F
- Status
J
jordan
Guest
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Preach the Gospel always and if necessary use words.
-St. Francis of Assisi
We preach with far more than our mouth.
T
twf
Guest
Fr. Ambrose’s quote shows that the Holy Fathers of the sixth ecumenical council declared the former pope as being ‘out of the Church’. How is this reconciled with our believe in the supreme authority of the Pope? Does this declaration mean that the pope was automatically excommunicated by subscribing to heresy? Can the pope possibly be excommunicated?
A
Aris
Guest
I found this answer of Grzeszdel in another related thread very much to the point and answers your basic questions in a much more simple manner.
"1) Honorius was a heretic; an ecumenical council has said so, and thus it must be true. The whole tradition of the Catholic Church (rightly considered) understands Honorius to have been anathematized, and anyone who tries to wiggle out of this, however well-intentioned he might be, is actually defending heresy, not Catholicism.
Pastor Æternus claims that the Pope “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” when (and only 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.” We have copies of Honorius’ letter to Sergius, the one which earned him his condemnation. It defines nothing, one way or another, and certainly never invokes Honorius’ standing as the Petrine successor. As such, its error is irrelevant to the truth of the claims made in Pastor Æternus.
One is harder pressed to understand Fr. Ambrose’s insistance that Sts. Agatho and Leo think otherwise. Nothing which either of these holy men wrote applies any less well to a man who failed to uphold the truth than it might to a man who affirmatively endorsed falsehood. We all agree that Honorius was a heretic, but it is not obvious to me whence we might conclude that Honorius was some sort of heresiarch."
"1) Honorius was a heretic; an ecumenical council has said so, and thus it must be true. The whole tradition of the Catholic Church (rightly considered) understands Honorius to have been anathematized, and anyone who tries to wiggle out of this, however well-intentioned he might be, is actually defending heresy, not Catholicism.
- Popes, speaking in their official capacities as the Petrine successors, have confirmed that Honorius was a heretic (superfluous as this point might be, in light of the conciliar decrees).
- Honorius’ heresy was not merely private, as it was expressed in a letter to one of his brother bishops.
Pastor Æternus claims that the Pope “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” when (and only 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.” We have copies of Honorius’ letter to Sergius, the one which earned him his condemnation. It defines nothing, one way or another, and certainly never invokes Honorius’ standing as the Petrine successor. As such, its error is irrelevant to the truth of the claims made in Pastor Æternus.
One is harder pressed to understand Fr. Ambrose’s insistance that Sts. Agatho and Leo think otherwise. Nothing which either of these holy men wrote applies any less well to a man who failed to uphold the truth than it might to a man who affirmatively endorsed falsehood. We all agree that Honorius was a heretic, but it is not obvious to me whence we might conclude that Honorius was some sort of heresiarch."
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I feel that I have stepped into a religious Disneyland. Where have I insisted that Pope Agatho and Pope Saint Leo II said anything either pro or contrary to Pastor Aeternus?
These two Popes lived in the second half of the 7th century. *Pastor Aeternus * was written in 1870 - around 1200 years after these two Popes. I have certainly not connected either of them with Pastor Aeternus. They themselves had no idea of it nor did they have any inkling of their own infallibility nor of the restrictive conditions with which Pastor Aeternus would hedge it about.
Could someone please clarify for me about what it is that I am insistant.
A
Aris
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
This is from another thread relating to Honorius that you joined in. sorry about that, Father. But all it does is connect what happened in 6th to 7th century with the explanation of papal infallibility in the 19th century.I feel that I have stepped into a religious Disneyland. Where have I insisted that Pope Agatho and Pope Saint Leo II said anything either pro or contrary to Pastor Aeternus?
These two Popes lived in the second half of the 7th century. *Pastor Aeternus * was written in 1870 - around 1200 years after these two Popes. I have certainly not connected either of them with Pastor Aeternus. They themselves had no idea of it nor did they have any inkling of their own infallibility nor of the restrictive conditions with which Pastor Aeternus would hedge it about.
Could someone please clarify for me about what it is that I am insistant.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Hi Aris! Yes, I know where it is from. But knowing that still does not answer my question - about what was I insistent?
H
hlgomez
Guest
How can one be excommunicated when one is already dead?
The title of this thread is misleading.
Pio
The title of this thread is misleading.
Pio
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
It is. If you skim up to the first post you will see that the thread is really about the anathematization of Pope Honorius.
- Status