The heretic Honorius: a Monothelite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Atreyu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Atreyu

Guest
In another thread, our Eastern brother Father Ambrose asserted that Honorius was condemned as a Monothelite. He said:
Fr Ambrose:
Saint Maximus was in a tight spot. Three Catholic Patriarchs of the East (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria) had fallen in with the monothelite heresy. Saint Maximus was so upset that he went and made his residence in Rome. He pinned all his hope on Rome upholding and restoring orthodoxy. But eventually even the Pope of Rome, Pope Honorius, succumbed to the monothelite heresy. So there was a time when four of the five Patriarchs (excluding Jerusalem) were heretical (Catholics shudder to hear that Honorius was a heretic but even the staunchly pro-papal Catholic Encyclopedia says, No Catholic may deny that Honorius was a heretic.)
Click to expand...
To which I responded, also using the Catholic Encyclopedia:
40.png
Atreyu:
Wrong, Pope Honorius did not succumb to the monothelite heresy. If you disagree, I think it’s only fair that you provide the relevant documentation for this, as you were the one who levelled the charge. But Honorius was condemned as a heretic; true. The Catholic Encyclopedia claims that:

The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.
Code: 
...
It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a “private heretic”, for he admittedly had excellent intentions.

Hmmm, it’s probably also incorrect to say that Constantinople fell into the Monothelite heresy, unless this was done by a Patriarch other than Sergius.
Click to expand...
And so there are two questions I would like to study in this thread:
  1. *]Was Honorius a Monothelite? If so, what proof is there of this (I’m putting this forward as Father Ambrose’s position)?
    *]If Honorius was not a Monothelite, then why was he condemned (and he was definitely clearly condemned) as a heretic? What heresy was he condemned for (this is what I believe the Catholic position to be)?
 
Atreyu said:
And so there are two questions I would like to study in this thread:
  1. *]Was Honorius a Monothelite? If so, what proof is there of this (I’m putting this forward as Father Ambrose’s position)?
    *]If Honorius was not a Monothelite, then why was he condemned (and he was definitely clearly condemned) as a heretic? What heresy was he condemned for (this is what I believe the Catholic position to be)?
Click to expand...

  1. I don’t think we will be able to arive at a conclusion, since there is just not enough information available to study. If Honorious had a long conversation on a message board such as this we might be able to discern what he believed. But I don’t think it is possible to determine with the little information available.

    In my opinion, it seems that the error of Honorious was a result of a misguided good intention. He wanted to reconcile the heretics who denied the two wills of Christ, so he compromised a little by saying that Jesus only had one will that controled his actions - the divine will - since His human will was subject to the Divine. That, in a sense, is true, but it could be misleading. The primary job of the Pope is to protect the deposit of faith by defending the truth and condemn error. Through an “imprudent ecumenism” he gave too much to the heretics and ended up being condemned himself.

    There are many modern day examples of this same “imprudent eccumenism”. Just one example is the joint declaration of justification signed by Pope John Paul II. In it, hid the same thing as Honorious, only much much worse. Not only did this compromised document not win the heretics back to the Church, but it resulted in Catholics now believing that we are justified by faith alone" - something that all Catholics used to reject outright.

    The compromised document did not result in the heretics rejecting their error, but in Catholics accepting their terminology - a termonology that was explicitly condemned at the council of Trent.

    Here is a quote from Peter Kreeft, who is looked upon as a beacon of Orthodoxy in our day of apostasy:

    Peter Kreeft: “Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and good works? Very simple. No tricks. **On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial. ** **As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel. ****Whatever theological mistakes Luther made, whatever indispensable truths about the Church he denied, here is an indispensable truth he affirmed **— indispensable to union between all sinners and God and to union between God’s separated Catholic and Protestant children.”

    Can you believe that one? What is much more amazing is that he is considered “orthodox” in todays Catholic world. It is really not too surprising that one individual (Peter Kreeft) would fall into heresy (which he indeed has); but it is amazing that he would still be considered orthodox!!! What does that say about the situation in the Church today?

    Thank God for the Traditional Churches where the true faith is still taught. Without these true beacons of light in these days of darekness and confusion, we would be lost. These modern day Athanasius’ should be thanked by all. Instead they are treated like red-headed step-children (no offense intended if you are a red-headed step-child).
 
Hello all:

As this responseof mine is a bit long I will not impose by incorporating in it Father Ambrose’s charges. You will have to go to the thread mentioned in Atreyu’s posting above to read them.

It seems to me that Father Ambrose’s apparently imposing case really has feet of clay, if we think to ask him just a few questions: (1) What constitutes “the Church”; (2) What guarantees that a given council is “ecumenical”, or that a given decree of any council has ecumenical authority; (3) Who is subject to an ecumenical council; and (4) What are the conditions required for the exercise of papal infallibility?

As to my points (1) and (2), let us recall that neither Fr. Ambrose nor any non-Catholic can give a cogent answer as to what makes a council ecumenical or as to what makes any conciliar decree binding on the whole Church: he can only babble that Christ is the Head of the Church and that the council must be “accepted” by the “whole” Church, and suchlike. But how do we know that a council has been so accepted by the whole Church? Eastern Orthodox or any other non-Catholics have no way of knowing this, and indeed no way of determining what “the whole Church” is. Only the Catholic position on this makes any sense at all: a council is known to be ecumenical only by its acceptance as such by Rome, and even decrees of otherwise ecumenical councils may be expressly quashed or modified by papal authority.

With this in mind Father Ambrose’s points 1-10 are seen to add up to exactly nothing when we recall that Pope Leo, who otherwise confirmed the acts of this council, says expressly in his letters to the Eastern Emperor and to the Spanish bishops that he had changed the grounds for the council’s indictment of Honorius from heresy to negligence (thus Father Ambrose’s point #8 falls!). Hence it is clearly incorrect to say that the “ecumenical” council anathematized Honorius: the council that did so on that particular score was not ecumenical (because, in that decree, not approved by Rome), as the grounds for its attempted decree were changed from heresy to negligence. If he disagrees, let Father Ambrose prove the ecumenicity of that or any council without specific appeal to Rome!

Oh, yes, I can’t resist observing in answer to points #5 and #7 that the Emperor’s opinions and judgments in matters of faith are quite irrelevant, as Our Lord drew a distinction between the things of Caesar and the things of God. Shame on anyone who would surrender the Church to Caesar in matters of faith!

As to my point (3) above, let us recall that excommunication is a censure, hence, a matter of discipline. Now, I call your attention to the fact that the Church has disciplinary authority only over those who are in the wayfaring state, i.e., over those who are living. Pope Honorius and others anathematized by the council were long dead, however, by the time the council met: I say, then, that these were outside the jurisdiction of any council or pope by that time, so that their “anathema” was in fact not an excommunication! It had no legal effect , as they were dead, outside the jurisdiction of the Church Militant, and indeed had already long been judged by God. The council was competent to anathematize teachings, but I think we can only understand its anathematizing of long-dead individuals as an excoriation for their offenses; in Honorius’ case, as I have said above, that excoriation ended up being, in fact, for his negligence. Indeed, I wonder at the irresponsible enthusiasm of that council in bandying about the term “heretic”, as I recall that today we use it only in the case of formal, not material heresy. Ditto for the opinion of the 7th Council and especially of the Trullan Synod, whose ecumenical status Father Ambrose will have difficulty proving, by the way!

In his items ##10-13 Father Ambrose tries to use Pope Honorius’ immediate successors to disprove papal infallibility. He must know, however, that we Catholics admit that these popes could have been mistaken in their actions, as they were disciplinary only and dealt only with the Roman See, not with the whole Church. These apparent mistakes, as Father details them, would not be difficulties for our doctrine of papal infallibility. Indeed, Father’s point #12 as quoted does not even call Honorius a “heretic”.

Well, I’ve said enough for now. Father Ambrose’s case against Rome has failed yet again. Cadit quaestio!😛

Regards,
Joannes
 
Joannes said:
:What guarantees that a given council is "ecumenical"What is the Roman Catholic answer to this? Careful, it is not as clear as you may think?
Click to expand...
With this in mind Father Ambrose’s points 1-10 are seen to add up to exactly nothing can you know more than the Popes who lived at the time of Honorius. They were in a position to judge him a heretic.
  1. His condemnation is found in the Acts of the 13th Session of the 6th Ecumenical Council.
  2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same Session.
  3. In the 17th session of the 6th Ecumenical Council, the Council Fathers proclaimed:
“Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius,…”

**The above clinches it, unless one wants to argue that an Ecumenical Council and the Popes who ratified them may err but in that case the burden of proof is on the person who opposes the Council and the papal ratification. **

Are Catholics not obliged to give intellectual assent to the Ecumenical Councils?
  1. In the decree of faith published at the 17th Session it is stated that “the originator of all evil the Devil…found a fit tool for his will in…Honorius, Pope of Old Rome…”
  2. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that “Honorius,
    formerly bishop of Rome” they had “punished with exclusion and
    anathema” because he followed the monothelites.
  3. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it “has slain Honorius with an anathema”
  4. The imperial decree speaks of the “unholy priests who
    infected the Church and falsely governed” and mentions among them “Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.”
The Emperor goes on to anathematize “Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.”
  1. Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.
  2. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is
    mentioned in the Trullan Canons.
  3. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the
    anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts
    the same is said.
  4. Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)
  5. The Papal Oath as found in the *Liber Diurnus *taken by
    each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh centuries, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II:
“smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, together with Honorius because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.” 13. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. This reference to Honorius was removed before the definition of papal infallibility.
  1. The Catholic Encylopedia says that no Catholic may deny that Pope Honorius was a heretic.
With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and that the Popes after him used their authority to uphold the decision against him.
 
Joannes said:
Oh, yes, I can’t resist observing in answer to points #5 and #7 that the Emperor’s opinions and judgments in matters of faith are quite irrelevant, as Our Lord drew a distinction between the things of Caesar and the things of God. Shame on anyone who would surrender the Church to Caesar in matters of faith!
Click to expand...
Read the history of how the filioque was forced on the Pope and the Church of Rome by the Emperor.

Clues: the year was 1014. The Pope was Benedict VIII. The emperor was Henry II.
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
What is the Roman Catholic answer to this? Careful, it is not as clear as you may think?
Click to expand...
can you know more than the Popes who lived at the time of Honorius. They were in a position to judge him a heretic.
  1. His condemnation is found in the Acts of the 13th Session of the 6th Ecumenical Council.
  2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same Session.
  3. In the 17th session of the 6th Ecumenical Council, the Council Fathers proclaimed:
“Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius,…”

**The above clinches it, unless one wants to argue that an Ecumenical Council and the Popes who ratified them may err but in that case the burden of proof is on the person who opposes the Council and the papal ratification. **

Are Catholics not obliged to give intellectual assent to the Ecumenical Councils?
  1. In the decree of faith published at the 17th Session it is stated that “the originator of all evil the Devil…found a fit tool for his will in…Honorius, Pope of Old Rome…”
  2. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that “Honorius,
    formerly bishop of Rome” they had “punished with exclusion and
    anathema” because he followed the monothelites.
  3. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it “has slain Honorius with an anathema”
  4. The imperial decree speaks of the “unholy priests who
    infected the Church and falsely governed” and mentions among them “Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.”
The Emperor goes on to anathematize “Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.”
  1. Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.
  2. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is
    mentioned in the Trullan Canons.
  3. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the
    anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts
    the same is said.
  4. Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)
  5. The Papal Oath as found in the *Liber Diurnus *taken by
    each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh centuries, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II:
“smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, together with Honorius because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.” 13. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. This reference to Honorius was removed before the definition of papal infallibility.
  1. The Catholic Encylopedia says that no Catholic may deny that Pope Honorius was a heretic.
With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and that the Popes after him used their authority to uphold the decision against him.

Yeap.

He was a heretic alright.

It is undeniable.
 
Please remember that this thread is about whether or not Honorius was a Monothelite! More precisely, I should say it is about whether he was condemned as a Monothelite, or condemned for something else. My position is that he was condemned for something else (which pretty much boils down to a poor pastoral decision). I don’t believe that the Acts of the Council condemn him as a Monothelite.
 
Magicsilence said:
It seems I spoke too soon. 🙂

A new perspective?

eclipseofthechurch.com/HonoriusCalumny.htm
Click to expand...
Not a reliable perspective.

The Catholic author says:"To show how incredible it is that (modern) Catholic researchers could have been really unaware of the Greeks’ customary fabrications…"Not only is this highly insulting, it is also laughable considering the numerous false documents manufactured in the West in support of papal claims.

But let’s consider the claims that Honorius’ letter was faked and his conciliar condemnation was faked?

WHY? Who benefited? Absolutely nobody! The Popes of Rome in those centuries were perfetcly catholic and orthodox. The Greeks (I presume he means the Catholics of the East?) had no interest in manufacturing false evidence against any Pope.

Indeed, if he had been a staunch supporter of the correct faith the Council Fathers would have been overjoyed and the Council would have showered endless praises on him as a solid pillar of the true faith.

The Council simply derived no benefit from manufacturing false charges against Pope Honorius.

Let us also remember that the two legates sent from Rome by the Pope signed off on this condemnation of Honorius.

I have actually never read this contention before anyway. Nowhere. It actually seems to be a fabrication of this Mr Perlant.
  • PS: This seems to be a strange Catholic site. What do you make of
    "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Anti-Christ. . . "
 
Hello all:

Father Ambrose quite wisely avoids giving an answer to the question of what makes a council ecumenical, as the EO’s have no useful answer. The Catholic position is that it is papal approval only that makes it so, though this approval sometimes may only be implicit. Such papal approval is an essential and integral part of any council, not something superadded to its decrees, and this is so because an ecumenical counciI must represent the entire episcopate, of which the pope is the head.

In the instance at issue it is clear that Pope Leo did not approve the grounds for the condemnation of Honorius, but changed them. Hence, we must say that the Council ended up condemning Honorius for negligence, not for heresy, and that the popes, especially his immediate successors, have in fact not only never called Honorius a heretic, but have in fact always defended his orthodoxy. Now, if Father Ambrose maintains that papal approval is not necessary to prove the ecumenicity of a council, fine, but let him tell us just what is, and let him give us an explanation that works, not just pie-in-the-sky platitudes like “acceptance by the whole Church”, for example – let him, in short show us where the buck stops if not at Rome.

I might add that to any unbiased rational observer the case for Honorius’ supposed heresy is quite flimsy anyway. What impresses is rather the determination of some to establish his heretical status. Coupled with the general uproar at Honorius’ conduct, the Council’s attempted judgment and the papal adjustment of its sentence, and later attempts to tar him as well, what emerges is the fact that Honorius’ very special authority was well recognized at the time and ever afterwards by the Eastern Church, whose heretics as well as orthodox had needed and sought especially his approbation. Why? It is hard indeed for Father Ambrose to explain why there was such an uproar over a man whom he as an EO now denies to have had more than a primacy of honor, and why he is till pushing that tired old anti-Roman position!

I wonder as well what such opponents of the papacy think they are proving anyway, when it is clear that whatever else Honorius did or failed to do, no action or inaction of his affects papal infallibility, since even if he had been personally heretical – a thing I do not grant – he taught nothing and imposed nothing on the universal Church. It is, after all, quite possible for a pope to err in capacities other than as pastor and teacher of all Christians, as John XXII once did regarding the fate of the deceased before the general judgment, as I recall (though he later retracted his statement, one, incidently, which is identical with that of Father Ambrose today!).

Father Ambrose’s attempt to extricate himself from the gaffe of attributing some special doctrinal role to the long-gone Eastern Emperors (by citing Charlemagne’s supposed role in foisting the Filioque on Rome) fails, since the Filioque is fully orthodox, meaning no more than “from the Father through the Son”, a formula long used by the Greeks, so no matter what the build-up to its insertion into the Latin Creed, Rome did not err in inserting it. The Greek hierarchy themselves accepted this at Florence (which they then took to be an ecumenical council!), and if one looks at the list of stupid reasons given by Photius and Cerularius to prove the Latins were “heretics” (whatever that means) and at how frequently and strongly each reason was argued, one finds that the azymes was a much bigger issue then than the Filioque, and that even the Latin clergy’s being beardless was a reason for the Greeks at the time to call them “heretics”. No, the EO’s no longer push the non-doctrinal issues of beards and azymes, but they have moved up the Filioque and deliberately fluffed it up into a (supposedly) doctrinal issue, because they like their schism and seek to prolong it.
*
*I still maintain that Honorius was not excommunicated, since, being dead, he was outside the Council’s jurisdiction at the time. This means that he was only excoriated posthumously for his inaction, pace whatever the Encyclopaedia may say, and that we have in the anathema merely a disciplinary issue.

Regards,
Joannes
 
Joannes said:
Hello all:

Father Ambrose quite wisely avoids giving an answer to the question of what makes a council ecumenical, as the EO’s have no useful answer. The Catholic position is that it is papal approval only that makes it so, though this approval sometimes may only be implicit. Such papal approval is an essential and integral part of any council, not something superadded to its decrees, and this is so because an ecumenical counciI must represent the entire episcopate, of which the pope is the head.
Click to expand...
Nice theory but it doesn’t work in practice and it flies in the face of history.

The Popes had given no approval of the Second Ecumenical Council when the Third Ecumenical Council was convened. The Third Ecumenical Council, in its opening decrees, confirmed the Second Ecumenical Council. The Pope still had not said a peep about it.

Obviously the power lay not with the Pope but with the bishops of the Catholic Church gathered in Council.

Right up until the definition of papal infallibility the debate raged in the Catholic Church - which is superior? Is a Council superior to a Pope? Most of the Catholic Magisterium favoured that view and had done through all the centuries.

So I ask you again - what is the traditional Roman Catholic teaching that defines a Council. If you say “the Pope.” you are just ignoring the fact that this was not so until the late 19th century and Vatican I.
Today (22 October) is the commemoration of St. Donatus (Donagh) of Fiesole
See groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints/message/2466
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc/progress.gif[/RIGHT]
 
Joannes said:
In the instance at issue it is clear that Pope Leo did not approve the grounds for the condemnation of Honorius, but changed them. Hence, we must say that the Council ended up condemning Honorius for negligence, not for heresy, and that the popes, especially his immediate successors, have in fact not only never called Honorius a heretic, but have in fact always defended his orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
Now I am puzzled. Are Catholics able to have Popes who teach heresy and and write letters teaching heresy? If this happened in our Church, the bishop or patriatrch would soon be ousted.

Or do you mean that Pope Honorius was not a heretic because the monothelite teaching which he supported is acceptable Catholic teaching?
I might add that to any unbiased rational observer the case for Honorius’ supposed heresy is quite flimsy anyway. What impresses is rather the determination of some to establish his heretical status.
Click to expand...
The condemnation of Pope Honorius as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council is sufficient for the Orthodox. There is no “determination” - there is however an acceptance of the decision of the bishops of the Catholic Church gathered at a great Council to consider the question.
It is hard indeed for Father Ambrose to explain why there was such an uproar over a man
Click to expand...
There is no uproar among Orthodox Christians. The uproar comes from Roman Catholics who are horrified that an Ecumenical Council declared a Pope to be a heretic. They go to extreme measures of argumentation to disprove a statement of one of their own Ecumenical Councils!!
and if one looks at the list of stupid reasons given by Photius and Cerularius to prove the Latins were “heretics” (whatever that means) and at how frequently and strongly each reason was argued, one finds that the azymes was a much bigger issue then than the Filioque, and that even the Latin clergy’s being beardless was a reason for the Greeks at the time to call them “heretics”.
Click to expand...
If one looks at the list of stupid reasons for which the Catholics of the East were excommunicated in 1054, one of them is that the Eastern Catholics castrate their guests!!! Can any sane person imagine that?! But the Popes took it seriously and never withdrew the accusation. The schism was caused, in part, by the fear of castration among the priests of Rome if they visited the East!!!

The text of the Bull of Excommunication is here
acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf
I still maintain that Honorius was not excommunicated, since, being dead, he was outside the Council’s jurisdiction at the time. This means that he was only excoriated posthumously for his inaction, pace whatever the Encyclopaedia may say, and that we have in the anathema merely a disciplinary issue.
Click to expand...
One or two medieval Popes had their predecesors exhumed and sat on thrones. The living Pope then anathematized the dead and rotting Pope, broke off the fingers with which he used to bless and, on one occasion, then tossed the corpse into the Tibur!

You must remember that in Catholic teaching the Pope has the power of binding and loosing both on earth and in heaven. His authority extends beyond the grave. So he has the authority to excommunicate and anathematize even after death.
Today (22 October) is the commemoration of St. Donatus (Donagh) of Fiesole
See groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints/message/2466
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc/progress.gif[/RIGHT]
 
it is clear that whatever else Honorius did or failed to do, no action or inaction of his affects papal infallibility, since even if he had been personally heretical – a thing I do not grant – he taught nothing and imposed nothing on the universal Church.
Click to expand...
See the teaching of the Pope on this point - Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum.

As Jay wrote:
I have put some thought into this question, and its certainly a difficult one. However, one flaw I have seen several writers make on this thread is the idea that for Honorius to be a heretic, he would have to have promoted something ex cathedra. This is false. Leo XIII makes it clear in* Satis Cognitum* that a heretic is someone who denies any dogma of the faith at any point whatsoever; not when its pronounced dogmatically. This would lead to saying that the Roman Pontiff can err in his universal ordinary magisterium. Vatican I, however, is quite clear that universal ordinary magisterium is also infallible.

A formal heretic is a baptized person who contradicts Church dogma. However, I dont see it as contrary to Vatican I to hold that a pope can become a heretic: St. Francis DeSales and St. Robert Bellarmine were no Gallicans and would certainly have held to papal infallibility. Cajetan holds that a heretical pope can hold jurisdiction, and Bellarmine refutes the notion, I think.

However, Pope St. Agatho’s letter to Constantinople III, interestingly, claims infallibility. The best answer seems to me to be that he was a heretic (as St. Francis DeSales posits in “Catholic Controversy” and mentions John XXII also), but since his condemnation was posthumous, the question of a living heretical pope didn’t arise.

However, were a living pope to espouse heresy, and it is certainly not uncatholic to hold this opinion, he would hold no jurisdiction. i think Bellarmine’s arguments on this point are quite irrefutable.
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
The Third Ecumenical Council, in its opening decrees, confirmed the Second Ecumenical Council.
Click to expand...
Did it then take the Fourth Ecumenical Council to confirm that the Third was indeed ecumenical, and its confirmation of the Second accurate? Was there then necessary a Fifth Ecumenical Council to confirm that the Fourth was indeed ecumenical, and its confirmation of the Third, and by extension, the Second?

Seems like that method of confirming the ecumenical nature of a council suffers from an infinite regress problem. Is it turtles all the way down?

Jeremy
 
jemfinch said:
Did it then take the Fourth Ecumenical Council to confirm that the Third was indeed ecumenical, and its confirmation of the Second accurate? Was there then necessary a Fifth Ecumenical Council to confirm that the Fourth was indeed ecumenical, and its confirmation of the Third, and by extension, the Second?

Seems like that method of confirming the ecumenical nature of a council suffers from an infinite regress problem. Is it turtles all the way down?
Click to expand...
Dear Jeremy,

Although you are making fun of it, this is what happens.

Every Ecumenical Council opens with a statement that it accepts and honours the teachings and decrees of all the previous Councils.

This proves that no importance was attached to any ratification by the Popes. If that were an important factor for the authenticity of a Council, the Council Fathers would have mentioned it.
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
Dear Jeremy,

Although you are making fun of it, this is what happens.

Every Ecumenical Council opens with a statement that it accepts and honours the teachings and decrees of all the previous Councils.

This proves that no importance was attached to any ratification by the Popes. If that were an important factor for the authenticity of a Council, the Council Fathers would have mentioned it.
Click to expand...
Should you not therefore be only referring to the SIX Ecumenical councils?
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
Although you are making fun of it, this is what happens.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t making fun of it, I was trying to point out what seems to be a serious philosophical issue with your definition of an ecumenical council. Surely I’m not the first to discover this; how do the Orthodox handle it?

Jeremy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top