J
jimmy
Guest
At my school (Penn State), there is a Greek Orthodox preacher that I was talking to about several topics, one of them was the Pope. He brought up the Council of Constantinople in 681 and this is what it said.
- Status
J
jimmy
Guest
Quite a bit of the council deals with the issue of Honorius and other Heretics
He caught me by surprise with this. I can’t see how the bishops can excommunicate the Pope if he was infallable. How can the pope be infallable and still be subject to heresy and consequently anathema?
Can someone help me with this? I could use some feedback.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Check out New Advent for lots of information.
Basically, the Pope was not “excommunicated” but “anathematized”–there is a difference.
Also, the REASON for which he was anathematized was not that he himself actively proclaimed heresy–he was NOT a Monothelite, and the MONOTHELITIES were the ones being punished—but that he–with excellent intentions–did not SUFFICIENTLY deal with the heretics, did not make himself sufficiently clear on the subject, and was thus “disciplined” by the council.
Remember, he was not “teaching” heresy, thus, he was not under the “infallible” charism. Popes are NOT “impeccable”–Popes are capable of serious sin AS MEN. (Think Alexander Borgia, Pope Julius, for one). But neither Honorius, nor Julius, taught heresy. In matters of faith and morals, in their teaching, if not their private lives or even public opinions on other subjects, they were just as prone to error as any other person.
Also, one must note that Honorius did not die “excommunicated”–or “anathematized”.
Basically, the Pope was not “excommunicated” but “anathematized”–there is a difference.
Also, the REASON for which he was anathematized was not that he himself actively proclaimed heresy–he was NOT a Monothelite, and the MONOTHELITIES were the ones being punished—but that he–with excellent intentions–did not SUFFICIENTLY deal with the heretics, did not make himself sufficiently clear on the subject, and was thus “disciplined” by the council.
Remember, he was not “teaching” heresy, thus, he was not under the “infallible” charism. Popes are NOT “impeccable”–Popes are capable of serious sin AS MEN. (Think Alexander Borgia, Pope Julius, for one). But neither Honorius, nor Julius, taught heresy. In matters of faith and morals, in their teaching, if not their private lives or even public opinions on other subjects, they were just as prone to error as any other person.
Also, one must note that Honorius did not die “excommunicated”–or “anathematized”.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Honorius I died in 638 so this was a posthumous condemnation which to me is rather pointless as excommunication/anathema are disciplinary measures of the Church intended to bring about conversion and repentance, which is impossible for those who have died… There is an article in the 1912 Catholic Enclycolpedia on the subject of Honorius I, www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm. Essentially, he was condemned because, as a later pope would write, “Honorius, … did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical [Monothelism] teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence.”
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
One must also take care to insure the source of the information is accurate. Because there are some canons of accepted councils that were issued by the Council in session but were never ratified by the Pope. So they never had any force. For instance if this council had “excommunicated” a currect Pope, it would have no effect unless the Pope approved his own excommunication!
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I placed a bit about this on another thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=124554&postcount=95
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=124554&postcount=95
M
mtr01
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Tantum Ergo dealt with this correctly in post #3.
I think you are confusing impeccability and infallibilty as per your statement “not all popes are infallible, some have been heretics”.
Tantum Ergo dealt with this correctly in post #3.
T
Tom
Guest
The book "Triumph’ covers this and many other matters very well. Can’t think of the author… anyone???
J
jordan
Guest
Great book! Harry W. Crocker III wrote it. Probably the best short history of the Church ever written. Warren H. Carroll’s four volume series The History of Christendom is most excellent and deals with the subjects also. You can breeze through Triumph in a couple of days depending on how much spare time you’ve got…you’ll have to hunker down a good bit more to complete Mr. Carroll’s books (fine print), but well worth the effort.
M
MrS
Guest
And two more volumns coming.
MrS
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
What a thought! Why would you think that I am confusing impeccability with infallibility?
It was for his heresy (dogmatic error) that Honorius was condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and this was ratified (declared as infallible) by the Pope who followed him Pope Saint Leo. Pope Leo himself wrote “…Honorius… did not illuminate the Apostolic See with the doctrines of the Apostolic tradition, but …attempted to subvert the immaculate faith…”
The Pope and the Sixth Ecumenical Council did not condemn Hororius for his peccability (whether he drank too much wine or lived in luxury). They condemned him for his dogmatic errors,because he had strayed from the Catholic faith and had fallen into heresy and he was certainly not infallible in the eyes of subsequent Popes.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Tantum ergo:
Such was the unfortunate Pope Honorius. Whatever words were said at his grave, the Church subsequently and with one voice infallibly declared him anathema, separated from God–a sentence which the entire Episcopate at an Ecumenical Council (ratified as infallible by the Pope himself Leo II), the entire Priesthood, and all the faithful, affirmed, do affirm, and we today must affirm.
When the Church declares someone to be anathema after their death, this tells us that the person in question never renounced their heresy, never repented of it, and therefore died in a state of separation from God, as an apostate, outside of the Church and her graces.
Such was the unfortunate Pope Honorius. Whatever words were said at his grave, the Church subsequently and with one voice infallibly declared him anathema, separated from God–a sentence which the entire Episcopate at an Ecumenical Council (ratified as infallible by the Pope himself Leo II), the entire Priesthood, and all the faithful, affirmed, do affirm, and we today must affirm.
G
GAssisi
Guest
Bless me, Father.
The fact that you contrajuxtapose “infallibility” and “heretic” might indicate that you do not understand what the charism of infallibility is all about. If you contrajuxtaposed “infallibility” and “publicly taught heresy to be believed by the whole Church,” then your statement would be acceptable.
Father, infallibility does not have anything to do with whether or not the Pope is a heretic, but it has EVERYTHING to do with whether or not he teaches a heresy for the entire Church to be believed. In the same way, the fact that there have been heretics in the Church, some of whom may or may not have repented of their heresy, does not in any way detract from the infallibility of the Church, don’t you agree?
In any case, the declaration of whether or not someone is a heretic is not one of the infallible prerogatives of the Church. Infallibility only pertains to doctrines and morals. The Church can infallibly declare WHAT is heresy, but she is not infallible when she attempts to declare WHO is a heretic. The Church does not have the prerogative to, as St. Paul stated, “bring anyone down to Hades, or raise anyone up to heaven.” I can prove this to you. Infallible matters ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE. They are ETERNAL TRUTHS. Don’t you agree? However, isn’t it true that if a person repents of his heresy, he is no longer a heretic? Isn’t it true that even if a person is pronounced a heretic, some new information may come to light which exonerates that person? How, then, can a declaration of who or who is not a heretic possibly be “infallible?” In any case, a declaration of anathema on someone does not fall under a matter of theology – which the Church can infallibly judge. It falls under the rubric of canons and discipline, which can change.
Please do not attempt to pass of the condemnation of Honorius as an “infallible” declaration of a Council. I would expect that of a Protestant, but not an Orthodox, much less an Orthodox priest.
God bless,
Greg
The fact that you contrajuxtapose “infallibility” and “heretic” might indicate that you do not understand what the charism of infallibility is all about. If you contrajuxtaposed “infallibility” and “publicly taught heresy to be believed by the whole Church,” then your statement would be acceptable.
Father, infallibility does not have anything to do with whether or not the Pope is a heretic, but it has EVERYTHING to do with whether or not he teaches a heresy for the entire Church to be believed. In the same way, the fact that there have been heretics in the Church, some of whom may or may not have repented of their heresy, does not in any way detract from the infallibility of the Church, don’t you agree?
In any case, the declaration of whether or not someone is a heretic is not one of the infallible prerogatives of the Church. Infallibility only pertains to doctrines and morals. The Church can infallibly declare WHAT is heresy, but she is not infallible when she attempts to declare WHO is a heretic. The Church does not have the prerogative to, as St. Paul stated, “bring anyone down to Hades, or raise anyone up to heaven.” I can prove this to you. Infallible matters ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE. They are ETERNAL TRUTHS. Don’t you agree? However, isn’t it true that if a person repents of his heresy, he is no longer a heretic? Isn’t it true that even if a person is pronounced a heretic, some new information may come to light which exonerates that person? How, then, can a declaration of who or who is not a heretic possibly be “infallible?” In any case, a declaration of anathema on someone does not fall under a matter of theology – which the Church can infallibly judge. It falls under the rubric of canons and discipline, which can change.
Please do not attempt to pass of the condemnation of Honorius as an “infallible” declaration of a Council. I would expect that of a Protestant, but not an Orthodox, much less an Orthodox priest.
God bless,
Greg
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
On the contary, an Ecumenical Council (and Ecumenical Councils are infallible) declared Pope Honorius anathematized as a heretic. This is an infallible statement.
I am not concerned with any infallibity which attaches to Honorius as Pope and the distinctions which you draw between a Pope’s private heresy and his ex cathedra proclamations of heresy. This makes no sense to me since I do not believe in infallibility for any one bishop.
But the Orthodox do believe in the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils and Pope Honorius stands infallibly condemned as a heretic by an Ecumenical Council.
“To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!
To Honorius the heretic, anathema! To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul
To Peter
To Macarius, the heretic, anathema!” etc.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I have only now noticed your final sentence, and confess that I do not understand it. It reminds me of the Anglican position in the 39 Articles of Religion that "General (i.e., Ecumenical) Councils have erred"and this is not acceptable to any of the holy Churches of the East.
I am really all at sea with what you seem to be reproaching me - after all, every Orthodox priest and bishop must uphold the decisions and teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Why would you expect a Protestant to claim infallibility for any decision of an Ecumenical Council? In all my born days I have never met any such Protestant. I really doubt if one exists.
G
GAssisi
Guest
Bless me, Father.
If canonical decisions of Councils are infallible, that is new to me. As I recall, the Nicene Council established Alexandria as second to Rome. But Constantinople then gave Constantinople the second place after Rome ahead of Alexandria. Was the canon of Nicea infallible? If it was, why was it changed? So I cannot agree with you that everything an Ecumenical Council states is infallible. Canons and disciplinary decrees (which normally are included under the canons) ARE NOT infallible. Anathemas are DISCIPLINARY DECREES, and ARE NOT INFALLIBLE, though indeed the doctrines on which those anathemas are based are infallible.
Canons of ecumenical Councils are certainly to be obeyed, and are done so for the GOOD ORDER of the Church, but that is far from stating they are infallible.
Can a Council oppose Scripture and actually state who can ascend to heaven and who will descend to hell, something St. Paul himself was not willing to do? So our Councils are greater than the Apostles now?
You do realize that lifting the condemnation of Dioscorus has been on the table for discussion between the Chalcedonians and the Miaphysite Churches. No response has been made to the effect that the condemnation of Dioscorus must remain because the Church was supposedly “infallible” in that decision. No, the investigation focuses on determining whether or not Dioscorus actually taught what we all (Chalcedonian and Miaphysite) view as the Monophysite heresy. The Assyrian Church of the East has likewise asked that the condemnation of Nestorius be removed, but the responses have not been based on the supposed infallibility of Councils to condemn PERSONS, but on the basis on what Nestorius TAUGHT, and we know to have taught.
And you have not responded to my appeal to one of the distinguishing factors of an infallible statement – namely, infallible matters CANNOT CHANGE. However, we all know that anathemas are INTENDED to bring a person to repentance. If the person repents, will not the anathema be cancelled? I ask you – how can an INFALLIBLE DECREE be cancelled? Is it not rather only the doctrine on which the anathema is based that is infallible, and not the anathema itself?
And are not anathemas based on the Church’s power of the keys? But do not the power of the keys allow the Church not only to bind, but also to loose? If that is so, how can the declaration of an anathema be “infallible?” Or do you suppose that the Church has the authority to loose the sheep from the eternal TRUTHS of the Orthodox Catholic faith? OF COURSE NOT! The Church has no power to say a divine Truth is NOT a divine Truth, or to say that an Untruth is a divine Truth SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THOSE THINGS PERTAIN TO INFALLIBLE MATTERS. The Church CANNOT change infallible matters, but only PRESERVE THEM. However, an anathema CAN be revoked. By the very definition of an infallible matter, ANATHEMAS CANNOT POSSIBLY BE AMONG THOSE THINGS.
So, once again, I would ask you to stop trying to present Honorius’ condemnation as some sort of infallible declaration. Or perhaps you can show me where I am wrong in my statements.
God bless,
Greg
If canonical decisions of Councils are infallible, that is new to me. As I recall, the Nicene Council established Alexandria as second to Rome. But Constantinople then gave Constantinople the second place after Rome ahead of Alexandria. Was the canon of Nicea infallible? If it was, why was it changed? So I cannot agree with you that everything an Ecumenical Council states is infallible. Canons and disciplinary decrees (which normally are included under the canons) ARE NOT infallible. Anathemas are DISCIPLINARY DECREES, and ARE NOT INFALLIBLE, though indeed the doctrines on which those anathemas are based are infallible.
Canons of ecumenical Councils are certainly to be obeyed, and are done so for the GOOD ORDER of the Church, but that is far from stating they are infallible.
Can a Council oppose Scripture and actually state who can ascend to heaven and who will descend to hell, something St. Paul himself was not willing to do? So our Councils are greater than the Apostles now?
You do realize that lifting the condemnation of Dioscorus has been on the table for discussion between the Chalcedonians and the Miaphysite Churches. No response has been made to the effect that the condemnation of Dioscorus must remain because the Church was supposedly “infallible” in that decision. No, the investigation focuses on determining whether or not Dioscorus actually taught what we all (Chalcedonian and Miaphysite) view as the Monophysite heresy. The Assyrian Church of the East has likewise asked that the condemnation of Nestorius be removed, but the responses have not been based on the supposed infallibility of Councils to condemn PERSONS, but on the basis on what Nestorius TAUGHT, and we know to have taught.
And you have not responded to my appeal to one of the distinguishing factors of an infallible statement – namely, infallible matters CANNOT CHANGE. However, we all know that anathemas are INTENDED to bring a person to repentance. If the person repents, will not the anathema be cancelled? I ask you – how can an INFALLIBLE DECREE be cancelled? Is it not rather only the doctrine on which the anathema is based that is infallible, and not the anathema itself?
And are not anathemas based on the Church’s power of the keys? But do not the power of the keys allow the Church not only to bind, but also to loose? If that is so, how can the declaration of an anathema be “infallible?” Or do you suppose that the Church has the authority to loose the sheep from the eternal TRUTHS of the Orthodox Catholic faith? OF COURSE NOT! The Church has no power to say a divine Truth is NOT a divine Truth, or to say that an Untruth is a divine Truth SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THOSE THINGS PERTAIN TO INFALLIBLE MATTERS. The Church CANNOT change infallible matters, but only PRESERVE THEM. However, an anathema CAN be revoked. By the very definition of an infallible matter, ANATHEMAS CANNOT POSSIBLY BE AMONG THOSE THINGS.
So, once again, I would ask you to stop trying to present Honorius’ condemnation as some sort of infallible declaration. Or perhaps you can show me where I am wrong in my statements.
God bless,
Greg
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
The anathema against Pope Honorius was delivered on dogmatic and not canonical grounds. Ecumenical Councils do not err on dogma. Councils may indeed adjust matters of canonical order, but that has nothing to do with the condemnation of this heretical Pope.
“To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!
To Honorius the heretic, anathema! To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul
To Peter
To Macarius, the heretic, anathema!” etc.
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
They may not err in preaching in faith and morals but they may err in the application of those faith in morals. The dogma is correct, it does not extend the infallibility to judging a *particular * human being as being guilty of contradiction of a belief. One is a statement of truth; the other is an action.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
I’ve always believed that canonizations are infallible. Yet they are statements that a specific person is in heaven. So the fact that a statement applies to a particular person isn’t any reason to assume that it is not infallible.
- Status