Pope Honorius I

[Ghosty]

It’s talking about heresy. How is that a matter that is merely temporal?

Blessings

I think he’s referring to the fact that the document in question is a disciplinary document on how cases of heresy are to be handled, rather than a document which details what is and isn’t heresy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

I think he’s referring to the fact that the document in question is a disciplinary document on how cases of heresy are to be handled, rather than a document which details what is and isn’t heresy.

Oh OK. Thanks.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was issued long after the time of Honorius I. That document is merely of the temporal authority of the Church, and it is not in force. The Pope tried to bind future Popes to that temporal decision, but he was unable to do so.

Is there any proof that the validity of this document has been cancelled by a later Pope?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad314]

Is there any proof that the validity of this document has been cancelled by a later Pope?

I’ve found a statement on the internet by a canon lawyer (I think) saying that the 1917 Code superseded the apostolic constitution, but I haven’t found an online English translation of the 1917 Code – and I wouldn’t want anyone to rely on my translation of the Latin. He added that, of course, divine law can’t be superseded.

 

[mardukm]

I’ve found a statement on the internet by a canon lawyer (I think) saying that the 1917 Code superseded the apostolic constitution, but I haven’t found an online English translation of the 1917 Code – and I wouldn’t want anyone to rely on my translation of the Latin. He added that, of course, divine law can’t be superseded.

I have a hard copy. I’ll check it out. Thanks.

Blessings

 

[Ron_Conte]

When an Ecumenical Council exercises the temporal authority (not the teaching authority), then its decisions and writings are fallible. Only its solemn definitions on faith and morals are infallible. The decision on Honorius was a fallible decision of the temporal authority. Even so, the Council did not convict him of heresy, but merely rebuked him for not correcting the heresy of his day.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ron,

When an Ecumenical Council exercises the temporal authority (not the teaching authority), then its decisions and writings are fallible. Only its solemn definitions on faith and morals are infallible. The decision on Honorius was a fallible decision of the temporal authority. Even so, the Council did not convict him of heresy, but merely rebuked him for not correcting the heresy of his day.

It is no use to claim that the Council did not convict him of heresy, for they in fact did. The options available to us are: 1) to determine what constituted “heresy” among the early Fathers, as distinct from our understanding today; 2) call into question the very validity of the conviction. Our energies will be better served pursuing those two avenues instead of attempting to deny what the Council explicitly wrote (which brother Mickey has been kind enough to constantly repeat for us ).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad314]

It is no use to claim that the Council did not convict him of heresy, for they in fact did. The options available to us are: 1) to determine what constituted “heresy” among the early Fathers, as distinct from our understanding today; 2) call into question the very validity of the conviction. Our energies will be better served pursuing those two avenues instead of attempting to deny what the Council explicitly wrote (which brother Mickey has been kind enough to constantly repeat for us ).

Bearing in mind that Honorius was long dead when the council met . . .