protestant quotes Mark 16:16: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” It’s self evident, the Protestant says. The Bible teaches that those who don’t believe will be condemned. Baptism is not required.

I respond by telling him that the Greek word for “believe” implies obedience to that belief. I tell him that the first half of the passage links baptism to belief. I respond by quoting to him other Scripture, such as Titus 3:5 which refers to the “washing of regeneration” and Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized… for the forgiveness of your sins.” I tell him that Mark 16:16 is of doubtful authenticity and that it seems to possibly be a later addition.

He responds by saying, “The passage is self evident. It says that whoever does not believe will be condemned. Let the Bible speak for itself.”

Now the Protestant has not responded to any of my arguments. he has simply reasserted the same thing he did in the first place, the very assertion which all of my arguments were directed against. Even if he is correct - which we are all blessed to know is not so - he still has not shown this to be the case, for he has not shown where my arguments are fallacious, but merely reasserted the same thing.

My point was that those are doing the same thing who quote 3 Constantinople over and over and over in spite of countless arguments as to why their understanding of it is erroneous.

It seems the papal oath had the same understanding as us. And the preTrent office on Leo.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Again, a Pope being a heretic does no damage to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. The only way such a case as Honorius could help the Eastern Orthodox Cause is if:
1. Honorius explicitly adhered to heretical teachings AND
2. Honorius explicitly promulgated hereitical teachings for the whole Church to believe. Number one is still up for debate, but even if it were not, number two is not up for debate. He never promugated heretical doctrine for the entire Church. Not once. In fact, if Honorius was a heretic, his case actually lends empirical support to the Catholic understanding of Papal infallibility in that God so protects the office of the Pope that he did not even allow a heretical Pope to promulgate heresy for the Church.

And He sent a Council to anathematize said Pope.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No offense but, you’re just one in a long line that will go to lengths, spinning round and round, to avoid the authority established by God.

God bless.

You’re begging the question.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Adam,
btw, Our Lady foretold the doctrine of Infallibilty (amongst many other things that came to pass) to a Catholic Nun close to 300 years beforehand. She also said there would be those that wouldn’t believe, so, I’m not suprised you don’t.

Beware angels of light.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You said that Popes previous to Honorius have spoken infallibly, using Pope Agatho as your source. However, we have no way of knowing what these statements were and no Father ever mentioned these (supposed) infallible acts. Also, according to the dogma of Vatican I, this infallibility would be in the form of “ex cathedra” statements about faith and morals, i.e., they would pertain to dogmas. However, the only dogmas either of us know from the first millennium are from Ecumenical Councils. I think you need to revise your understanding of what Pope Agatho meant when he said previous Popes “intended to speak with the voice of the infallible Roman Church” because it doesn’t stand up to strict historical or theological analysis. A more viable interpretation of Pope Agatho’s words is that due to the Roman Church’s good record of orthodoxy that she was seen as infallible (much like in our divine services St. Basil the Great is lauded as having an “inviolate lordship” over all men) and that several Popes prior to Honorius had chosen to teach the Faith and were applauded for this. Any other interpretation runs into the problems mentioned above and is not very tenable.

So if a teaching isn’t dogmatized or promulgated in an official way by an Ecumenical Council/Pope, we don’t know whether it has been revealed by God? I read the Holy Fathers often and I have never found this teaching of Catholicism in their writings. On the contrary, they point to the authority of Holy Tradition and view what is taught by the Church (and they did see the teaching of the Church as something occurring beyond official statements) as the message of eternal life. Your Church’s convuluted idea of unalterable dogma and unsure teaching is simply not present in the ancient Church and its faithful and would render many of their comments as incorrect for, under Catholicism’s teaching, they place too much faith in ordinary, thus possibly fallible, teachings.

I’m not going to explain our position on St. Cyprian at the risk of derailing another thread. Let it suffice to say that the term “heretic” was used even by the Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Refer back to my latest quote from St. Irenaeus in the “Pope Fiction” thread for reference of this. In the ancient Church one was a heretic whenever they clearly left Holy Tradition, which was preserved by the Churches (not just the Roman Church, mind you). An Ecumenical Council wasn’t necessary for this judgment to be rendered. If the council were necessary, no heretics could be termed such before the 4th century - a fact not substantiated. In cases of doubt like that of Nestorius, however, the council would resolve the issue. And, of course, the anathema was reserved to the council.

You need to prove from the early Church that only dogmas and other official proclaimations are matters of faith as opposed to anything the Church teaches as part of Holy Tradition.

God bless,

Adam

Good points. Pope Honorius didn’t speak ex cathedra per Vatican I. But then again, it seems no other Pope did either, as we are not provided any ex cathedra statements of any pope until the 19th century.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

When the doctrine was defined, don’t you know that every one with an axe to grind against the Catholic Church, licking their chops KNOWING they finally had the issue to bring down the CC once and forever. I had visions of Satan emptying hell just to chow down on the CC over THIS one. Well after 150 years of efforts by all conceivable people with and without agendas, it was found that no one could prove that any pope going back to Peter, ever*** taught*** error on faith and morals. Imagine THAT!!!

Jesus, pouring grace, keeping popes from teaching error on faith and morals. :bowdown2:

If there was NEVER an idea of papal infallibility as you say, how is it possible then, that no pope, on faith and morals, for 2000 years, has ever taught error?

Who says they haven’t?

Filioque.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Never said apparitions had to be believed. Just pointing out that she mentioned Infallibilty would be strictly defined and declared dogma some 200 plus years before it happened. Strange huh?

Stranger still that you claim this to be an Apostolic teaching, where you are here claiming someone in the 17th cent. evidently didn’t know it, so her “predicting” it is a mirace.

As far your second point, I have no idea what or who you’re talking about.

The apparition I was referring to was approved by the Church.

In 1870?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Respecting what each of us believe is a better way of discussing this. these terms are hard to explain i believe, but it might be just a matter of misinterpretation than anything else.
here is what we know, that the chair of Peter being in Rome is spoken of from the beginning, Linus mention it. so does many of the Fathers of the Church. and unless someone stole it, it remains there to this day.

The chair of Peter being in Rome is spoken of from the beginning by many of the Fathers of the Church, and it remains there to this day. In fact, on your calendar, the Feast of the Chair of St Peter actually was the feast of ST. Peter at Antioch.

In other words, your point?

 

[ForeverAdam]

Yes, he was, but he did not teach heresy.

We do know from history that Honorius made the remark, “we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ” and ended his letter to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople with the words, “these things your fraternity will preach with us, as we ourselves preach them likeminded with you.” Either the historical record of the Sixth Ecumenical Council is wrong, 2) Pope Honorius didn’t know the real beliefs of Patriarch of Sergius or 3) Pope Honorius fell into heresy. The first option is unsubstantiated; the second option is highly unlikely as Honorius made a clear statement espousing the Monophysite heresy, thus leaving the third option as the only real possibility.

I would add, however, that given what we remains of the historical record, Honorius’ chief way to promote the heresy of Monophysite appears to have been by his passive silence than any active teaching of Monophysitism (outside his letter to Sergius). This silence was, arguably, the chief way his heresy hurt the Church. However, this emphasis on his silence doesn’t automatically result in him not falling into heresy. In fact, it is usually by losing the precision of the true Faith that one remains silent in the face of heresy. Cowardice is the other option, but this can hardly be argued in the case of Honorius since he certainly displayed no fear when he promised to preach Monophysitism with Sergius.

Besides, there was another Pope that lived during a time of heresy - Pope St. Liberius. Pope Liberius was pressured into condemning and exiling St. Athanasius the Great and even signed an ambiguous confession of faith (albeit, he did correct some of the ambiguity while in prison). Pope Liberius did more than remain silent in the face of heresy. He actively helped the Arian heresy grow and stifled the orthodox resistance. Yet he was never labeled a heretic, anathemized by an ecumenical council or treated as shameful by his successors. The different treatment that Liberius and Honorius experienced, while the former did more damage to the Faith than the latter, puts the lie to the claim that the ancient Church treated silence in the face of heresy as the equivalent to heresy. If this were true, the activities of Pope Liberius would have been treated worse than those of Honorius, which obviously didn’t happen. Judging from this comparison, it is more likely that while Honorius’ chief way of abating heresy was by his silence, the anathema was for the heretical statement he made in his letter to Patriarch Sergius, and since Honorius was a mature bishop it was assumed by the Church that he knew what he said and what it meant and was subsequently able to be viewed as a heretic by the Church. This is the position of Orthodoxy on the matter and it does have merit when the Honorius incident is reviewed in relation to similar occurrences of the first millennium.

I’m also curious as to how the pope could be the final arbiter of orthodoxy and the one who convoked and confirmed ecumenical councils in the early Church when a pope like Honorius sided with an heretical patriarch during a major heresy (the same curiosity applies to the tradition of Popes being capable of error, in general). If the papal office is capable of such error of judgment and apparently of faith also, they are incapable of having such responsibilities. In fact, any Church that valued its Faith would resist putting such fallible men in such a place of importance. Since the early Church was such a Church, it is highly unlikely they would have given the Papacy the responsibilities that modern Catholicism claims for this office.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Allyson]

We do know from history that Honorius made the remark, “we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ” and ended his letter to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople with the words, “these things your fraternity will preach with us, as we ourselves preach them likeminded with you.” Either the historical record of the Sixth Ecumenical Council is wrong, 2) Pope Honorius didn’t know the real beliefs of Patriarch of Sergius or 3) Pope Honorius fell into heresy. The first option is unsubstantiated; the second option is highly unlikely as Honorius made a clear statement espousing the Monophysite heresy, thus leaving the third option as the only real possibility.

…

I’m also curious as to how the pope could be the final arbiter of orthodoxy and the one who convoked and confirmed ecumenical councils in the early Church when a pope like Honorius sided with an heretical patriarch during a major heresy (the same curiosity applies to the tradition of Popes being capable of error, in general). If the papal office is capable of such error of judgment and apparently of faith also, they are incapable of having such responsibilities. In fact, any Church that valued its Faith would resist putting such fallible men in such a place of importance. Since the early Church was such a Church, it is highly unlikely they would have given the Papacy the responsibilities that modern Catholicism claims for this office.

God bless,

Adam

Thanks Adam, I enjoy your level-headed posts. You have a keen mind for history and ecclesiology.

God Bless,
Rosemary

 

[Pons]

Haven’t other Catholic posters already demonstrated Honorius has no bearing? Talk about beating a dead horse.

 

[Image_of_God]

We do know from history that Honorius made the remark, “we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ” and ended his letter to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople with the words, “these things your fraternity will preach with us, as we ourselves preach them likeminded with you.” Either the historical record of the Sixth Ecumenical Council is wrong, 2) Pope Honorius didn’t know the real beliefs of Patriarch of Sergius or 3) Pope Honorius fell into heresy. The first option is unsubstantiated; the second option is highly unlikely as Honorius made a clear statement espousing the Monophysite heresy, thus leaving the third option as the only real possibility.

As you have quoted of me, Honorius was a heretic. I think that we are on the same page here. But, what he did not do was use his papal authority to teach heresy. That is what I said.

I would add, however, that given what we remains of the historical record, Honorius’ chief way to promote the heresy of Monophysite appears to have been by his passive silence than any active teaching of Monophysitism (outside his letter to Sergius). This silence was, arguably, the chief way his heresy hurt the Church. However, this emphasis on his silence doesn’t automatically result in him not falling into heresy. In fact, it is usually by losing the precision of the true Faith that one remains silent in the face of heresy. Cowardice is the other option, but this can hardly be argued in the case of Honorius since he certainly displayed no fear when he promised to preach Monophysitism with Sergius.

Besides, there was another Pope that lived during a time of heresy - Pope St. Liberius. Pope Liberius was pressured into condemning and exiling St. Athanasius the Great and even signed an ambiguous confession of faith (albeit, he did correct some of the ambiguity while in prison). Pope Liberius did more than remain silent in the face of heresy. He actively helped the Arian heresy grow and stifled the orthodox resistance. Yet he was never labeled a heretic, anathemized by an ecumenical council or treated as shameful by his successors. The different treatment that Liberius and Honorius experienced, while the former did more damage to the Faith than the latter, puts the lie to the claim that the ancient Church treated silence in the face of heresy as the equivalent to heresy. If this were true, the activities of Pope Liberius would have been treated worse than those of Honorius, which obviously didn’t happen. Judging from this comparison, it is more likely that while Honorius’ chief way of abating heresy was by his silence, the anathema was for the heretical statement he made in his letter to Patriarch Sergius, and since Honorius was a mature bishop it was assumed by the Church that he knew what he said and what it meant and was subsequently able to be viewed as a heretic by the Church. This is the position of Orthodoxy on the matter and it does have merit when the Honorius incident is reviewed in relation to similar occurrences of the first millennium.

I agree with most of what is here.

I’m also curious as to how the pope could be the final arbiter of orthodoxy and the one who convoked and confirmed ecumenical councils in the early Church when a pope like Honorius sided with an heretical patriarch during a major heresy (the same curiosity applies to the tradition of Popes being capable of error, in general). If the papal office is capable of such error of judgment and apparently of faith also, they are incapable of having such responsibilities. In fact, any Church that valued its Faith would resist putting such fallible men in such a place of importance. Since the early Church was such a Church, it is highly unlikely they would have given the Papacy the responsibilities that modern Catholicism claims for this office.

God bless,

Adam

Your statement here is erroneous. I think you have confused the papal office with the pope. It would be silly to think that the pope can’t err. In this case Honorius erred, but the papal office remained immaculate. The papal office is not a person and therefore cannot be subject to human fault. It is an office, I believe, that is established by God.
Jesus willing entrusted his supernatural message to fallible men: the Apostles. Were the Apostles incapable of having such responsibilities? Does that mean he did not value his Faith? No. Furthermore, I do think that the Twelve Apostles held a place of far more importance, in a certain sense. And the Church is like Jesus and both entrust the Faith to fallible men. God could have used Himself to spread the faith, but he chose to use fallible men. I think that says a lot about how correct the Catholic Church’s decision was.