Pope Fiction

[Lazerlike42]

May I suggest everyone read these 5 posts. We should also consider IMO, if the case against Honorius was going to sink the doctrine of papal infallibility, (the Church certainly didn’t forget this case) then the doctrine would have never even been proposed.

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
[forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367841&postcount=77](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367841&postcount=77)

Some of those posts do contain some wonderful bits of information to supplement what has been posted here and to once and for all refute the notion that Honorius was condemned for teaching heresy.

 

[Algernon]

If I have missed it, I apologize, but from where are you beginning on your spiritual search for Christ?

Not sure what you mean.

How does one get around the change of Simon’s name to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19, where Peter is called by Christ Himself the Rock upon which His Church will be built? The Greek used a singular pronoun for “you” in that passage and we all know the Petra/Petros argument is bogus in light of Christ speaking in Aramaic, where the word “kepha” is used in both places.

Again, I’m not questioning Peter’s authority or the importance of his role in the foundation of the Church. Only having difficulty seeing today’s papacy in the early Church.

I am puzzled by your entire line for this thread. In reading your list of materials from the book, it seems at first pass that you didn’t read this book as part of a conversion process but for proof-texts against your presuppositions that papal infallibility et. al. simply can’t be true. Your tone is one with which I’m familiar, having dealt with those who refuse to accept Rome’s authority from both sides of the spectrum, liberal and conservative. Yes, you respect the Church and her members, but you don’t or won’t respect her authority, which would be like my children saying they respect me even as they sometimes refuse to obey me.

I read the book when I couldn’t get satisfying answers to my questions in RCIA. The deacon teaching the class recommended the book. I didn’t read the book with the intention of refuting any of it, I just researched and scrutinized the claims that Mr. Madrid made and the quotes he cited.

In the end, one cannot pick and choose which doctrines he will or won’t accept from Christ and His Church. Catholic does not mean just universal, it also means according to the whole. To pick and choose what to embrace or eschew is not to be a fully Christian believer.

I don’t think that having honest difficulty with a particular belief is the same as picking and choosing which which doctrines to accept. The modern papacy is the one doctrine holding me back from embracing the Roman Catholic Church. If I can accept that, every other doctrine of the Church falls into place.

Sorry I don’t have the time to reply to everyone else.

A

 

[savedsinner]

I am not sure why you would have trouble with the Papacy?

Is it because you can’t find an early enough documentation for your liking?

Is it because you are afraid that some popes might have fallen into heresy?

It is because of the claim of infallibility?

You bring up the possible Heresy of pope Honorius, which has been debated over the centuries whether he was actually in heresy while teaching ex-catherdra.
But even if one were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was in heresy, how many of the eastern orthodox bishops and patriarchs have been in heresy?
Here is a link which shows the Heresies of the Patriarchs.
Heresies of the Patriarchs

If Honorius was indeed in heresy, which is in dispute, he would be the only bishop of Rome to be in heresy. But all of the other early churches had several leaders in heresy.

Even if the papacy wasn’t from the very beginning, which I believe it was, I feel the papacy is a positive thing for the church to settle disputes.

Could you imagine an international company without a strong CEO?

I feel that papacy has kept the Catholic church more closely united than just the councils of the Eastern Churches.

The Catholic church has remained one in doctrine and unity with a pope.

The eastern Orthodox have remained very closely tied with only councils to settle differences, but there are differences between the 12 or so different churches which are not totally in union.

The Protestant churches have divided into thousands of denominations with neither the papacy, or councils to keep its unity and doctrine.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I am not sure why you would have trouble with the Papacy?

Is it because you can’t find an early enough documentation for your liking?

Is it because you are afraid that some popes might have fallen into heresy?

It is because of the claim of infallibility?

You bring up the possible Heresy of pope Honorius, which has been debated over the centuries whether he was actually in heresy while teaching ex-catherdra.
But even if one were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was in heresy, how many of the eastern orthodox bishops and patriarchs have been in heresy?
Here is a link which shows the Heresies of the Patriarchs.
Heresies of the Patriarchs

If Honorius was indeed in heresy, which is in dispute, he would be the only bishop of Rome to be in heresy. But all of the other early churches had several leaders in heresy.

Even if the papacy wasn’t from the very beginning, which I believe it was, I feel the papacy is a positive thing for the church to settle disputes.

Could you imagine an international company without a strong CEO?

I feel that papacy has kept the Catholic church more closely united than just the councils of the Eastern Churches.

The Catholic church has remained one in doctrine and unity with a pope.

The eastern Orthodox have remained very closely tied with only councils to settle differences, but there are differences between the 12 or so different churches which are not totally in union.

The Protestant churches have divided into thousands of denominations with neither the papacy, or councils to keep its unity and doctrine.

Hey, that link’s really cool. It really puts it all into perspective in a *very *powerful way. You have these four long lists of Patriarchs, and they all have heresies scattered throughout except Rome, which has no heresies. The most it’s got is an *alleged *heresy for Honorius.

Even if someone’s not ready to say that Honorius didn’t teach heresy, they at least would have to admit that the fact that such an in depth debate over the issue places the whole thing on a far more questionable plane than the other various heresies which the list would cite.

In other words, on that list, there are a variety of heresies for all the Patriarchs, but all Rome has is one statement that can be powerfully defended. It certainly puts the case of Honorius into perspective.

 

[Algernon]

I am not sure why you would have trouble with the Papacy?

Is it because you can’t find an early enough documentation for your liking?

Is it because you are afraid that some popes might have fallen into heresy?

It is because of the claim of infallibility?

You bring up the possible Heresy of pope Honorius, which has been debated over the centuries whether he was actually in heresy while teaching ex-catherdra.
But even if one were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was in heresy, how many of the eastern orthodox bishops and patriarchs have been in heresy?
Here is a link which shows the Heresies of the Patriarchs.
Heresies of the Patriarchs

If Honorius was indeed in heresy, which is in dispute, he would be the only bishop of Rome to be in heresy. But all of the other early churches had several leaders in heresy.

Even if the papacy wasn’t from the very beginning, which I believe it was, I feel the papacy is a positive thing for the church to settle disputes.

Could you imagine an international company without a strong CEO?

I feel that papacy has kept the Catholic church more closely united than just the councils of the Eastern Churches.

The Catholic church has remained one in doctrine and unity with a pope.

The eastern Orthodox have remained very closely tied with only councils to settle differences, but there are differences between the 12 or so different churches which are not totally in union.

The Protestant churches have divided into thousands of denominations with neither the papacy, or councils to keep its unity and doctrine.

Again, I’m not concerned so much with whether or not Honorius taught heresy, but what the *Council *did. This sums up my thoughts on the matter:

The point isn’t whether or not what Pope Honorius wrote was orthodox (if he wasn’t writing ex cathedra then who cares whether or not it was orthodox?)

The point is that Third Constantinople condemned him. Whether or not they were right to do so, they did it.
The question is: if they had our modern understanding of “papal infallibility,” would they have dared to condemn the Pope for heresy? They may have have scolded him privately or censured him publicly, but anathematized him? I don’t think so. (Can you imagine a modern council condemning the current Pope for something he wrote privately?) They simply would have defended him with something like Robert Spencer’s defense ("…a look at Honorius’ exact words shows that while he did use a formula–“one will”–that was later declared heretical, he used it in a sense that implied the orthodox belief.") and then put the whole nasty affair behind them.

(forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=223404&page=3)

Yes, an infallible pope does make sense. If I were to establish a church, that’s how I’d set it up. But, since when do God’s ways have to make sense to us?

Thank you for the link. It is very interesting. Yes, many Eastern Patriarchs have fallen into heresy, but the Church never has and never can. That’s key.

A

 

[steve_b]

Again, I’m not concerned so much with whether or not Honorius taught heresy, but what the *Council *did. This sums up my thoughts on the matter:

(forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=223404&page=3)

From that thread,

• Mickey quotes **Jaroslav Pelikan’s book, an Orthodox, **
• **Lazerlike42 quotes Steve Ray’s book, who is Catholic. **
  Mickey’s rebuttal to Lazer is, Steve Ray doesn’t know much about “holy” Orthodoxy. (sorry Mickey, witout specifics that’s not an answer)
• **Then Algernon suggests "**The Papacy by Abbé Guettée."an Orthodox
  here are the most recent answers to these various issues that resurface over and over on many threads…

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367841&postcount=77 Re: Guettee

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3369706&postcount=89

these may or may/not have been read earlier

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

 

[john654]

Algernon,
I was wondering what you thought the meaning of the word “whatever” is, when taken in the context of Matthew 16:19?

John

This isn’t that hard of a guestion to answer, is it?

John

 

[Dominicanis]

Hello, Algernon,

If you are interested, here is a link to a Catholic who wrote a compare-and-contrast between EO and RC. His tone is very respectful of the EO:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/06/catholicism-and-orthodoxy-comparison.html

Yours in Christ,
Dominicanis

 

[Alethiaphile]

Sorry for the delay in responding. Also, some of my response appears within the quote filed. I’ve tried to set off what I’m responding to:

I wrote it in reference to Boniface’s statement: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” If you were referring to something else, sorry, my bad.

That’s exactly what I was refering to.

The Church teaches the following:

Matters of faith and church membership were not necessarily thought of in terms of mortal sin and all the requiremnts for it at that time. You are projecting current Catholic thought on the matter back to a time when it ddin’t apply. To honestly address the question of what Boniface’s “infallible” proclamation meant, you have to address what his intentions were as expressed in the statement, and how it was taken at the time. There was no notion that some sort of subjective intent was required for those outside the church to be damned- they were damned because they didn’t have access to the saving sacraments found only in the church united to the pope.
This is confirmed by reading the following from the decree of the 11th session of the council of Florence (1439), which I alos mentioned in my original post:

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation…

Notice the phrase I set off with asterisks: “Joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives”. That indicates a definite act is needed; it isn’t a matter of having a certain disposition, as it is for Vatican II- “invincible ignorance” is no excuse.

The truth is, the magisterium of the time “infallibly” taught that there was no salvation for those who remained outside the visible church united to the pope. “Pagans” (e.g. Hindus). “heretics” (proto-Protestants such as the Waldensians), and “schismatics” (i.e. the Orthodox) were damned unless they explicitly subjected themsleves to the Pope. This was changed by Lumen Gentium, which clearly allows for salvation by members of those groups without their becoming Catholic if they are in good faith. Now, let me make it clear that I believe that is a change in the right direction, but it is a change. Joe

 

[Alethiaphile]

Lazerlike42 wrote:

As for this Council, we have to figure out what it means that Honorius “followed [Sergius’] views and confirmed his false doctrines.”

That’s pretty plain and doesn’t require that much interpretation.

For example, they said Honorius confirmed Sergius’ doctrines. I think there’s no question he did this. Sergius’ understood Honorius’ reply to confirm that he was able to maintain his view. But does it mean tht Honorius intentionally confirmed the doctrine? Or does it mean, as Pope John IV and Maximus the Confessor, both citing the man who penned the letter, that Honorius imprudently chose his words so as to in fact give Sergius confirmation, but unintentionally?

If you’re saying that Honorius may not have understood the controversy, or the exact import of what he was saying, that may well be true, but of what relevance is it? Did Christ, according to the Catholic claim, promise the assistnce of the Holy Spirit only to the extent that are smart enough to understand the controversy at hand? Vatican I certainly did not make some sort of subjective state on the part of the pope a requirement for the binding nature of papal proclamations. Can we not assume that the assitance of the Holy Spirit would help the pope in understanding what he was saying? It seems to me you’re trying to add a requirement to the doctrine of papal primacy and infallibility that the pope have a certain mental state.

In this case, we have the tremendous gift of having information that helps us to understand the Council’s thinking. The Council approved, accepted, and applauded the letter of Pope Agatho, in which he declared that the Roman Church had never been defiled or taught heresy. Now whatever our interpretatin of the Council, it simply can’t be that Honorius was condemned for havng taught heresy, because the Council had already agreed with Agatho that the Roman Church had never taught heresy.

That is false reasoning. The Council could simply have been inconsistent. First of all, the lettter of Pope Agatho, even though it was acclaimed by the Council, while certainly important, is not of the same status as the official proclamations of the Council. The Council, having dealth with the monothelite heresy, and having condemned all those it felt responsible, including Honorius, may simply have not wanted to open another dispute over the language in the letter. It was quite pleased with Pope Agatho; perhaps it felt that, even though Honorius had lapsed, Agatho had restored Rome’s renown. This episode is dealt at length in the eminent scholar Henry Chadwick’s book “East and West: the Making of a Rift in the Church”, which I heartily recommend. Basically, Prof. Chadwick presents the actions of the Council as a compromise between those who wished to condemn all those felt responisble for the temporary teaching of monothelitism, inclyuding Honorius, and Rome’s desire to preserve its prestige.
You are also overlooking Pope Leo II’s language, which you quote, condemning “also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”. “Apostolic Church” clearly refers to Rome; therefore Pope Leo apparently believed that Rome had been tainted somewhat by Honorius’s actions or inactions.

Now some have even gone so far to argue that by Leo’s confirmation, he was in fact modifying the Council’s anathema in favor of his own wording. I won’t suggest this beyond being a possibility, but as we have seen from other Councils and from the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope has every right to do that and in fact the Council is invalid apart from his confirmation.

I am not aware that any Council has acknowledged the right of a Pope to unilaterally alter the words of its decrees. Joe

 

[Alethiaphile]

savedsinner wrote:

Could you imagine an international company without a strong CEO?

Is the Church supposed to necessarily follow the model of a modern international company?

The eastern Orthodox have remained very closely tied with only councils to settle differences, but there are differences between the 12 or so different churches which are not totally in union.

There are jurisidctional disputes, which are not good, but I’m not aware of any differences on basic doctrine. Joe

 

[Alethiaphile]

We should also consider IMO, if the case against Honorius was going to sink the doctrine of papal infallibility, (the Church certainly didn’t forget this case) then the doctrine would have never even been proposed.

That, of course, assumes that a council of the western church (Vatican I in this case) would never be mistaken in evaluating the evidence. When the question at issue are the claims of the western church with regrad to the papacy, that cannot be assumed. Joe

 

[steve_b]

Matters of faith and church membership were not necessarily thought of in terms of mortal sin and all the requiremnts for it at that time. You are projecting current Catholic thought on the matter back to a time when it ddin’t apply. … Joe

The reason I disagree with this is the following

Rm 16:17… Paul cautions the Church of Rome against those who cause division. He says these people don’t serve Our Lord but their own appetites, he says stay away from them. He says division is evil.

How evil? And what are the consequences for those who divide?

Gal 5:19…
Those who cause division and dissension and remain in that grave sin, can’t enter heaven. That’s as serious as a sin can get. IOW they died in mortal sin.

Most Protestants don’t even believe that mortal and venial sin is in scripture. They think the Catholic Church invented the distinction.

1 Jn 5:16…talks of a sin that leads to death(mortal). It says not all sin is deadly(mortal) there is a sin that is not deadly (venial). Then John goes on to say that one should not pray about the mortal variety. Meaning, the venial sin can be prayed about but the mortal sin, should be disposed of in the sacrament of reconcilliation. (whose sins you forgive…whose sins you retain…)

As you can see, any sin that keeps one from heaven is deadly (mortal). Scripture lists these sins in various places.

• Division is one of those deadly serious sins,
• mortal and venial sin (or call the distinction any term you want) does exist, and DID apply in apostolic times as they apply in Catholic teaching today.

 

[steve_b]

steve b;3407456:

We should also consider IMO, if the case against Honorius was going to sink the doctrine of papal infallibility, (the Church certainly didn’t forget this case) then the doctrine would have never even been proposed.

Alethiophile:

That, of course, assumes that a council of the western church (Vatican I in this case) would never be mistaken in evaluating the evidence. When the question at issue are the claims of the western church with regrad to the papacy, that cannot be assumed. Joe

The evidence was evaluated at an ecumenical council. Honorius didn’t teach heresy.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3409798&postcount=86

 

[Alethiaphile]

Alethiaphile;3413867:

The evidence was evaluated at an ecumenical council. Honorius didn’t teach

heresy. .

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3409798&postcount=86

If you mean Vat. I, that was my point- you can’t assume that Vat. I evaluated the evidence correctly. If you mean Nicaea II, I don’t see the big difference between “teach” and “confirm”.

 

[steve_b]

steve b;3413955:

If you mean Vat. I, that was my point- you can’t assume that Vat. I evaluated the evidence correctly. If you mean Nicaea II, I don’t see the big difference between “teach” and “confirm”.

Did you read the links? It wasn’t the Vatican council I was talking about.

Re: confirm, it was handled in the links.

 

[Dominicanis]

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation…

Here is the whole piece: It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

You are aware that this paragraph comes at the end of a list of heresies and is included in the Bull of Union with the Copts, which means it is directed at only one group of Christians and not the whole Church? The Council of Florence/Basle was not all ecumenical (Only the first 25 sessions are considered so, and this paragraph comes afterward), and the non-ecumenical parts such as this one are not binding on the whole Church. And even if by some stretch it is considered ecumenical, the council never defined just how the listed people must be joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives, as there are early writings that catechumens preparing for baptism were saved by their desire to be baptized. But don’t take my word for it; here’s the entire contents of the council, and there’s no definition laid out as to how they must be joined:

piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm

Vatican II did not alter this teaching. All it did was expound on what it could mean to be joined to the Church. But that teaching wasn’t novel. Pope Pius X in his catechism taught that those who are not visible members of the Church but sincerely seeking to do God’s Will were not in her body but in her soul. And his predecessor Pope Pius IX taught that those who are outside the Church but striving to follow the natural law to the best of their ability may be saved. (His encyclical is here: papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm Paragraph 7 is the relevant section.)

That, of course, assumes that a council of the western church (Vatican I in this case) would never be mistaken in evaluating the evidence. When the question at issue are the claims of the western church with regrad to the papacy, that cannot be assumed.

Reason? Apart from an unproven assertion, there appears to be none. Perhaps I missed it; sorry.

Yours in Christ,
Dominicanis

 

[Lazerlike42]

Sorry for the delay in responding. Also, some of my response appears within the quote filed. I’ve tried to set off what I’m responding to:

…

. Joe

It’s manifestsly untrue that they didin’t think of things like mortal sin at the time of Boniface. It’s also manifestly untrue that they didn’t think of membership in the Church in the different ways that we do today. It had been decided as far back as the time of Cyprian that heretics validly baptize, and Augustine taught that we ought not to consider the children of heretics guilty of the sin of their parents. The Church most certainly recognized that there existed in its invisible membership some people who did not profess to be Catholic.

St. Thomas Aquinas, writing at the time of Boniface VIII, taught that even non-Christians could be saved without visible requirements such as baptism:

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that “some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit.” Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: “I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.”

• Summa Theologica, III, 68, 2

The Council of Trent confirmed this teaching. Alphonsus Ligouri, writing in the 1700s, taught:

"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called ‘of wind’ ‘flaminis’] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ‘flamen’]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon ‘Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato’ and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.’

• Moral Theology 6

Quotations could be multiplied.

Yet even if they couldn’t, there still wouldn’t be any problem here. Unam Sanctum and Florence do not rule out the possibility of an invisible membership in the Church, nor do they teach that visible membership is required. It simply doesn’t say that, and there’s simply no way for us to accurately judge that this is what the Council had in mind. Those men didn’t leave much behind to show us such a thing. What has been left behind is the general teaching that was present in the Church and the Fathers that a person could be saved without a visible baptism into the Church, and it’s taking a tremendous leap to suggest that Boniface and the Florentine fathers were unaware of or ignored this teaching. We can’t ignore the context of Catholic thought at the time in this way.

Furthermore, there’s no question that theological thought and understanding develops. There is nothing wrong with the Church revealing some thing today which gives a deeper understanding of a teaching from centuries past, so long as there is no contradiction. This occured in the early history of the Church. Christological teachings developed over time. Things can be found in the Council of Chalcedon that had not been taught at Nicaea, but they did not contradict so there was no problem. It is a matter of trusting the Holy Spirit to guide our words so as not to deny some truth that we have not yet come to understand.

Yet this doesn’t appear to be the case at all. Unam Sanctum and Florence were both Councils held in the greater context of Church teaching, the teaching of several fathers, and a general theological consensus that a person could be saved without in fact being baptized into the Church. It is required that we read these items in that context. Thus, when they say a person must be a member of the Church, the possibility of invisible membership seems not only to be permissible, but even required unless we are going to reject the historical context. In other words, these guys didn’t believe in an only visible membership in the Church. Why on earth would they pen a bull or a council which did?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Lazerlike42 wrote:

As for this Council, we have to figure out what it means that Honorius “followed [Sergius’] views and confirmed his false doctrines.”

“A man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” is pretty plain as well, but it requires a proper interpretation.

The very fact that there is this much discussion about the quotation, including a great deal of evidence being put forth, as opposed to useless assertions of “No, it means this,” proves that interpretation is necessary here. If it were that plain and straightforward, there couldn’t be any argument with any real information. It would just be two sides shouting back and forth that the other side is wrong.

For example, they said Honorius confirmed Sergius’ doctrines. I think there’s no question he did this. Sergius’ understood Honorius’ reply to confirm that he was able to maintain his view. But does it mean tht Honorius intentionally confirmed the doctrine? Or does it mean, as Pope John IV and Maximus the Confessor, both citing the man who penned the letter, that Honorius imprudently chose his words so as to in fact give Sergius confirmation, but unintentionally?

If you’re saying that Honorius may not have understood the controversy, or the exact import of what he was saying, that may well be true, but of what relevance is it? Did Christ, according to the Catholic claim, promise the assistnce of the Holy Spirit only to the extent that are smart enough to understand the controversy at hand? Vatican I certainly did not make some sort of subjective state on the part of the pope a requirement for the binding nature of papal proclamations. Can we not assume that the assitance of the Holy Spirit would help the pope in understanding what he was saying? It seems to me you’re trying to add a requirement to the doctrine of papal primacy and infallibility that the pope have a certain mental state.

We’re not dealing with an issue of papal infallibility here, by the Vatican I definition, and we’re not dealing with it by Pope Agatho’s contemporary defition. He said that Honorius’ words were put down imprudently, and contrasted them to popes who had intended to exercise the “voice of the infallible Roman Church.” In other words, even those living at the time of Honorius did not believe that he was offering a teaching with the voice of the Church.

That being said, my point was not about what Honorius believed, but what he was condemned for. The Council said he confirmed the doctrine. Leo II, who confirmed the Council, said that Honorius had merely failed to defend orthodoxy. Agatho, who called the Council, said he had put down some imprudent words. I was showing the need for interpretation by pointing out that given that some involved with the Council believed Honorius had merely been imprudent and lax, one possible interpretation is that he was condemned for confirming the doctrine unintentionally, by his imprudence and laxity, rather than confirming it in the positive sense of teaching that it was true.

 

[Lazerlike42]

>In this case, we have the tremendous gift of having information that helps us to understand the Council’s thinking. The Council approved, accepted, and applauded the letter of Pope Agatho, in which he declared that the Roman Church had never been defiled or taught heresy. Now whatever our interpretatin of the Council, it simply can’t be that Honorius was condemned for havng taught heresy, because the Council had already agreed with Agatho that the Roman Church had never taught heresy.

That is false reasoning. The Council could simply have been inconsistent. First of all, the lettter of Pope Agatho, even though it was acclaimed by the Council, while certainly important, is not of the same status as the official proclamations of the Council. The Council, having dealth with the monothelite heresy, and having condemned all those it felt responsible, including Honorius, may simply have not wanted to open another dispute over the language in the letter. It was quite pleased with Pope Agatho; perhaps it felt that, even though Honorius had lapsed, Agatho had restored Rome’s renown. This episode is dealt at length in the eminent scholar Henry Chadwick’s book “East and West: the Making of a Rift in the Church”, which I heartily recommend. Basically, Prof. Chadwick presents the actions of the Council as a compromise between those who wished to condemn all those felt responisble for the temporary teaching of monothelitism, inclyuding Honorius, and Rome’s desire to preserve its prestige.
You are also overlooking Pope Leo II’s language, which you quote, condemning “also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”. “Apostolic Church” clearly refers to Rome; therefore Pope Leo apparently believed that Rome had been tainted somewhat by Honorius’s actions or inactions.

Now you’re engaging in the very act of interpretation that you above suggested is not required. I suppose one might argue that the Council fathers were merely trying to avoid further dispute, but that sort of argument is not based on *any evidence whatsoever *, but rather on an a priori assumption that the Pope does not have authority and that there was a rift at this time between East and West.

On the other hand, the suggestions that we are making here are based on evidence. We cite text from the time that supports our conclusions. We cite the authority of the Popes and their jurisdication over the Council, not on an a priori assumption of it but based upon other texts from the time, including the Patriarch of Constantonople teaching that it is so, and the Council fathers approving the letter of Agatho.

Furthermore, it is a gigantic leap to even suggest that what is happening here is a diplomatic intent to avoid trouble. The sheer power of Agatho’s words rule that out altogether. He claimed infallibility and universal jurisdiction in his letter. These are tremendously powerful issues. If the Council fathers did not accept these things, they would never approve of them merely for the sake of diplomacy. Does Mr. Chadwick really suggest that the Eastern fathers of the Council were willing to approve of universal jurisdicion and of the infallibility of the western Church merely to avoid an argument? Especially when the Council itself is, according to this view, condemning a pope for heresy? Such a claim is nothing less than absurd.

Finally, the tone of the council was not one of diplomacy. The tone with which the letter was received was enthusiastic aproval, not mere approval. They were thrilled with the letter, and treated it as a musical crows would treat a virtuoso performace.

Now some have even gone so far to argue that by Leo’s confirmation, he was in fact modifying the Council’s anathema in favor of his own wording. I won’t suggest this beyond being a possibility, but as we have seen from other Councils and from the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope has every right to do that and in fact the Council is invalid apart from his confirmation.

I am not aware that any Council has acknowledged the right of a Pope to unilaterally alter the words of its decrees. Joe

That information has been presented in this thread. Eastern historians Sozomen and Socrates Scholasticus writing in the 400s either acknowledge or implicitly put it forth, citing the council of Sardica. The archbishop of Constantinople during the time of Chalcedon expressly referenced this authority in a letter to Pope Leo I. The Eastern Church as a whole acknowledged it, in that after Leo I struck canon 28 from the Council of Chalcedon, none of them refer to any more canons than 27 until after the year 1000.

Peace and God bless