Mira como te exhorta a ti uno que estaba más cerca de Cristo que tu:
A ver si hacéis las paces los dos como buenos cristianos que sois.
Dais mal ejemplo con esas trifulcas vuestras.
Soy Cristiano!, No "Católico"!!!
- Autor Gabaon
- Fecha de inicio
Mira como te exhorta a ti uno que estaba más cerca de Cristo que tu:
A ver si hacéis las paces los dos como buenos cristianos que sois.
Dais mal ejemplo con esas trifulcas vuestras.
Dios te bendiga Maripaz.
Maripaz, la verdad es que usted es graciosa, usted corrigiendo!!! Hay que vivir para ver!!!
Yo creo que a estas alturas usted sabe que Küng es muy estimado por muchos en nuestro círculo y le queremos tanto que hasta le hemos corregido en historia, en dogmática, en hermenéutica en exégesis y el buen Küng ha aceptado algunas de esas correcciones.
Aquí le dejo unas correcciones que le hizo a este respecto el Padre Joseph Costanzo, desconozco si a la fecha Küng ha respondido. Lástima, pero no tengo esto en español. En todo el libro siguen abundando las correcciones a este respecto y a otros tantos.
Kung Misreads the Pseudo Isidore Decretals
A second misuse of sources is Kung's serious misreading of the Pseudo Isidore Decretals.
The monstrous forgeries of the Pseudo-Decretals of the ninth century . . . were now employed to buttress the claim of the teaching authority of the pope. (Inquiry, p. 115)
But the generality of scholars of ecclesiastical history appraise the historic significance of the Pseudo Isidore Decretals (c. 850) in another light than does Kung. These are but two examples.
All three—the Capitula Angilramni, Pseudo-Isidore, and Benedictus—attempt to give the hierocratic point of view the halo of antiquity. Many of the decrees incorporated in them contain absolutely nothing new; what the forgers did was to clothe a particular hierocratic and already virtually accepted tenet in the garb of an ancient decree. Others were of an indubitably genuine provenance—contain certain hierocratic tenets for which no warrant could be found in previous genuine documents. It is this last group which merits a few words.
Collections of this kind, as are the three products under discussion, imply the possibility that their authors had a fair chance of their works being accepted by contemporaries. To undertake all this labor of collecting and inventing documents, if there were little prospect of acceptance, would be hardly more than an exercise in mental gymnastics. To judge by the numerous manuscripts of these forgeries still extant, the assumption is not unwarranted that their authors sensed the climate of the time correctly. By forging documents they clothed the one or the other hierocratic idea in the language of a decree issued by a second—or third century pope. What the forgers did not invent was ideology: what they did forge was the decree which was to "prove" this ideology. The atmosphere of the time pervaded as it was with hierocratic ideas, together with the character of these products as useful reference works, account largely for the immediate influence which they exercised. Lastly, these great forgeries symbolize, so to speak, the coalescence of Rome and Rheims. Precisely because they had originated quite independently of the papacy, these products of the Frankish intelligentsia were to become the natural allies of the papacy. (Walter Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages, 1953, p. 178)
As we have said before, these forgeries do not excel in inventing new ideas; what they did was to give certain fundamental theses, already largely accepted, a historical twist and foundation. (ibid. 188)
The author (of the False Decretals) wished to establish by detailed and unequivocal evidence the rights of the local episcopate to appeal directly to Rome against their metropolitans, and to safeguard the independence of the Church against the secular power. But great as was their importance for the subsequent development of canon law and for the progress of ecclesiastical centralisation in the Middle Ages, it is impossible to regard them as directly responsible for the increased prestige of the Papacy in Western Europe in the ninth century. They were a result rather than a cause of that development, which had its roots in the conditions that we have just described (Christopher Dawson, The Making of Europe, 1956, p. 223)
The Isidorian Collection is a hotch-potch of authentic documents marred by interpolations of a topical nature, of manipulated passages from Greek or Latin ecclesiastical writers, reduced to the form of canons and decretals and attributed to popes, of earlier collections of dubious origin, and of pieces entirely invented. It is certain that the compilation was neither directly nor indirectly influenced by the Papacy. The overriding motive of the Frankish authors was to challenge the dominion of the metropolitan bishops over the suffragan bishops, of strengthening the central authority of the Holy See and of ending the abusive interference of laymen with the clergy. This motive drove them to insert non-existent phrases and passages into genuine documents, to create false ones and to make use of them if they had already been created. However, this may be, the Pseudo-Isidoriana mirrors the situation that had come into being in the Carolingean Empire and in the Frankish Church, and is an attempt at a reaction, which joined forces with that already active in both Rome and the provinces, growing steadily as under Charlemagne's heirs the Empire fell to pieces. The pretended documents were the result not the cause of an ecclesiological development strongly centered in Rome, and its provinces. The Roman claims of those times were never based on the inauthentic Isidoriana; rather these were based on the Roman claims. In his summary treatment of Pseudo-Isidoriana, Kung twice refers to L'Ecclesiologie du Haut Moyen-Age. De Saint Gregoire le Grand a la Desunion entre Byzance et by Y. M.—J. Congar, O. P. (du Cerf. 1968), Appendix Notes 56, 57. Having used the data-information of Congar, Hans Kung might have also have incorporated in Inquiry Congar's appraisal of the historic role of the False Decretals.
Cependant, l'utilisation formelle des FD par la Curie romaine sous Nicolas Ier et Hadrien II se reduit a peu de chose et n'a pas fonde alors un droit veritablement nouveau. n. 22. Cette conclusion est communement recue, meme par Hartmann, Der Primat. (p. 23 1 )
Le Pseudo Isidore n'a nullement cree la conviction de la primaute papale; il n'a pas ete sans influencer l'ecclesiologie dans le sens de la Monarchie pontificale, elle—meme traduite dans un regime concret de centralisation romaine (p. 232)
From the Pseudo-Isidorian collection, the false decretals, together with numerous perfectly genuine texts were transmitted into many of the most important later collections, until the mid-twelfth century, and thus played a vital part in sustaining the doctrines of clerical and papal superiority, which received an ever more confident expression. The dubious character of these documents did not pass unnoted, and the beginnings of a critical attitude towards them appear as early as the twelfth century, in Peter Comestor, Godfrey of Viterbo and Stephen of Tournai. In the 14th and 15th centuries they were attacked by Wyclif and Nicholas of Cusa. But the falsification was proved by textual criticism in the 16th century, when first Protestants and then Febronians used it as a weapon against the Papacy, as though it constituted the title-deeds of papal authority. But it is certain that the compilation was neither directly nor indirectly influenced by the Papacy. Kung never raises the question whether any of the pretended Isidorian Decretals are correspondent to actual ecclesiastical practices and claims.
On April 19, 1961, Hans Kung received the ecclesiastical Imprimi Potest for the publication of his The Council, Reform and Reunion, scarcely four months after Pope John XXIII first announced on January 25, 1959, his intention to summon an Ecumenical Council. In this work, the Tubingen theologian discoursed on the Petrine office (13242, 167, 171, 174, 185), papal primacy (84, 87, 133, 13840, 161, 166, 193-201), and papal infallibility. (84, 87, 149, 161, 189, 194, 195, 197, 204)
He did not call these matters into question. For example:
True as Catholics one can and must reply at this point that the primacy, is a matter of faith; that the Pope is indeed the Vicar of Christ but only, after all, the Vicar of Christ. (p. 139)
What is called for on the Protestant side is to consider whether the words of Scripture about the abiding rock (Matt. 16:18), the guiding and ruling key bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16: 19), the special possessor of the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), the means of confirming the faith of others (Luke 22:32), and the deputy shepherd over the whole of Christ's flock (John 21:15 ff.)—(incidentally compare these affirmations with the diametrically different interpretations of Inquiry, p. 109, and elsewhere)—need to be understood more deeply, more powerfully, and with more relevance to the present day, by Protestant Christians. To ask themselves whether the Apostolic Church, united in Peter, was not meant to go on, with the Petrine office continuing along with the pastoral office of the Apostles, for the sake of the Church (so that what was once laid as a foundation would continue to function as a foundation). (P. 140)
At no time in his book published a decade before Inquiry does it ever occur to Kung to challenge papal primacy and infallibility for any reason—with not even a passing reference to the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals of which he makes so much in Inquiry (pp. 115 ff.), nor of the misuse of them (in good faith) by St. Thomas Aquinas (Inquiry, pp. 117-119) nor the dimmest suggestion that these, historically, were the basic materials from which papal infallibility was forged and uncritically passed on via Aquinas-Torquemada Cajetan-Bellamine to Vatican I. (Inquiry, p. I 19)
We may note as an aside that Kung never before in his precedent works uses the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals to the same argumentative purpose as he does in Inquiry.
There is not a word about the False Decretals to challenge papal primatial authority in The Council, Reform and Reunion published in 1961 where Kung writes of the primatus jurisdictionis as springing from the primatus fidei (Luke 22:32)(.133); "as a Catholic one can and must reply at this point that the primacy, too, is a matter of faith; that the Pope is indeed the Vicar of Christ but only, after all the Vicar of Christ" (p. 139); "What is called for on the Protestant side is . . . ask themselves whether the Apostolic Church, united in Peter, was not meant to go on, with the Petrine office continuing along with the pastoral office of the Apostles, for the sake of the Church (so that what was once laid a foundation would continue to function as a foundation); . . . something which does indeed seem to be not the mere work of men but the work of our common Lord, promised to us and protected for us by the Word of God." (Italics in the original, p. 140)
And on pp. 167-168 Kung approvingly quotes from the writing of Otto Karrer on the Petrine Office in the Early Church from which we excerpt the concluding sentences:
The Petrine office is more in the nature of a breakwater against errors than a fertile source of doctrine. It is essentially regulative; but as such, according to our belief, it is willed by Christ and providentially to such a degree that, in the light of early Christian history, none of the most important of the traditional beliefs of Christendom—the canon of Scripture, Christology, the dogmas concerning the Trinity, the validity of heretical baptism—is ultimately thinkable without it.
The False decretals are not ever mentioned in 1961. In 1964 in Structure of the Church (pp. 289-291) Kung does speak of Pseudo-Isidore as providing the "legal Principle, that every (not only the ecumenical) lawful synod requires papal convocation and direction, that their legislative and judicial acts require papal confirmation." But as we will presently note, this very statement was in fact not forged by Pseudo-Isidore, or first discovered by him. Rather, Pseudo-Isidore is citing the unfalsified, thoroughly genuine Historia ecclesiastica rule which requires that no council be celebrated without the approval of the Roman Pontiff .... (CSEL LXXI. 165) Subject to correction, we point to what appears to be an anachronism. In Structures, (p. 289, n. 4), Kung writes:
Pseudo-Isidore had already induced Pope Pelagius II to claim the right of convocation for the Roman See by suggesting the following: "Since the authority of the apostolic see to convoke a general synod was given to St. Peter as a singular privilege, no synod was ever ratified unless it was done by apostolic authority, etc." (Decretales Pseudoisidori, ed. Hinschius [Leipiz 1863] 721)
But the False Decretals of Isidore were written about 850 a.d. and Pope Pelagius sat in the cathedra Petri from 579-590.
There is vast difference in Kung's discussion of Pseudo-Isidore in Structures from his use of them in Inquiry. In Structures, Kung's discussion centers exclusively on the right of convocation of councils with no challenge to papal primacy and infallibility. But in Inquiry, Kung will argue that if the ecclesiastical practice and legislation regarding the teaching authority of the Pope is based upon "monstruous forgeries" (p. 115), then so also is theological thinking and the First Vatican Councils' dogmatic definition about this papal function. In his book, The Church, published in 1967 barely two years after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, Kung makes no mention at all of the False Isidorian Decretals, but he does, however, presage in small print the thesis on the "fundamental remaining in the truth," the "fragmentariness" and ambiguity of propositional truths (pp. 342-343) which he will espouse at greater length in Inquiry. (pp. 156-181) Even so we encounter an ambivalence in Kung's intellectual and spiritual "state of mind."
On p. 449 of The Church, Kung in small print repeats in resume what he had written in Structures, three years earlier. (pp. 206223) The central sentences are:
Since the definition of the primacy has often been misunderstood the elucidations of it emerging from the Council documents are of importance. They show that papal primacy, even in the view of Vatican I, is by no means an arbitrary absolutism, but rather that: etc.
Compare these attentive specificities with the alarums of papal absolutism in Inquiry. (pp. 103-108; and passim)
In concluding our reflections upon Kung's misuse of the False Decretals, we ask the question—what could have motivated Kung to exert himself so energetically about the Pseudo-Isidore in Inquiry when he had never done so before? What new knowledge had he now learned about these pretended documents in 1971 (Inquiry) that he had not known all along? Kung would have us think that he is playing the historical method against the dogmatic method when actually in his hands they are both casualties.
For questions of doctrine the following claims from the forgeries were of particular importance: that the holding of any council, even of provincial council, is linked with the authority of the pope and that all more important matters in the Church are subject to the pope. (Inquiry, 115-116)
Actually, the Pseudo-Isidorian statement is a wholly authentic citation from the Historia ecclesiastica tripartita (560) of Cassiadorus:
cum utique regula ecclesiastica jubeat non oportere praeter sententiam Romani pontificis concilia celebrari. (Corp script eccl l xxi, 165)
Cassiodorus' historia was a compendium of the ecclesiastical histories written by Theodoret of Cyr, Socrates, and Sozomen, as translated and condensed by the monk, Epiphanius. Socrates (b.c. 380; d.c. 450) was the first known layman in the field of ecclesiastical historiography. His own Historia ecclesiastica written between 439 and 450 and justly reputed for its objectivity, was used as a source by Cassiodorus. Writing of the absence of Pope Julius or of any papal legate at a particular synod, Socrates observes that the ecclesiastical canon requires that no ecclesiastical law may be promulgated without the concurrence of the Bishop of Rome. (M.P.G. clii. 196) It appears then that for more than four centuries before Pseudo-Isidore the primatial position of the Bishop of Rome was a fact sufficiently evident to be noted by the historian, Socrates, as a general principle applicable to particular instances.
In that same Appendix—Note 56, in which Kung refers to Congar, the author also refers to an article by Horst Fuhrmann on the Papal Primacy and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. If Kung's referral to Fuhrmann is intended to suggest the source of his data-information and the interpretation of the historic role of the Isidorian Decretals, we find that there is actually no such correspondence between the two authors. What Fuhrmann writes is the exact opposite of what Kung is trying to prove:
What success did Pseudo-Isidore actually have? Undoubtedly the forgeries of Pseudo-Isidore could have generated an impulse which would have mightily furthered the strengthening and development of papal jurisdiction. To see this, a comprehensive analysis would be necessary, which however, can be pointed out: in this case the date and the development are actually less dramatic than they are commonly represented to be. A strong acceptance of Pseudo-Isidore was not the cause, but rather the result of a development strongly centered upon Rome, and the primary influence of the forgeries must have lain completely outside the area of the rights of papal primacy. Although the forgeries of pseudo-Isidore may because of their historical and therefore often relevant character, actually have worked as a ferment, nevertheless, in their substance-and precisely because of their freedom from temporal ties—they have not penetrated very deeply anywhere, and nowhere have they become structural elements. (pp. 335f. Italics supplied)
A comparative study of Kung's understanding of the pretended Isidorian documents with the two authors to whom he refers, Congar and Fuhrmann, discloses no correspondence of knowledge and judgment. Kung's consistency of Inquiry is hardly remarkable.
(The Historical Credibility of Hans Küng, Joseph Costanzo)
Maripaz, la verdad es que usted es graciosa, usted corrigiendo!!! Hay que vivir para ver!!!
Yo creo que a estas alturas usted sabe que Küng es muy estimado por muchos en nuestro círculo y le queremos tanto que hasta le hemos corregido en historia, en dogmática, en hermenéutica en exégesis y el buen Küng ha aceptado algunas de esas correcciones.
Aquí le dejo unas correcciones que le hizo a este respecto el Padre Joseph Costanzo, desconozco si a la fecha Küng ha respondido. Lástima, pero no tengo esto en español. En todo el libro siguen abundando las correcciones a este respecto y a otros tantos.
Kung Misreads the Pseudo Isidore Decretals
A second misuse of sources is Kung's serious misreading of the Pseudo Isidore Decretals.
The monstrous forgeries of the Pseudo-Decretals of the ninth century . . . were now employed to buttress the claim of the teaching authority of the pope. (Inquiry, p. 115)
But the generality of scholars of ecclesiastical history appraise the historic significance of the Pseudo Isidore Decretals (c. 850) in another light than does Kung. These are but two examples.
All three—the Capitula Angilramni, Pseudo-Isidore, and Benedictus—attempt to give the hierocratic point of view the halo of antiquity. Many of the decrees incorporated in them contain absolutely nothing new; what the forgers did was to clothe a particular hierocratic and already virtually accepted tenet in the garb of an ancient decree. Others were of an indubitably genuine provenance—contain certain hierocratic tenets for which no warrant could be found in previous genuine documents. It is this last group which merits a few words.
Collections of this kind, as are the three products under discussion, imply the possibility that their authors had a fair chance of their works being accepted by contemporaries. To undertake all this labor of collecting and inventing documents, if there were little prospect of acceptance, would be hardly more than an exercise in mental gymnastics. To judge by the numerous manuscripts of these forgeries still extant, the assumption is not unwarranted that their authors sensed the climate of the time correctly. By forging documents they clothed the one or the other hierocratic idea in the language of a decree issued by a second—or third century pope. What the forgers did not invent was ideology: what they did forge was the decree which was to "prove" this ideology. The atmosphere of the time pervaded as it was with hierocratic ideas, together with the character of these products as useful reference works, account largely for the immediate influence which they exercised. Lastly, these great forgeries symbolize, so to speak, the coalescence of Rome and Rheims. Precisely because they had originated quite independently of the papacy, these products of the Frankish intelligentsia were to become the natural allies of the papacy. (Walter Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages, 1953, p. 178)
As we have said before, these forgeries do not excel in inventing new ideas; what they did was to give certain fundamental theses, already largely accepted, a historical twist and foundation. (ibid. 188)
The author (of the False Decretals) wished to establish by detailed and unequivocal evidence the rights of the local episcopate to appeal directly to Rome against their metropolitans, and to safeguard the independence of the Church against the secular power. But great as was their importance for the subsequent development of canon law and for the progress of ecclesiastical centralisation in the Middle Ages, it is impossible to regard them as directly responsible for the increased prestige of the Papacy in Western Europe in the ninth century. They were a result rather than a cause of that development, which had its roots in the conditions that we have just described (Christopher Dawson, The Making of Europe, 1956, p. 223)
The Isidorian Collection is a hotch-potch of authentic documents marred by interpolations of a topical nature, of manipulated passages from Greek or Latin ecclesiastical writers, reduced to the form of canons and decretals and attributed to popes, of earlier collections of dubious origin, and of pieces entirely invented. It is certain that the compilation was neither directly nor indirectly influenced by the Papacy. The overriding motive of the Frankish authors was to challenge the dominion of the metropolitan bishops over the suffragan bishops, of strengthening the central authority of the Holy See and of ending the abusive interference of laymen with the clergy. This motive drove them to insert non-existent phrases and passages into genuine documents, to create false ones and to make use of them if they had already been created. However, this may be, the Pseudo-Isidoriana mirrors the situation that had come into being in the Carolingean Empire and in the Frankish Church, and is an attempt at a reaction, which joined forces with that already active in both Rome and the provinces, growing steadily as under Charlemagne's heirs the Empire fell to pieces. The pretended documents were the result not the cause of an ecclesiological development strongly centered in Rome, and its provinces. The Roman claims of those times were never based on the inauthentic Isidoriana; rather these were based on the Roman claims. In his summary treatment of Pseudo-Isidoriana, Kung twice refers to L'Ecclesiologie du Haut Moyen-Age. De Saint Gregoire le Grand a la Desunion entre Byzance et by Y. M.—J. Congar, O. P. (du Cerf. 1968), Appendix Notes 56, 57. Having used the data-information of Congar, Hans Kung might have also have incorporated in Inquiry Congar's appraisal of the historic role of the False Decretals.
Cependant, l'utilisation formelle des FD par la Curie romaine sous Nicolas Ier et Hadrien II se reduit a peu de chose et n'a pas fonde alors un droit veritablement nouveau. n. 22. Cette conclusion est communement recue, meme par Hartmann, Der Primat. (p. 23 1 )
Le Pseudo Isidore n'a nullement cree la conviction de la primaute papale; il n'a pas ete sans influencer l'ecclesiologie dans le sens de la Monarchie pontificale, elle—meme traduite dans un regime concret de centralisation romaine (p. 232)
From the Pseudo-Isidorian collection, the false decretals, together with numerous perfectly genuine texts were transmitted into many of the most important later collections, until the mid-twelfth century, and thus played a vital part in sustaining the doctrines of clerical and papal superiority, which received an ever more confident expression. The dubious character of these documents did not pass unnoted, and the beginnings of a critical attitude towards them appear as early as the twelfth century, in Peter Comestor, Godfrey of Viterbo and Stephen of Tournai. In the 14th and 15th centuries they were attacked by Wyclif and Nicholas of Cusa. But the falsification was proved by textual criticism in the 16th century, when first Protestants and then Febronians used it as a weapon against the Papacy, as though it constituted the title-deeds of papal authority. But it is certain that the compilation was neither directly nor indirectly influenced by the Papacy. Kung never raises the question whether any of the pretended Isidorian Decretals are correspondent to actual ecclesiastical practices and claims.
On April 19, 1961, Hans Kung received the ecclesiastical Imprimi Potest for the publication of his The Council, Reform and Reunion, scarcely four months after Pope John XXIII first announced on January 25, 1959, his intention to summon an Ecumenical Council. In this work, the Tubingen theologian discoursed on the Petrine office (13242, 167, 171, 174, 185), papal primacy (84, 87, 133, 13840, 161, 166, 193-201), and papal infallibility. (84, 87, 149, 161, 189, 194, 195, 197, 204)
He did not call these matters into question. For example:
True as Catholics one can and must reply at this point that the primacy, is a matter of faith; that the Pope is indeed the Vicar of Christ but only, after all, the Vicar of Christ. (p. 139)
What is called for on the Protestant side is to consider whether the words of Scripture about the abiding rock (Matt. 16:18), the guiding and ruling key bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16: 19), the special possessor of the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), the means of confirming the faith of others (Luke 22:32), and the deputy shepherd over the whole of Christ's flock (John 21:15 ff.)—(incidentally compare these affirmations with the diametrically different interpretations of Inquiry, p. 109, and elsewhere)—need to be understood more deeply, more powerfully, and with more relevance to the present day, by Protestant Christians. To ask themselves whether the Apostolic Church, united in Peter, was not meant to go on, with the Petrine office continuing along with the pastoral office of the Apostles, for the sake of the Church (so that what was once laid as a foundation would continue to function as a foundation). (P. 140)
At no time in his book published a decade before Inquiry does it ever occur to Kung to challenge papal primacy and infallibility for any reason—with not even a passing reference to the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals of which he makes so much in Inquiry (pp. 115 ff.), nor of the misuse of them (in good faith) by St. Thomas Aquinas (Inquiry, pp. 117-119) nor the dimmest suggestion that these, historically, were the basic materials from which papal infallibility was forged and uncritically passed on via Aquinas-Torquemada Cajetan-Bellamine to Vatican I. (Inquiry, p. I 19)
We may note as an aside that Kung never before in his precedent works uses the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals to the same argumentative purpose as he does in Inquiry.
There is not a word about the False Decretals to challenge papal primatial authority in The Council, Reform and Reunion published in 1961 where Kung writes of the primatus jurisdictionis as springing from the primatus fidei (Luke 22:32)(.133); "as a Catholic one can and must reply at this point that the primacy, too, is a matter of faith; that the Pope is indeed the Vicar of Christ but only, after all the Vicar of Christ" (p. 139); "What is called for on the Protestant side is . . . ask themselves whether the Apostolic Church, united in Peter, was not meant to go on, with the Petrine office continuing along with the pastoral office of the Apostles, for the sake of the Church (so that what was once laid a foundation would continue to function as a foundation); . . . something which does indeed seem to be not the mere work of men but the work of our common Lord, promised to us and protected for us by the Word of God." (Italics in the original, p. 140)
And on pp. 167-168 Kung approvingly quotes from the writing of Otto Karrer on the Petrine Office in the Early Church from which we excerpt the concluding sentences:
The Petrine office is more in the nature of a breakwater against errors than a fertile source of doctrine. It is essentially regulative; but as such, according to our belief, it is willed by Christ and providentially to such a degree that, in the light of early Christian history, none of the most important of the traditional beliefs of Christendom—the canon of Scripture, Christology, the dogmas concerning the Trinity, the validity of heretical baptism—is ultimately thinkable without it.
The False decretals are not ever mentioned in 1961. In 1964 in Structure of the Church (pp. 289-291) Kung does speak of Pseudo-Isidore as providing the "legal Principle, that every (not only the ecumenical) lawful synod requires papal convocation and direction, that their legislative and judicial acts require papal confirmation." But as we will presently note, this very statement was in fact not forged by Pseudo-Isidore, or first discovered by him. Rather, Pseudo-Isidore is citing the unfalsified, thoroughly genuine Historia ecclesiastica rule which requires that no council be celebrated without the approval of the Roman Pontiff .... (CSEL LXXI. 165) Subject to correction, we point to what appears to be an anachronism. In Structures, (p. 289, n. 4), Kung writes:
Pseudo-Isidore had already induced Pope Pelagius II to claim the right of convocation for the Roman See by suggesting the following: "Since the authority of the apostolic see to convoke a general synod was given to St. Peter as a singular privilege, no synod was ever ratified unless it was done by apostolic authority, etc." (Decretales Pseudoisidori, ed. Hinschius [Leipiz 1863] 721)
But the False Decretals of Isidore were written about 850 a.d. and Pope Pelagius sat in the cathedra Petri from 579-590.
There is vast difference in Kung's discussion of Pseudo-Isidore in Structures from his use of them in Inquiry. In Structures, Kung's discussion centers exclusively on the right of convocation of councils with no challenge to papal primacy and infallibility. But in Inquiry, Kung will argue that if the ecclesiastical practice and legislation regarding the teaching authority of the Pope is based upon "monstruous forgeries" (p. 115), then so also is theological thinking and the First Vatican Councils' dogmatic definition about this papal function. In his book, The Church, published in 1967 barely two years after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, Kung makes no mention at all of the False Isidorian Decretals, but he does, however, presage in small print the thesis on the "fundamental remaining in the truth," the "fragmentariness" and ambiguity of propositional truths (pp. 342-343) which he will espouse at greater length in Inquiry. (pp. 156-181) Even so we encounter an ambivalence in Kung's intellectual and spiritual "state of mind."
On p. 449 of The Church, Kung in small print repeats in resume what he had written in Structures, three years earlier. (pp. 206223) The central sentences are:
Since the definition of the primacy has often been misunderstood the elucidations of it emerging from the Council documents are of importance. They show that papal primacy, even in the view of Vatican I, is by no means an arbitrary absolutism, but rather that: etc.
Compare these attentive specificities with the alarums of papal absolutism in Inquiry. (pp. 103-108; and passim)
In concluding our reflections upon Kung's misuse of the False Decretals, we ask the question—what could have motivated Kung to exert himself so energetically about the Pseudo-Isidore in Inquiry when he had never done so before? What new knowledge had he now learned about these pretended documents in 1971 (Inquiry) that he had not known all along? Kung would have us think that he is playing the historical method against the dogmatic method when actually in his hands they are both casualties.
For questions of doctrine the following claims from the forgeries were of particular importance: that the holding of any council, even of provincial council, is linked with the authority of the pope and that all more important matters in the Church are subject to the pope. (Inquiry, 115-116)
Actually, the Pseudo-Isidorian statement is a wholly authentic citation from the Historia ecclesiastica tripartita (560) of Cassiadorus:
cum utique regula ecclesiastica jubeat non oportere praeter sententiam Romani pontificis concilia celebrari. (Corp script eccl l xxi, 165)
Cassiodorus' historia was a compendium of the ecclesiastical histories written by Theodoret of Cyr, Socrates, and Sozomen, as translated and condensed by the monk, Epiphanius. Socrates (b.c. 380; d.c. 450) was the first known layman in the field of ecclesiastical historiography. His own Historia ecclesiastica written between 439 and 450 and justly reputed for its objectivity, was used as a source by Cassiodorus. Writing of the absence of Pope Julius or of any papal legate at a particular synod, Socrates observes that the ecclesiastical canon requires that no ecclesiastical law may be promulgated without the concurrence of the Bishop of Rome. (M.P.G. clii. 196) It appears then that for more than four centuries before Pseudo-Isidore the primatial position of the Bishop of Rome was a fact sufficiently evident to be noted by the historian, Socrates, as a general principle applicable to particular instances.
In that same Appendix—Note 56, in which Kung refers to Congar, the author also refers to an article by Horst Fuhrmann on the Papal Primacy and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. If Kung's referral to Fuhrmann is intended to suggest the source of his data-information and the interpretation of the historic role of the Isidorian Decretals, we find that there is actually no such correspondence between the two authors. What Fuhrmann writes is the exact opposite of what Kung is trying to prove:
What success did Pseudo-Isidore actually have? Undoubtedly the forgeries of Pseudo-Isidore could have generated an impulse which would have mightily furthered the strengthening and development of papal jurisdiction. To see this, a comprehensive analysis would be necessary, which however, can be pointed out: in this case the date and the development are actually less dramatic than they are commonly represented to be. A strong acceptance of Pseudo-Isidore was not the cause, but rather the result of a development strongly centered upon Rome, and the primary influence of the forgeries must have lain completely outside the area of the rights of papal primacy. Although the forgeries of pseudo-Isidore may because of their historical and therefore often relevant character, actually have worked as a ferment, nevertheless, in their substance-and precisely because of their freedom from temporal ties—they have not penetrated very deeply anywhere, and nowhere have they become structural elements. (pp. 335f. Italics supplied)
A comparative study of Kung's understanding of the pretended Isidorian documents with the two authors to whom he refers, Congar and Fuhrmann, discloses no correspondence of knowledge and judgment. Kung's consistency of Inquiry is hardly remarkable.
(The Historical Credibility of Hans Küng, Joseph Costanzo)
Dios te bendiga Maripaz.
También le dejo algo del mismo Küng, para completar.
At a very early stage, I became acquainted also with Rome and the papacy, and-despite all calumnies-I do not cherish any “anti-Roman feeling.” How often am I to continue saying and writing that I am not against the papacy nor am I against the present Pope, but that I have always contended inside and outside the Church for a Petrine ministry-purged however of absolutist features-on biblical foundations! I have continually spoken out for a genuine pastoral primacy in the sense of spiritual responsibility, internal leadership and active concern for the welfare of the Church as a whole: a primacy which might then become a universally respected authority for mediation and conciliation in the whole ecumenical world.
Once again, I have nothing against Rome. I mean that, precisely because I wanted to be a Catholic theologian, I could not tie my Catholic faith and Catholic theology simply to the ingrown Roman absolutist claims from the Middle Ages and later times. Certainly, there must be development in doctrine and practice, but only an evolutio secundum evangelium, or “a development in accordance with the Gospel.” An evolutio praeter evangelium, or “a development apart from the Gospel,” may be tolerated. But an evolutio contra evangelium, “a development contrary to the Gospel,” must be resisted. Applied to the papacy, this means that I have always acknowledged and defended the pastoral primacy of the Bishops of Rome linked to Peter and the great Roman tradition as an element in Catholic tradition that is supported by the Gospel.
(Hans Küng, "Why I Remain a Catholic", The Church Maintained in Truth)
También le dejo algo del mismo Küng, para completar.
At a very early stage, I became acquainted also with Rome and the papacy, and-despite all calumnies-I do not cherish any “anti-Roman feeling.” How often am I to continue saying and writing that I am not against the papacy nor am I against the present Pope, but that I have always contended inside and outside the Church for a Petrine ministry-purged however of absolutist features-on biblical foundations! I have continually spoken out for a genuine pastoral primacy in the sense of spiritual responsibility, internal leadership and active concern for the welfare of the Church as a whole: a primacy which might then become a universally respected authority for mediation and conciliation in the whole ecumenical world.
Once again, I have nothing against Rome. I mean that, precisely because I wanted to be a Catholic theologian, I could not tie my Catholic faith and Catholic theology simply to the ingrown Roman absolutist claims from the Middle Ages and later times. Certainly, there must be development in doctrine and practice, but only an evolutio secundum evangelium, or “a development in accordance with the Gospel.” An evolutio praeter evangelium, or “a development apart from the Gospel,” may be tolerated. But an evolutio contra evangelium, “a development contrary to the Gospel,” must be resisted. Applied to the papacy, this means that I have always acknowledged and defended the pastoral primacy of the Bishops of Rome linked to Peter and the great Roman tradition as an element in Catholic tradition that is supported by the Gospel.
(Hans Küng, "Why I Remain a Catholic", The Church Maintained in Truth)
Dios te bendiga Maripaz.
Se equivoca usted, el resumen de Küng es que la primacía del obispo de Roma ciertamente es evangélica e histórica, con lo que Küng está en desacuerdo es con el absolutismo, legalismo y centralismo que él percibe en Roma; algo que aunque es histórico y él lo reconoce, no considera auténtico, ni primitivo, ni evangélico. Algo con lo que, cuando se presenta, tampoco estamos de acuerdo ni el Papa, ni Ratzinger ni yo (Indigno de ser mencionado entre estas dos figuras. Gabaon hace la genuflexión y besa la mano del Santo Padre Juan Pablo II y luego le da un fuerte abrazo a Ratzinguer)
No se enfade Maripaz, espere verme inclinar la cabeza ante una imagen del Papa.
En el Amor de Jesús.
Gabaon.
Se equivoca usted, el resumen de Küng es que la primacía del obispo de Roma ciertamente es evangélica e histórica, con lo que Küng está en desacuerdo es con el absolutismo, legalismo y centralismo que él percibe en Roma; algo que aunque es histórico y él lo reconoce, no considera auténtico, ni primitivo, ni evangélico. Algo con lo que, cuando se presenta, tampoco estamos de acuerdo ni el Papa, ni Ratzinger ni yo (Indigno de ser mencionado entre estas dos figuras. Gabaon hace la genuflexión y besa la mano del Santo Padre Juan Pablo II y luego le da un fuerte abrazo a Ratzinguer)
No se enfade Maripaz, espere verme inclinar la cabeza ante una imagen del Papa.
En el Amor de Jesús.
Gabaon.
Extraído integramente de “El cristianismo, esencia e historia” de Hans Küng, Ed. Trotta. Pag. 323
ROMA SE APLICA A SI MISMA LA NEOTESTAMENTARIA PROMESA A PEDRO
Es Dámaso (366-384) el que utiliza por primera vez Mateo 16,18 para fundamentar las pretensiones romanas de poder y, al mismo tiempo, las interpreta de forma jurídica. El trasfondo: en su tumultuosa elección contra Ursino, 137 personas perdieron la vida en la Iglesia. Él debe su entronización al prefecto de la ciudad de Roma, y es acusado bajo un nuevo prefecto de la ciudad de instigar al asesinato; sólo la intervención de amigos ricos ante el emperador le salva de ser condenado. Este obispo romano hambriento de poder, anfitrión principesco y llamado “adulador de los oidos de las damas”, tiene todos los motivos para fortalecer su débil autoridad política y moral, mediante una novedosa acentuación de la dignidad de su cargo como sucesor de Pedro. Al referirse a la Iglesia romana, él utiliza siempre, y sólo, la expresión “Sede apostólica”(sedes apostolica) y esgrime con ello para la iglesia romana la pretensión de un rango superior al de las restantes iglesias, basada en una posición de monopolio de la Iglesia de Roma supuestamente dada por Dios a través de Pedro y Pablo. Por eso, no es de extrañar que Dámaso hiciese ornamentar las tumbas e iglesias de Pedro y Pablo así como las de los obispos y mártires romanos y adornarlas con bellas y encomiásticas inscripciones latinas. Todo ello para poner en claro que la verdadera Roma es ahora la Roma cristiana. Y en esa política se inserta también el encargo dado a Jerónimo, erudito del norte de Italia, para que haga una versión latina de la Biblia, moderna y fácilmente inteligible(en vez de la viejo-latina “Itala” o “Vetus Latina”). Ella traduce con toda naturalidad muchas expresiones, sobre todo veterotestamentarias, mediante otras del derecho romano, y se convierte más tarde en la “Vulgata”, normativa tanto en lo eclesiástico-teológico como en lo litúrgico-jurídico. ¿Cuál es la aportación de Dámaso, que, como todos los demás obispos romanos del siglo IV, trata de atraerse la simpatía de la alta sociedad romana que añora la gran Roma pagana?. Tal vez pueda ser su aportación, como dice con sensatez Henry Chadwick, “que él fusiona el orgullo imperial y civil veterorromano con el cristianismo”. Quien quiera escribir una historia de la mentalidad de la Curia romana debería empezar por ahí.
ROMA SE APLICA A SI MISMA LA NEOTESTAMENTARIA PROMESA A PEDRO
Es Dámaso (366-384) el que utiliza por primera vez Mateo 16,18 para fundamentar las pretensiones romanas de poder y, al mismo tiempo, las interpreta de forma jurídica. El trasfondo: en su tumultuosa elección contra Ursino, 137 personas perdieron la vida en la Iglesia. Él debe su entronización al prefecto de la ciudad de Roma, y es acusado bajo un nuevo prefecto de la ciudad de instigar al asesinato; sólo la intervención de amigos ricos ante el emperador le salva de ser condenado. Este obispo romano hambriento de poder, anfitrión principesco y llamado “adulador de los oidos de las damas”, tiene todos los motivos para fortalecer su débil autoridad política y moral, mediante una novedosa acentuación de la dignidad de su cargo como sucesor de Pedro. Al referirse a la Iglesia romana, él utiliza siempre, y sólo, la expresión “Sede apostólica”(sedes apostolica) y esgrime con ello para la iglesia romana la pretensión de un rango superior al de las restantes iglesias, basada en una posición de monopolio de la Iglesia de Roma supuestamente dada por Dios a través de Pedro y Pablo. Por eso, no es de extrañar que Dámaso hiciese ornamentar las tumbas e iglesias de Pedro y Pablo así como las de los obispos y mártires romanos y adornarlas con bellas y encomiásticas inscripciones latinas. Todo ello para poner en claro que la verdadera Roma es ahora la Roma cristiana. Y en esa política se inserta también el encargo dado a Jerónimo, erudito del norte de Italia, para que haga una versión latina de la Biblia, moderna y fácilmente inteligible(en vez de la viejo-latina “Itala” o “Vetus Latina”). Ella traduce con toda naturalidad muchas expresiones, sobre todo veterotestamentarias, mediante otras del derecho romano, y se convierte más tarde en la “Vulgata”, normativa tanto en lo eclesiástico-teológico como en lo litúrgico-jurídico. ¿Cuál es la aportación de Dámaso, que, como todos los demás obispos romanos del siglo IV, trata de atraerse la simpatía de la alta sociedad romana que añora la gran Roma pagana?. Tal vez pueda ser su aportación, como dice con sensatez Henry Chadwick, “que él fusiona el orgullo imperial y civil veterorromano con el cristianismo”. Quien quiera escribir una historia de la mentalidad de la Curia romana debería empezar por ahí.
Una gran falsificación a favor de Roma (Del libro “El cristianismo, esencia e historia” H.Küng)
Cuando no habían pasado aún cien años desde la fundamentación del Estado eclesiástico fue el papa Nicolás I (858-867) el que, favorecido por el desmoronamiento de los carolingios, en plena conciencia del cargo petrino, osó por primera vez poner bajo anatema (exclusión de la Iglesia) la desobediencia de una decisión doctrinal o papal. Porque para este papa, el papado constituye la base querida por Dios para el orden social y estatal. Así, quiere traducir a la práctica la teoría petrina. Así, pretende acosar a la hasta entonces habitual autoadministración de las Iglesias regionales a favor de una administración central romana. Muy consciente de su plenitud de poder dada supuestamente por Cristo, trata a obispos, arzobispos y patriarcas, así como a reyes y a emperadores, como si fueran sus receptores de órdenes, y ante un difícil asunto matrimonial amenaza de forma inesperada al rey franco con la excomunión y depone a los poderosos arzobispos de Colonia y Tréveris, que apoyan al rey.
Concuerda con esto el hecho de que Nicolás fue el primer papa que –tal vez de buena fe- hizo suyas no sólo la “Donación constantiniana”, sino falsificaciones aún más monstruosas. Cierto que en el siglo IX no tuvieron aún gran efecto político y eclesiástico para el imperio, pero en el siglo XI alcanzarían plena vigencia. Hablamos de las Decretales pseudoisidorianas, una colección de cánones que fueron atribuídas a un tal Isidoro Mercator, por lo demás desconocido. En la edición difundida comprenden más de 700 páginas de letra apretada, y contienen decretales pontificias, decisiones sinodales y leyes imperiales francas incluída la “Donación constantiniana”. Comienzan con la falsificada carta de Clemente de Roma, ahora más ampliada, a Santiago, hermano del Señor.
¿Cuál es la realidad histórica?. Se editan aquí 115 textos como documentos de obispos romanos de los primeros siglos, a pesar de que la mayoría de ellos habían sido fabricados poco antes de su publicación en Francia. Hay además 125 documentos auténticos con interpolaciones y cambios posteriores. Tal vez estas toscas falsificaciones (se supone como nacimiento la ciudad de Reims, corazón del territorio imperial franco) fueron confeccionadas por todo un grupo de falsificadores muy versados, posiblemente clérigos:
¿Su objetivo principal? Fortalecer la posición de los obispos frente a los poderosos arzobispos y a los sínodos provinciales, así como también frente al rey y a los grandes seglares. Se manifiesta aquí por primera vez aquel episcopalismo franco que jugará un gran papel a lo largo de toda la Edad Media.
¿Su argumento principal? La Iglesia antigua fue regida, supuestamente, hasta en los detalles más nimios mediante decretos de los papas.
¿Sus principales beneficiarios? En realidad, no los obispos, sino el papado, que cuando se redactaron las falsificaciones era débil y no era aún de temer como adversario delepiscopalismo. Porque lo que para los falsificadores era medio para el fin-la exaltación delpoder del papa, definido como “caput totius orbis”(cabeza de todo el orbe)- se convierte para el papado más tarde en el fín que santifica muchos medios.
¿Sus estrategias? El derecho de celebrar y confirmar sínodos, ejercido hasta ahora sólo por los reyes francos, es atribuído sólo al papa; obispos acusados pueden apelar al papa; en general, todos los “asuntos graves”(causae maiores) están reservados al papa para la decisión definitiva; las leyes del estado que colisionan con los cánones y decretos del papa son nulas............................................................................
¿Historización de las falsificaciones?
Como teólogo cristiano de hoy, uno ve con sentimientos encontrados los intentos de “historizar” aquellas grandes falsificaciones, sobre todo, cuando en ese empeño, historiadores de rango sacan todos los registros apologéticos para disculpar esas falsificaciones y bagatelizarlas mediante una hermeneútica del sentirse de acuerdo...................................................................................
Pero que es lo realmente funesto de estas falsificaciones? Que ellas repercuten hasta hoy en la autocomprensión de la Iglesia. F.X. Seppelt, historiador católico de los papas, observó ya en 1955 acerca de la repercusión de las Decretales pseudoisidorianas: “la negación de la idea de desarrollo tuvo una influencia muy negativa en la vida constitucional eclesiástica”, como se expresa en “la datación de documentos en un tiempo muy anterior al real y en que un grupo eclesiástico del siglo IX haga remontar sus ideas y exigencias al tiempo posapostólico”.
De hecho, las decisivas repercusiones para la autocomprensión de la Iglesia son las siguientes: estas falsificaciones nacidas a mediados del siglo IX
-confieren a las pretensiones pontificias del poder nacidas en el siglo V el aura de lo muy antiguo y el nimbo de lo querido por Dios;
-suministran a esas pretensiones de poder una fundamentación jurídica y teológica en los tres primeros siglos cristianos que les faltaba hasta entonces......................................
Es innegable que aquella desmesurada pretensión de poder del papado, que tendría como consecuencia el cisma de la Iglesia con oriente y la protesta de los reformadores en Occidente, se impuso de forma esencial en los siglos XI y XII con la ayuda de esas falsificaciones. Y si se tiene presente que hasta nuestros días el poder de Roma sobre toda la Iglesia Católica, sobre iglesias locales, regionales, nacionales, sobre obispos, clero y cada uno de los fieles, incluso sobre los concilios ecuménicos, fue fundamentado jurídicamente, sin mucho escrúpulo, con la ayuda de estas decretales falsificadas, entonces este debate pierde su inocuidad. Se puede seguir el curso de sus efectos, aunque hoy envueltos con cuidado, hasta el Código de Derecho Canónico revisado bajo la dirección de la Curia y promulgado de nuevo en 1983. Porque el sistema de poder curial lo han mostrado todas nuestras consideraciones precedentes- no puede apoyarse en el Nuevo Testamento ni en la tradición católica antigua. Se basa en continuas arrogaciones de poder a lo largo de los siglos y en falsificaciones que las legitimizan a posteriori.
(Pags. 377-379)
Cuando no habían pasado aún cien años desde la fundamentación del Estado eclesiástico fue el papa Nicolás I (858-867) el que, favorecido por el desmoronamiento de los carolingios, en plena conciencia del cargo petrino, osó por primera vez poner bajo anatema (exclusión de la Iglesia) la desobediencia de una decisión doctrinal o papal. Porque para este papa, el papado constituye la base querida por Dios para el orden social y estatal. Así, quiere traducir a la práctica la teoría petrina. Así, pretende acosar a la hasta entonces habitual autoadministración de las Iglesias regionales a favor de una administración central romana. Muy consciente de su plenitud de poder dada supuestamente por Cristo, trata a obispos, arzobispos y patriarcas, así como a reyes y a emperadores, como si fueran sus receptores de órdenes, y ante un difícil asunto matrimonial amenaza de forma inesperada al rey franco con la excomunión y depone a los poderosos arzobispos de Colonia y Tréveris, que apoyan al rey.
Concuerda con esto el hecho de que Nicolás fue el primer papa que –tal vez de buena fe- hizo suyas no sólo la “Donación constantiniana”, sino falsificaciones aún más monstruosas. Cierto que en el siglo IX no tuvieron aún gran efecto político y eclesiástico para el imperio, pero en el siglo XI alcanzarían plena vigencia. Hablamos de las Decretales pseudoisidorianas, una colección de cánones que fueron atribuídas a un tal Isidoro Mercator, por lo demás desconocido. En la edición difundida comprenden más de 700 páginas de letra apretada, y contienen decretales pontificias, decisiones sinodales y leyes imperiales francas incluída la “Donación constantiniana”. Comienzan con la falsificada carta de Clemente de Roma, ahora más ampliada, a Santiago, hermano del Señor.
¿Cuál es la realidad histórica?. Se editan aquí 115 textos como documentos de obispos romanos de los primeros siglos, a pesar de que la mayoría de ellos habían sido fabricados poco antes de su publicación en Francia. Hay además 125 documentos auténticos con interpolaciones y cambios posteriores. Tal vez estas toscas falsificaciones (se supone como nacimiento la ciudad de Reims, corazón del territorio imperial franco) fueron confeccionadas por todo un grupo de falsificadores muy versados, posiblemente clérigos:
¿Su objetivo principal? Fortalecer la posición de los obispos frente a los poderosos arzobispos y a los sínodos provinciales, así como también frente al rey y a los grandes seglares. Se manifiesta aquí por primera vez aquel episcopalismo franco que jugará un gran papel a lo largo de toda la Edad Media.
¿Su argumento principal? La Iglesia antigua fue regida, supuestamente, hasta en los detalles más nimios mediante decretos de los papas.
¿Sus principales beneficiarios? En realidad, no los obispos, sino el papado, que cuando se redactaron las falsificaciones era débil y no era aún de temer como adversario delepiscopalismo. Porque lo que para los falsificadores era medio para el fin-la exaltación delpoder del papa, definido como “caput totius orbis”(cabeza de todo el orbe)- se convierte para el papado más tarde en el fín que santifica muchos medios.
¿Sus estrategias? El derecho de celebrar y confirmar sínodos, ejercido hasta ahora sólo por los reyes francos, es atribuído sólo al papa; obispos acusados pueden apelar al papa; en general, todos los “asuntos graves”(causae maiores) están reservados al papa para la decisión definitiva; las leyes del estado que colisionan con los cánones y decretos del papa son nulas............................................................................
¿Historización de las falsificaciones?
Como teólogo cristiano de hoy, uno ve con sentimientos encontrados los intentos de “historizar” aquellas grandes falsificaciones, sobre todo, cuando en ese empeño, historiadores de rango sacan todos los registros apologéticos para disculpar esas falsificaciones y bagatelizarlas mediante una hermeneútica del sentirse de acuerdo...................................................................................
Pero que es lo realmente funesto de estas falsificaciones? Que ellas repercuten hasta hoy en la autocomprensión de la Iglesia. F.X. Seppelt, historiador católico de los papas, observó ya en 1955 acerca de la repercusión de las Decretales pseudoisidorianas: “la negación de la idea de desarrollo tuvo una influencia muy negativa en la vida constitucional eclesiástica”, como se expresa en “la datación de documentos en un tiempo muy anterior al real y en que un grupo eclesiástico del siglo IX haga remontar sus ideas y exigencias al tiempo posapostólico”.
De hecho, las decisivas repercusiones para la autocomprensión de la Iglesia son las siguientes: estas falsificaciones nacidas a mediados del siglo IX
-confieren a las pretensiones pontificias del poder nacidas en el siglo V el aura de lo muy antiguo y el nimbo de lo querido por Dios;
-suministran a esas pretensiones de poder una fundamentación jurídica y teológica en los tres primeros siglos cristianos que les faltaba hasta entonces......................................
Es innegable que aquella desmesurada pretensión de poder del papado, que tendría como consecuencia el cisma de la Iglesia con oriente y la protesta de los reformadores en Occidente, se impuso de forma esencial en los siglos XI y XII con la ayuda de esas falsificaciones. Y si se tiene presente que hasta nuestros días el poder de Roma sobre toda la Iglesia Católica, sobre iglesias locales, regionales, nacionales, sobre obispos, clero y cada uno de los fieles, incluso sobre los concilios ecuménicos, fue fundamentado jurídicamente, sin mucho escrúpulo, con la ayuda de estas decretales falsificadas, entonces este debate pierde su inocuidad. Se puede seguir el curso de sus efectos, aunque hoy envueltos con cuidado, hasta el Código de Derecho Canónico revisado bajo la dirección de la Curia y promulgado de nuevo en 1983. Porque el sistema de poder curial lo han mostrado todas nuestras consideraciones precedentes- no puede apoyarse en el Nuevo Testamento ni en la tradición católica antigua. Se basa en continuas arrogaciones de poder a lo largo de los siglos y en falsificaciones que las legitimizan a posteriori.
(Pags. 377-379)
Dios te bendiga Maripaz.
Depués me anda preguntando que por qué ignoro sus comentarios. ¿A usted no le parece grosero e imprudente volver a copiar un escrito que hace apenas unos cuantos mensajes atrás ya usted había puesto?
Como por lo visto usted no lee nada, se lo digo en español y breve. Ya le copié una corrección histórica de como Küng mal-interpreta las falsas decretales.
Y respecto a Küng, le copio dos frases de los extractos que usted pone que parece tampoco ha leido:
"Es Dámaso (366-384) el que utiliza por primera vez Mateo 16,18 para fundamentar las pretensiones romanas de poder y, al mismo tiempo, las interpreta de forma jurídica"
"Porque para este papa, el papado constituye la base querida por Dios para el orden social y estatal. Así, quiere traducir a la práctica la teoría petrina. Así, pretende acosar a la hasta entonces habitual autoadministración de las Iglesias regionales a favor de una administración central romana."
Ya yo le había dicho: el resumen de Küng es que la primacía del obispo de Roma ciertamente es evangélica e histórica, con lo que Küng está en desacuerdo es con el absolutismo, legalismo y centralismo que él percibe en Roma.
Le he puesto al mismo Küng a hablar, I have always acknowledged and defended the pastoral primacy of the Bishops of Rome linked to Peter and the great Roman tradition as an element in Catholic tradition that is supported by the Gospel.
"Siempre he reconocido y defendido la primacía pastoral de los obispos de Roma vinculada a Pedro y a la gran tradición Romana como un elemento en la tradición católico que es soportado por El Evangelio."
Esto lo publicó en 1980, después de su primer "Inquiry" a la infalibilidad papal y ha autorizado el reprint del mismo en sus libros siguientes. Su visión se ha radicalizado, pero sigue reconociendo la primacía del papado en estos términos evangélicos, morales y de mediación.
Ya se lo he dicho muchas otras veces, pero por favor, valore mi tiempo.
En el Amor de Jesús.
Gabaon.
Depués me anda preguntando que por qué ignoro sus comentarios. ¿A usted no le parece grosero e imprudente volver a copiar un escrito que hace apenas unos cuantos mensajes atrás ya usted había puesto?
Como por lo visto usted no lee nada, se lo digo en español y breve. Ya le copié una corrección histórica de como Küng mal-interpreta las falsas decretales.
Y respecto a Küng, le copio dos frases de los extractos que usted pone que parece tampoco ha leido:
"Es Dámaso (366-384) el que utiliza por primera vez Mateo 16,18 para fundamentar las pretensiones romanas de poder y, al mismo tiempo, las interpreta de forma jurídica"
"Porque para este papa, el papado constituye la base querida por Dios para el orden social y estatal. Así, quiere traducir a la práctica la teoría petrina. Así, pretende acosar a la hasta entonces habitual autoadministración de las Iglesias regionales a favor de una administración central romana."
Ya yo le había dicho: el resumen de Küng es que la primacía del obispo de Roma ciertamente es evangélica e histórica, con lo que Küng está en desacuerdo es con el absolutismo, legalismo y centralismo que él percibe en Roma.
Le he puesto al mismo Küng a hablar, I have always acknowledged and defended the pastoral primacy of the Bishops of Rome linked to Peter and the great Roman tradition as an element in Catholic tradition that is supported by the Gospel.
"Siempre he reconocido y defendido la primacía pastoral de los obispos de Roma vinculada a Pedro y a la gran tradición Romana como un elemento en la tradición católico que es soportado por El Evangelio."
Esto lo publicó en 1980, después de su primer "Inquiry" a la infalibilidad papal y ha autorizado el reprint del mismo en sus libros siguientes. Su visión se ha radicalizado, pero sigue reconociendo la primacía del papado en estos términos evangélicos, morales y de mediación.
Ya se lo he dicho muchas otras veces, pero por favor, valore mi tiempo.
En el Amor de Jesús.
Gabaon.
Si es Dámaso en el siglo IV el que utiliza por primera vez Mateo 16,18 para fundamentar las pretensiones romanas de poder y, al mismo tiempo, las interpreta de forma jurídica....nada que ver con el invento de que la iglesia romanista viene desde Jesucristo.
Así de claro......
Y si le molesta que repita cosas, pues simplemente NO LAS LEA
Así de claro......
Y si le molesta que repita cosas, pues simplemente NO LAS LEA
CON RESPECTO A LAS FALSAS DECRETALES:
No he comprobado si todas las webs siguen funcionando....están en inglés:
http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/HN_Open/get/messageboard/354/13/2/7/1/1.html?frame=newset
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm
http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html
http://www.bartleby.com/65/fa/FalseDec.html
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ca/canonlaw.html
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/decretals.htm
http://www.egwestate.andrews.edu/gc/gcappendix.html
Y aquí, el plato fuerte:
Essays concerning Historical Evidences Against Papal Infallibility and Primacy of Universal Jurisdiction
Contents
The following articles are historical evidences that demonstrate the early church fathers’ reactions to the Pope of Rome as far as the latter’s claim to being Doctor Universalis or Vicar of Christ. Roman Catholics can assert all they want about the Pope’s allegedly universal jurisdiction over all the ancient churches but they won’t find any shred of historical evidences for that assertion!
1. Irenaeus Rebuked Victor of Rome
2. Basil Sided with Meletius of Antioch Against Rome
3. Cyprian Regards Rome’s Re-Baptism as Heretical
4. Gregory the Great Rejected I Maccabees as Canonical
5. Forgeries and the Papacy by William Webster
As long as the true facts of Church history were well known, the papacy could not emerge. However, in the 9th century, a literary forgery occurred which completely revolutionized the ancient government of the Church in the West. It provided a legal foundation for the ascendancy of the papacy in Western Christendom. This forgery is known as the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals, written around 845 A.D. Webster exposes this document.
6. An Ecumenical Council Officially Condemns a Pope for Heresy by William Webster
Historically, papal infallibility was never part of the teaching or practice of the early Church, nor was it ever part of the doctrinal content of saving faith as taught by it. The 6th Ecumenical Council (III Constantinople) held in 680-681 A.D. posthumously excommunicated from the Church and forever branded a heretic Pope Honorius, who reigned as bishop of Rome from 625 to 638 A.D. Webster discusses this issue. [Debates with Tan Yew Hock at Antioch.]
7. Failure to Document: Catholic Answers Glosses Over History by James White
James White gives good summary of the arguments and rebuts well the lame attempts by Catholic apologists such as Tim Staples, Robert Sugenis and Steven O’Reilly to defend Honorius.
Irenaeus Rebuked Victor of Rome
Basil Sided with Meletius of Antioch Against Rome
The History
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch06.htm
§ 73. The Meletian Schism at Antioch.
The Meletian schism at Antioch was interwoven with the Arian controversies, and lasted through more than half a century.
In 361 the majority of the Antiochian church elected as bishop Meletius, who had formerly been an Arian, and was ordained by this party, but after his election professed the Nicene orthodoxy. He was a man of rich persuasive eloquence, and of a sweet and amiable disposition, which endeared him to the Catholics and Arians. But his doctrinal indecision offended the extremists of both parties. When he professed the Nicene faith, the Arians deposed him in council, sent him into exile, and transferred his bishopric to Euzoius, who had formerly been banished with Arius. The Catholics disowned Euzoius, but split among themselves; the majority adhered to the exiled Meletius, while the old and more strictly orthodox party, who had hitherto been known as the Eustathians, and with whom Athanasius communicated, would not recognize a bishop of Arian consecration, though Catholic in belief, and elected Paulinus, a presbyter of high character, who was ordained counter-bishop by Lucifer of Calaris.
The doctrinal difference between the Meletians and the old Nicenes consisted chiefly in this: that the latter acknowledged three hypostases in the divine trinity, the former only three prosopa; the one laying the stress on the triplicity of the divine essence, the other on its unity.
The orthodox orientals declared for Meletius, the occidentals and Egyptians for Paulinus, as legitimate bishop of Antioch. Meletius, on returning from exile under the protection of Gratian, proposed to Paulinus that they should unite their flocks, and that the survivor of them should superintend the church alone; but Paulinus declined, since the canons forbade him to take as a colleague one who had been ordained by Arians. Then the military authorities put Meletius in possession of the cathedral, which had been in the hands of Euzoius. Meletius presided, as senior bishop, in the second ecumenical council (381), but died a few days after the opening of it—a saint outside the communion of Rome. His funeral was imposing: lights were borne before the embalmed corpse, and psalms sung in divers languages, and these honors were repeated in all the cities through which it passed on its transportation to Antioch, beside the grave of St. Babylas. The Antiochians engraved his likeness on their rings, their cups, and the walls of their bedrooms. So St. Chrysostom informs us in his eloquent eulogy on Meletius. Flavian was elected his successor, although Paulinus was still alive. This gave rise to fresh troubles, and excited the indignation of the bishop of Rome. Chrysostom labored for the reconciliation of Rome and Alexandria to Flavian. But the party of Paulinus, after his death in 389, elected Evarius as successor († 392), and the schism continued down to the year 413 or 415, when the bishop Alexander succeeded in reconciling the old orthodox remnant with the successor of Meletius. The two parties celebrated their union by a splendid festival, and proceeded together in one majestic stream to the church.
Thus a long and tedious schism was brought to a close, and the church of Antioch was permitted at last to enjoy that peace which the Athanasian synod of Alexandria in 362 had desired for it in vain.
Basil’s Letter to Terentius, the Commander of the Army
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/Npnf2-08-232.htm
Letter CCXIV (214th)
To Count Terentius.
(Footnote from Letter XCIX (96th): On Terentius. He was an orthodox Christian, though in favour with Valens. In 372 he was in command of twelve legions in Georgia, and Basil communicates with him about providing bishops for the Armenian Church. According to some manuscripts of Letter CV (105th), his three daughters were deaconesses)
1. When I heard that your excellency had again been compelled to take part in public affairs, I was straightway distressed (for the truth must be told) at the thought of how contrary to your mind it must be that you after once giving up the anxieties of official life, and allowing yourself leisure for the care of your sold, should again beforced back into your old career. But then I bethought me that peradventure the Lord has ordained that your lordship should again appear in public from this wish to grant the boon of one alleviation for the countless pains which now beset the Church in our part of the world. I am, moreover, cheered by the thought that I am about to meet your excellency once again before I depart this life.
2. But a further rumour has reached me that you are in Antioch, and are transacting the business in hand with the chief authorities. And, besides this, I have heard that the brethren who are of the party of Paulinus are entering on some discussion with your excellency on the subject of union with us; and by "us" I mean those who are supporters of the blessed man of God, Meletius (Footnote: On the divisions of Antioch, cf. Theod., H.E. iii. 2. Basil was no doubt taking the wise course in supporting Meletius, whose personal orthodoxy was unimpeachable. But the irreconcilable Eustathians could not forgive him his Arian nomination). I hear, moreover, that the Paulinians are carrying about a letter of the Westerns (Footnote: This description might apply to either of the two letters written by Damasus to Paulinus on the subject of the admission to communion of Vitalius, bishop of the Apollinarian schism at Antioch. (Labbe. Conc. ii. 864 and 900, and Theod H.E. v. ii.) The dates may necessitate its being referred to the former), assigning to them the episcopate of the Church in Antioch, but speaking under a false impression of Meletius, the admirable bishop of the true Church of God. I am not astonished at this. They (Footnote: i.e. the Westerns) are totally ignorant of what is going on here; the others, though they might be supposed to know, give an account to them in which party is put before truth; and it is only what one might expect that they should either be ignorant of the truth, or should even endeavour to conceal the reasons which led the blessed Bishop Athanasius to write to Paulinus. But your excellency has on the spot those who are able to tell you accurately what passed between the bishops in the reign of Jovian, and from them I beseech you to get information (Footnote: cf. Letter cclviii. and the Prolegomena to Athanasius in this edition, p. lxi. The events referred to took place in the winter of 363, when Athanasius was at Antioch, and in the early part of 364 on his return to Alexandria). I accuse no one; I pray that I may have love to all, and "especially unto them who are of the household of faith;" and therefore I congratulate those who have received the letter from Rome. And, although it is a grand testimony in their favour, I only hope it is true and confirmed by facts. But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from ment (Footnote: St. Basil seems quite unaware of any paramount authority in a letter from Rome cf. Prolegomena). Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints…
(Basil then proceeds to explain his stand on ousia and hypostasis – the centre of controversy between Meletius and Paulinus)
3. Consider well, my excellent friend, that the falsifiers of the truth, who have introduced the Arian schism as an innovation on the sound faith of the Fathers, advance no other reason for refusing to accept the pious opinion of the Fathers than the meaning of the homoousion which they hold in their wickedness, and to the slander of the whole faith, alleging our contention to be that the Son is consubstantial in hypostasis. If we give them any opportunity by our being carried away by men who propound these sentiments and their like, rather from simplicity than from malevolence, there is nothing to prevent our giving them an unanswerable ground of argument against ourselves and confirming the heresy of those whose one end is in all their utterances about the Church, not so much to establish their own position as to calumniate mine. What more serious calumny could there be? What better calculated to disturb the faith of the majority than that some of us could be shewn to assert that there is one hypostasis of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? We distinctly lay down that there is a difference of Persons; but this statement was anticipated by Sabellius, who affirms that God is one by hypostasis, but is described by Scripture in different Persons, according to the requirements of each individual case; sometimes under the name of Father, when there is occasion for this Person; sometimes under the name of Son when there is a descent to human interests or any of the operations of the oeconomy; and sometimes under the Person of Spirit when the occasion demands such phraseology. If, then, any among us are shewn to assert that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in substance (), while we maintain the three perfect Persons, how shall we escape giving clear and incontrovertible proof of the truth of what is being asserted about us?
4. The non-identity of hypostasis and ousia is, I take it, suggested even by our western brethren, where, from a suspicion of tile inadequacy of their own language, they have given the word ousia in the Greek, to the end that any possible difference of meaning might be preserved in the clear and unconfounded distinction of terms. If you ask me to state shortly my own view, I shall state that ousia has the same relation to hypostasis as the common has to the particular. Every one of us both shares in existence by the common term of essence (ousia) and by his own properties is such an one and such an one. In the same manner, in the matter in question, the term ousia is common, like goodness, or Godhead, or any similar attribute; while hypostasis is contemplated in the special property of Fatherhood, Sonship, or the power to sanctify. If then they describe the Persons as being without hypostasis, the statement is per se absurd; but if they concede that the Persons exist in real hypostasis, as they acknowledge, let them so reckon them that the principle of the homoousion may be preserved in the unity of the Godhead, and that the doctrine preached may be the recognition of true religion, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the perfect and complete hypostasis of each of the Persons named. Nevertheless, there is one point which I should like to have pressed on your excellency, that you and all who like you care for the truth, and honour the combatant in the cause of true religion, ought to wait for the lead to be taken in bringing about this union and peace by the foremost authorities in the Church, whom I count as pillars and foundations of the truth and of the Church, and reverence all the more because they have been sent away for punishment, and have been exiled far from home. Keep yourself, I implore you, clear of prejudice, that in you, whom God has given me as a staff and support in all things, I may be able to find rest.
Basil’s Subsequent Letter to Meletius
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/Npnf2-08-234.htm
Letter CCXVI (216th).
To Meletius, bishop of Antioch.
Many other journeys have taken me from home. I have been as far as Pisidia to settle the matters concerning the brethren in Isauria in concert with the Pisidian bishops. Thence I journeyed into Pontus, for Eustathius had caused no small disturbance at Dazimon, and had caused there a considerable secession from our church. I even went as far as the home of my brother Peter, and, as this is not far from Neocaesarea, there was occasion of considerable trouble to the Neocaesareans, and of much rudeness to myself. Some men fled when no one was in pursuit. And I was supposed to be intruding uninvited, simply to get compliments from the folk there. As soon as I got home, after contracting a severe illness from the bad weather and my anxieties. I straightway received a letter from the East to tell me that Paulinus had had certain letters from the West addressed to him, in acknowledgement of a sort of higher claim; and that the Antiochene rebels were vastly elated by them, and were next preparing a form of creed and offering to make its terms a condition of union with our Church. Besides all this it was reported to me that they had seduced to their faction that most excellent man Terentius. I wrote to him at once as forcibly as I could. to induce him to pause; and I tried to point out their disingenuousness.
Basil’s Letter to Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/Npnf2-08-276.htm#P5819_1825466
Letter CCLVIII (253rd)
To Epiphanius the bishop
(Footnote: On Epiphanius: The learned and saintly bishop of Salamis in Cyprus. About this time he published his great work against heresy, the , and also travelled to Antioch to reconcile the Apollinarian Vitalis to Paulinus. On the failure of his efforts, and the complicated state of parties at Antioch at this time, cf. Epiphan., lxxvii. 20-23; Jerome. Epp. 57, 58, and Soz., H. E. vi. 25)
3. As to the Church at Antioch (I mean that which is in agreement in the same doctrine), may the Lord grant that one day we may see it united. It is in peril of being specially open to the attacks of the enemy, who is angry with it because there the name of Christian first obtained. There heresy is divided against orthodoxy, and orthodoxy is divided against herself.
My position, however, is this. The right reverend bishop Meletius was the first to speak boldly for the truth, and fought that good fight in the days of Constantine, Therefore my Church has felt strong affection towards him, for the sake of that brave and firm stand, and has held communion with him. I, therefore, by God's grace, have held him to be in communion up to this time; and, if God will, I shall continue to do so.
Moreover the very blessed Pope Athanasius came from Alexandria, and was most anxious that communion should be established between Meletius and himself; but by the malice of counsellors their conjunction was put off to another season. Would that this had not been so!
I have never accepted communion with any one of those who have since been introduced into the see, not because I count them unworthy, but because I see no ground for the condemnation of Meletius. Nevertheless I have heard many things about tile brethren, without giving heed to them, because the accused were not brought face to face with their accusers, according to that which is written, "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" I cannot therefore at present write to them, right honourable brother, and I ought not to be forced to do so. It will be becoming to your peaceful disposition not to cause union in one direction and disunion in another, but to restore the severed member to the original union. First, then, pray; next, to the utmost of your ability, exhort, that ambition may be driven from their hearts, and that reconciliation may be effected between them both to restore strength to the Church, and to destroy the rage of oar foes. It has given great comfort to my soul that, in addition to your other right and accurate statements in theology, you should acknowledge the necessity of stating that the hypostases are three. Let the brethren at Antioch be instructed by you after this manner. Indeed I am confident that they have been so instructed; for I am sure you would never have accepted communion with them unless you had carefully made sure of this point in them.
Cyprian Regards Rome’s Re-Baptism as Heretical
Gregory the Great Rejected I Maccabees as Canonical
Extracted from William Webster’s Rebuttal to Art Sippo on the Canon of the Old Testament.
Gregory the Great was pope from 590 to 604 A.D. Mr. Sippo says there is no evidence Gregory wrote his commentary on Job while he was pope. Roman Catholic patristics scholar, William Jurgens, gives the following background to Gregory’s commentary, which refute Sippo’s allegations:
When Gregory, while Apocrisarius in Constantinople, met Bishop Leander of Seville about the year 578, Leander asked him to write a commentary on the Book of Job. Gregory’s response was his Moralia or Moralium libri or Expositio in librum Iob, at which he worked intermittently for many years, finally completing the work in thirty-five books about the year 595 A.D. The Moral Teachings is devoted mostly to discussions of questions in moral theology and of practical applications of Gregory’s solutions. In a sense it may be regarded as the first manual of moral and ascetic theology (William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), Volume III, p. 313).
Please note that William Jurgens affirms the fact that Gregory did indeed write his commentary while he was pope. What is more, in asserting that the book of I Maccabees is not canonical, Gregory is not sharing his personal opinion as a private theologian, but is simply stating the position of the Church of his day. He states:
With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed" (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424).
Gregory the Great would never have purposefully expressed a view contrary to that which he knew had been authoritatively established by the Church. Clearly, when the Church received the Apocryphal books as canonical it defined the term canonical in the sense expressed by Cardinal Cajetan above. The term had a broad and a narrow meaning. In its broad sense it encompassed all the books which were acceptable to be read in the Churches, which included the Apocrypha. But in its narrow meaning it meant only the books of the Hebrew Canon were sanctioned as truly canonical for the purposes of establishing doctrine.
Furthermore, Mr. Sippo states that the Commentary on Job was not an official Church document. This is erroneous. As was pointed out in the statements above on the Glossa ordinaria, Gregory’s Commentary on Job was the standard commentary for the entire Western Church of the Middle Ages. He is teaching here in his official capacity as pope on issues related to morals. The fact that the Commentary on Job was written while he was pope and was used as an official commentary for the entire Western Church is proof enough that this work was an official Church document. And Gregory never retracted what he had written about the Apocrypha. Thus, we have the official and authoritative perspective of a bishop of Rome in the late seventh century regarding the canonical status of the Apocrypha.
http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html
Forgeries and the Papacy
The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy
By William Webster
The Full Development of the Papacy in the Ninth Century and the Forgery Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals
In the middle of the ninth century, a radical change began in the Western Church, which dramatically altered the Constitution of the Church, and laid the ground work for the full development of the papacy. The papacy could never have emerged without a fundamental restructuring of the Constitution of the Church and of men’s perceptions of the history of that Constitution. As long as the true facts of Church history were well known, it would serve as a buffer against any unlawful ambitions. However, in the 9th century, a literary forgery occurred which completely revolutionized the ancient government of the Church in the West. It provided a legal foundation for the ascendancy of the papacy in Western Christendom. This forgery is known as the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals, written around 845 A.D. The Decretals are a complete fabrication of Church history. They set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of the popes over the universal Church prior to the fourth century and make it appear that the popes had always exercised sovereign dominion and had ultimate authority even over Church Councils. Nicholas I (858–867) was the first to use them as the basis for advancing his claims of authority. But it was not until the 11th century with Pope Gregory VII that the these decretals were used in a significant way to alter the government of the Western Church. It was at this time that the Decretals were combined with two other major forgeries, The Donation of Constantine and the Liber Pontificalis, along with other falsified writings, and codified into a system of Church law which elevated Gregory and all his successors as absolute monarchs over the Church in the West. These writings were then utilized by Gratian in composing his Decretum. The Decretum, which was first published in 1151 A.D., was intended as a collection of everything that Gratian could find which could give historical precedent to the teaching of papal primacy, and therefore the authority of tradition, which could then carry the force of law in the Church. It had such success that it became the standard work of the law of the Roman Church and thus the basis of all canon law and Scholastic theology. Some Roman Catholic apologists claim that though there were forgeries in the Church, these really had very little impact upon the advancement and development of the papacy, since it was already an established reality by the time the forgeries appeared. Karl Keating, for example, states that practically all the commentators, with the exception of fundamentalists, agree with this assessment. But this is completely false. The historical facts reveal that the papacy was never a reality as far as the universal Church is concerned. There are many eminent Roman Catholic historians who have testified to that fact as well as to the importance of the forgeries, especially those of Pseudo-Isidore. One such historian is Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger. He was the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the last century, who taught Church history for 47 years as a Roman Catholic. He makes these important comments:
In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.
That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians.
The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers...and with Gratia’s own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chokeful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116).
The Importance and Influence of Pseudo-Isidore
The Protestant historian, George Salmon, explains the importance and influence of Pseudo–Isidore:
In the ninth century another collection of papal letters...was published under the name of Isidore, by whom, no doubt, a celebrated Spanish bishop of much learning was intended. In these are to be found precedents for all manner of instances of the exercise of sovereign dominion by the pope over other Churches. You must take notice of this, that it was by furnishing precedents that these letters helped the growth of papal power. Thenceforth the popes could hardly claim any privilege but they would find in these letters supposed proofs that the privilege in question was no more than had been always claimed by their predecessors, and always exercised without any objection... On these spurious decretals is built the whole fabric of Canon Law. The great schoolman, Thomas Aquinas, was taken in by them, and he was induced by them to set the example of making a chapter on the prerogatives of the pope an essential part of the treatises on the Church... Yet completely successful as was this forgery, I suppose there never was a more clumsy one. These decretal epistles had undisputed authority for some seven hundred years, that is to say, down to the time of the Reformation.
If we want to know what share these letters had in the building of the Roman fabric we have only to look at the Canon Law. The ‘Decretum’ of Gratia quotes three hundred and twenty-four times the epistles of the popes of the first four centuries; and of these three hundred and twenty–four quotations, three hundred and thirteen are from the letters which are now universally known to be spurious (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (London: John Murray, 1914), pp. 449, 451, 453).
Thomas Aquinas Thesaurus of Greek Fathers or Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum – Another Forgery
In addition to the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals there were other forgeries which were successfully used for the promotion of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled Against the Errors of the Greeks. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers. Under the names of the eminent Greek fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus the Abbott, a Latin forger had compiled a catena of quotations interspersing a number that were genuine with many that were forged which was subsequently submitted to Pope Urban IV. This work became known as the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers or Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum. In addition the Latin author also included spurious canons from early Ecumenical Councils. Pope Urban in turn submitted the work to Thomas Aquinas who used many of the forged passages in his work Against the Errors of the Greeks mistakenly thinking they were genuine. These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries. The following is a sample of Thomas’ argumentation for the papacy using the spurious quotations from the Thesaurus:
Chapter thirty-four
That the same (the Roman Pontiff) possesses in the Church a fullness of power.
It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus:
“As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.”
And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on:
“The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Hebr. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation speaking in the person of Christ:
“Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”
This is also taught on the authority of Scripture. For in Matthew 16:19 the Lord said to Peter without restriction: Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven.
Chapter thirty-five
That he enjoys the same power conferred on Peter by Christ.
It is also shown that Peter is the Vicar of Christ and the Roman Pontiff is Peter’s successor enjoying the same power conferred on Peter by Christ. For the canon of the Council of Chalcedon says:
“If any bishop is sentenced as guilty of infamy, he is free to appeal the sentence to the blessed bishop of old Rome, whom we have as Peter the rock of refuge, and to him alone, in the place of God, with unlimited power, is granted the authority to hear the appeal of a bishop accused of infamy in virtue of the keys given him by the Lord.”
And further on: “And whatever has been decreed by him is to be held as from the vicar of the apostolic throne.”
Likewise, Cyril, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, says, speaking in the person of Christ:
“You for a while, but I without end will be fully and perfectly in sacrament and authority with all those whom I shall put in your place, just as I am also with you.”
And Cyril of Alexandria in his Thesaurus says that the Apostles “in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in all their teaching that Peter and his Church are in the place of the Lord, granting him participation in every chapter and assembly, in every election and proclamation of doctrine.” And further on:
“To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine ordinancebow the head, and the rulers of the world obey him as the Lord Jesus himself.” And Chrysostom, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “Feed my sheep (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren"
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks. Found in James Likoudis, Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism (New Rochelle: Catholics United for the Faith, 1992), pp. 182-184).
With the exception of the last reference to Chrysostom all of Thomas’ references cited to Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom and the Council of Chalcedon are forgeries. The remainder of Aquinas’ treatise in defense of the papacy is similar in nature. Edward Denny gives the following historical summary of these forgeries and their use by Thomas Aquinas:
Incorporations Of Pseudo-Isodorian Decretals into other Works
As the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals were by no means the first, so they were not the last forgeries in the interests of the advancement of the Papal system. Gratian himself, in addition to using the forged Decretals and the fabrications of others who preceded him, had incorporated also into the Decretum fresh corruptions of his own with that object, but amongst such forgeries a catena of spurious passages from the Greek Fathers and Councils, put forth in the thirteenth century, had probably, next to the Pseudo-lsidorian Decretals, the widest influence in this direction.
The object of this forgery was as follows: The East had been separated from the West since the excommunication by Pope Leo IX of Michael Cerularius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and that of the former by the latter in July 1054, in which the other Eastern Patriarchs concurred. The Latins, especially the Dominicans, who had established themselves in the East, made strenuous efforts to induce the Easterns to submit to the Papacy. The great obstacle in the way of their success was the fact that the Orientals knew nothing of such claims as those which were advanced by the Roman Bishops. In their belief the highest rank in the Hierarchy of the Church was that of Patriarch. This was clearly expressed by the Patrician Babanes at the Council of Constantinople, 869. ‘God,’ he said, ‘hath placed His Church in the five patriarchates, and declared in His Gospel that they should never utterly fail, because they are the heads of the Church. For that saying, “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” meaneth this, when two fall they run to three; when three fall they run to two; but when four perchance have fallen, one, which remains in Christ our God, the Head of all, calls back again the remaining body of the Church.”
They were ignorant of any autocratic power residing jure divino in the Bishop of Rome. They regarded Latin authors with suspicions as the fautors of the unprimitive claims of the Bishop of Old Rome; hence if they were to be persuaded that the Papalist pretensions were Catholic, and thus induced to recognise them, the only way would be to produce evidence provided ostensibly from Greek sources. Accordingly a Latin theologian drew up a sort of Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum, in which, amongst genuine extracts from Greek Fathers, lie mingled spurious passages purporting to be taken from various Councils and writings of Fathers, notably St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Maximus the Abbot.
This work was laid before Urban IV, who was deceived by it. He was thus able to use it in his correspondence with the Emperor, Michael Palaeologus, to prove that from ‘the Apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs it was to be sought what was to be held, or what was to be believed, since it is his right to lay down, to ordain, to disprove, to command, to loose and to bind in the place of Him who appointed him, and delivered and granted to no one else but him alone what is supreme. To this throne also all Catholics bend the head by divine law, and the primates of the world confessing the true faith are obedient and turn their thoughts as if to Jesus Christ Himself, and regard him as the Sun, and from Him receive the light of truth to the salvation of souls according as the genuine writers of some of the Holy Fathers, both Greek and others, firmly assert.”
Urban, moreover, sent this work to St. Thomas Aquinas...The testimony of these extracts was to him of great value, as he believed that he had in them irrefragable proof that the great Eastern theologians, such as St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and the Fathers of the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, recognised the monarchical position of the Pope as ruling the whole Church with absolute power. Consequently he made use of these fraudulent documents in all honesty in setting forth the prerogatives of the Papacy. The grave result followed that, through his authority, the errors which he taught on the subject of the Papacy were introduced into the schools, fortified by the testimony of these fabrications, and thus were received as undoubted truth, whence resulted consequences which can hardly be fully estimated.
It was improbable that the Greeks, who had ample means of discovering the real character of these forgeries, should finally accept them and the teaching based on them; but in the West itself there were no theologians competent to expose the fraud, so that these forgeries were naturally held to be of weighty authority. The high esteem attached to the writings of St. Thomas was an additional reason why this should be the case (Edward Denny, Papalism (London: Rivingtons, 1912), pp. 114-117).
Von Döllinger elaborates on the far reaching influence of these forgeries, especially in their association with the authority of Aquinas, on succeeding generations of theologians and their extensive use as a defense of the papacy:
In theology, from the beginning of the fourteenth century, the spurious passages of St. Cyril and forged canons of Councils maintained their ground, being guaranteed against all suspicion by the authority of St. Thomas. Since the work of Trionfo in 1320, up to 1450, it is remarkable that no single new work appeared in the interests of the Papal system. But then the contest between the Council of Basle and Pope Eugenius IV evoked the work of Cardinal Torquemada, besides some others of less importance. Torquemada’s argument, which was held up to the time of Bellarmine to be the most conslusive apology of the Papal system, rests entirely on fabrications later than the pseudo-Isidore, and chiefly on the spurious passages of St. Cyril. To ignore the authority of St. Thomas is, according to the Cardinal, bad enough, but to slight the testimony of St. Cyril is intolerable. The Pope is infallible; all authority of other bishops is borrowed or derived frorn his. Decisions of Councils without his assent are null and void. These fundamental principles of Torquemada are proved by spurious passages of Anacletus, Clement, the Council of Chalcedon, St. Cyril, and a mass of forged or adulterated testimonies. In the times of Leo X and Clement III, the Cardinals Thomas of Vio, or Cajetan, and Jacobazzi, followed closely in his footsteps. Melchior Canus built firmly on the authority of Cyril, attested by St. Thomas, and so did Bellarmine and the Jesuits who followed him. Those who wish to get a bird’s–eye view of the extent to which the genuine tradition of Church authority was still overlaid and obliterated by the rubbish of later inventions and forgeries about 1563, when the Loci of Canus appeared, must read the fifth book of his work. It is indeed still worse fifty years later in this part of Bellarmine’s work. The difference is that Canus was honest in his belief, which cannot be said of Bellarmine.
The Dominicans, Nicolai, Le Quien, Quetif, and Echard, were the first to avow openly that their master St. Thomas, had been deceived by an imposter, and had in turn misled the whole tribe of theologians and canonists who followed him. On the one hand, the Jesuits, including even such a scholar as Labbe, while giving up the pseudo–Isidorian decretals, manifested their resolve to still cling to St. Cyril. In Italy, as late as 1713, Professor Andruzzi of Bologna cited the most important of the interpolations of St. Cyril as a conclusive argument in his controversial treatise against the patriarch Dositheus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 233-234).
The Authority of Rome Rests Upon a Forgery!
The authority claims of Roman Catholicism ultimately devolve upon the institution of the papacy. The papacy is the center and source from which all authority flows for Roman Catholicism. Rome has long claimed that this institution was established by Christ and has been in force in the Church from the very beginning. But the historical record gives a very different picture. This institution was promoted primarily through the falsification of historical fact through the extensive use of forgeries as Thomas Aquinas' apologetic for the papacy demonstrates. Forgery is its foundation. As an institution it was a much later development in Church history, beginning with the Gregorian reforms of pope Gregory VII in the 11th century and was restricted completely to the West. The Eastern Church never accepted the false claims of the Roman Church and refused to submit to its insistence that the Bishop of Rome was supreme ruler of the Church. This they knew was not true to the historical record and was a perversion of the true teaching of Scripture, the papal exegesis of which was not taught by the Church fathers.
The Eastern Church Rejects the Papal Claims of Rome
Dr. Aristeides Papadakis is an Orthodox historian and Professor of Byzantine history at the University of Maryland. He gives the following analysis of the Eastern Church’s attitude towards the claims of the bishops of Rome especially as they were formulated in the 11th century Gregorian reforms. He points out that on the basis of the exegesis of scripture and the facts of history, the Eastern Church has consistently rejected the papal claims of Rome:
What was in fact being implied in the western development was the destruction of the Church’s pluralistic structure of government. Papal claims to supreme spiritual and doctrinal authority quite simply, were threatening to transform the entire Church into a vast centralized diocese... Such innovations were the result of a radical reading of the Church’s conciliar structure of government as revealed in the life of the historic Church. No see, regardless of its spiritual seniority, had ever been placed outside of this structure as if it were a power over or above the Church and its government... Mutual consultation among Churches—Episcopal collegiality and conciliarity, in short—had been the quintessential character of Church government from the outset. It was here that the locus of supreme authority in the Church could be found. Christendom indeed was both a diversity and a unity, a family of basically equal sister-Churches, whose unity rested not on any visible juridical authority, but on conciliarity, and on a common declaration of faith and the sacramental life.
The ecclesiology of communion and fraternity of the Orthodox, which was preventing them from following Rome blindly and submissively like slaves, was based on Scripture and not merely on history or tradition. Quite simply, the power to bind and loose mentioned in the New Testament had been granted during Christ’s ministry to every disciple and not just to Peter alone...In sum, no one particular Church could limit the fulness of God’s redeeming grace to itself, at the expense of the others. Insofar as all were essentially identical, the fulness of catholicity was present in all equally. In the event, the Petrine biblical texts, cherished by the Latins, were beside the point as arguments for Roman ecclesiology and superiority. The close logical relationship between the papal monarchy and the New Testament texts, assumed by Rome, was quite simply undocumented. For all bishops, as successors of the apostles, claim the privilege and power granted to Peter. Differently put, the Savior’s words could not be interpreted institutionally, legalistically or territorially, as the foundation of the Roman Church, as if the Roman pontiffs were alone the exclusive heirs to Christ’s commission. It is important to note parenthetically that a similar or at least kindred exegesis of the triad of Matt. 16:18, Luke 22:32 and John 21:15f. was also common in the West before the reformers of the eleventh century chose to invest it with a peculiar ‘Roman’ significance. Until then, the three proof–texts were viewed primarily ‘as the foundation of the Church, in the sense that the power of the keys was conferred on a sacerdotalis ordo in the person of Peter: the power granted to Peter was symbolically granted to the whole episcopate.’ In sum, biblical Latin exegetes before the Gregorian reform did not view the New Testament texts unambiguously as a blueprint for papal sovereignty; their understanding overall was non–primatial.
The Byzantine indictment against Rome also had a strong historical component. A major reason why Orthodox writers were unsympathetic to the Roman restatement of primacy was precisely because it was so totally lacking in historical precedent. Granted that by the twelfth century papal theorists had become experts in their ability to circumvent the inconvenient facts of history. And yet, the Byzantines were ever ready to hammer home the theme that the historical evidence was quite different. Although the Orthodox may not have known that Gregorian teaching was in part drawn from the forged decretals of pseudo–Isidore (850’s), they were quite certain that it was not based on catholic tradition in either its historical or canonical form. On this score, significantly, modern scholarship agrees with the Byzantine analysis. As it happens, contemporary historians have repeatedly argued that the universal episcopacy claimed by the eleventh–century reformers would have been rejected by earlier papal incumbents as obscenely blasphemous (to borrow the phrase of a recent scholar). The title ‘universal’ which was advanced formally at the time was actually explicitly rejected by earlier papal giants such as Gregory I. To be brief, modern impartial scholarship is reasonably certain that the conventional conclusion which views the Gregorians as defenders of a consistently uniform tradition is largely fiction.
‘The emergence of a papal monarchy from the eleventh century onwards cannot be represented as the realization of a homogenous development, even within the relatively closed circle of the western, Latin, Church’ (R.A. Marcus, From Augustine to Gregory the Great (London: Variorum Reprints, 1983), p. 355).
It has been suggested that the conviction that papatus (a new term constructed on the analogy of episcopatus in the eleventh century) actually represented a rank or an order higher than that of bishop, was a radical revision of Church structure and government. The discontinuity was there and to dismiss it would be a serious oversight
(Aristeides Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1994), pp. 158-160, 166-167).
http://www.christiantruth.com/pope.html
An Ecumenical Council Officially Condemns a Pope for Heresy
Historical Facts Proving That the Bishops of Rome Are not Infallible and Were Never Considered So by the Early Church
By William Webster
The Roman Catholic Council of Vatican I in 1870 is renowned for its dogmatic teaching that the Bishops of Rome, when teaching ex cathedra, are infallible. This teaching was stated to be consistent with the belief and practice the Church from its inception and throughout its long history. In other words it taught that this doctrine was not a doctrine that developed over time. The Council declared this teaching to be a dogma necessary to be believed for salvation and it anathematizes all who dare to disagree with or who oppose these assertions. The official teaching of Vatican I is as follows:
Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Christian religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if anyone—which may God avert—presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema...This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation...The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper, 1877), Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, Chp. 4, pp. 266-71).
The Papal Infallibility – Never A Part of the Early Church Teaching
Though Vatican I appeals to history as a validation for its claims, it is the very facts of history which prove them to be spurious. Historically, papal infallibility was never part of the teaching or practice of the early Church, nor was it ever part of the doctrinal content of saving faith as taught by it. This is well illustrated by the actions of the 6th Ecumenical Council (III Constantinople) held in 680-681 A.D.
[Chris’ note: Roman Catholics may reject this Council on the basis that Rome was in fact not represented at the council. See the introduction to the Trullan Canons at http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/6trullo/intro.htm. It clearly states that although the West was summoned, they were not represented as no one turned up. However, the important point to note is that Pope John VIII and Pope Hadrian I subsequently ratified the canons]
This Council is well known in Church history for its official condemnation of a number of leading Eastern Bishops as well as a Bishop of Rome for embracing and promoting heretical teachings. The particular Pope who was posthumously excommunicated from the Church and forever branded a heretic was Pope Honorius, who reigned as bishop of Rome from 625 to 638 A.D. In a number of letters written to Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople, and several other individuals, Honorius officially embraced the heresy of monotheletism, which teaches that Christ had only one will, the divine. The orthodox position is that Christ, though one person, possesses two wills because he is divine and human. There is absolutely no doubt that he held to the teaching of one will in Christ. Jaroslav Pelikan makes these comments:
In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151).
Roman Catholics Downplay Honorius’ Role
There are many past and present Roman apologists who downplay the importance of Pope Honorius. It is typical in Roman Catholic writings to find the issue of Honorius dealt with in a very superficial way. For example the following comments by Karl Keating are representative:
Actually, Honorius elected to teach nothing at all. Ronald Knox, in a letter to Arnold Lunn reprinted in their book Difficulties, put the matter like this: And Honorius, so far from pronouncing an infallible opinion in the Monothelite controversy, was quite extraordinarily not (as Gore used to say) pronouncing a decision at all. To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an opportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the Pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 229).
In one paragraph Keating dismisses this whole issue as trivial and Protestant objections as nothing more than a misrepresentation of the true facts. But one thing Mr. Keating does not do is to give the judgment of the Council itself in its own words. He simply states that Honorius did not teach anything and is therefore not guilty of heresy. Is this how the Council understood the situation? Absolutely not! To allow the Council to speak for itself is enough to dispel Keating and Knox's assertions. The facts speak for themselves. Honorius was personally condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. This was ratified by two succeeding Ecumenical Councils. He was also condemned by name by Pope Leo II, and by every pope up through the eleventh century who took the oath of papal office. In his classic and authoritative series on the history of the Councils, Roman Catholic historian Charles Joseph Hefele affirms this verdict in relating the following irrefutable facts regarding Honorius and the Sixth Ecumenical Council:
It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic!...That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him:
At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says: "After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign...to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor...them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine."
Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.
Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus"
Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read: "The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ.
After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things: "Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them."
In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein: We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.
In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes: "With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome...the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself...We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present...besides, we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."
It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius...in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council...in his letter to the Spanish bishops...and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig. Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by...the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after...Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: "We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning...Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc." The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places...To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath...according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius" (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).
These facts are highly significant. Von Dollinger was the leading Roman Catholic historian of the last century who taught Church history for 47 years. He makes these comments:
This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church (Janus Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).
Roman Catholics Claim That Honorius Was Condemned As An Individual, not as Pope
Roman Catholic apologists generally attempt to salvage the dogma of papal infallibility from the case with Honorius by saying that he was not giving an ex cathedra statement but merely his opinion as a private theologian. Therefore he was not condemned in his official capacity as the pope. According to the Roman Catholic Church there are certain conditions which must be met for the teaching of the pope to fall within the overall guidelines of that which is considered to be. He must be teaching in his official capacity as the pope and he must be defining doctrine for the entire Church. The claim is made that Honorius did not meet these conditions. However, a careful reading of the official acts of the Council prove that it thought otherwise. The reader can judge for himself from the Council's own statements how the situation with Honorius was viewed and whether it would have agreed with the assertions of Keating and Knox that Honorius did not actively teach anything. The Council makes the following statements:
Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!...
Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).
The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:
The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his official capacity as pope and not as a private theologian.
He is condemned for following after and confirming the heresy of monotheletism.
He is condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.
To suggest that the Sixth Ecumenical Council does not invalidate the teaching of papal infallibility because Honorius did not make an ex cathedra statement is historically absurd. This is to erect arbitrary conditions which were not existent at the time to save oneself the embarrassment of a historical fact which undermines one's position. The issue is not what do individual Roman Catholic apologists say, but what did the Sixth Ecumenical Council say. On what basis did it condemn Pope Honorius? By its own words it condemned him in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian, for advancing heretical teachings which it says were Satanically inspired and would affect the entire Church. It specifically states that Honorius advanced these teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them. And it condemns him by name as a heretic, anathematizing him as such. According to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology an Ecumenical Council is infallible so all the arguments which attempt to dismiss the judgement of this Council saying that it was mistaken or that it rushed to judgement or whatever, are simply erroneous and empty, on the basis of their own theology. So an infallible Ecumenical Council (from a Roman Catholic perspective) has condemned as a heretic a bishop of Rome for teaching heresy. It is quite obvious that these Eastern fathers did not view the bishops of Rome as infallible. John Meyendorff states that, contrary to the assertions of many Roman Catholics that Honorius did in fact teach the doctrine of monotheletism in a positive sense and helped confirm Sergius in the heresy. Meyendorff gives this summary:
This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries - Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists at Vatican I in 1870 would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope's good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir's, 1989), p. 353).
Jaroslav Pelikan affirms the same thing in these comments:
In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)
Charles Hefele affirms the fact that Leo II also condemned Honorius as a heretic and confirmed the decrees of the Council:
It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius...in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council...in his letter to the Spanish bishops...and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).
The condemnation by Pope Leo II is significant. He affirmed the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, confirming by this that Honorius had actively undermined the orthodox faith. W.J. Sparrow Simpson summarizes Leo's viewpoint in these comments:
Leo accepted the decisions of Constantinople. He has carefully examined the Acts of the Council and found them in harmony with the declarations of faith of his predecessor, Agatho, and of the Synod of the Lateran. He anathematized all the heretics, including his predecessor, Honorius, who so far from aiding the Apostolic See with the doctrine of the Apostolic Tradition, attempted to subvert the faith by a profane betrayal (W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (London: John Murray, 1909), p. 35).
It is significant that the letter of Honorius to Sergius was used in the East by the proponents of the Monothelite heresy as justification for their position. As Sparrow Simpson observes:
"This letter of Honorius was utilised in the East to justify the Monothelite heresy the existence of one will in Christ (W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (London: John Murray, 1909), p. 33).
The definition of what the Roman Catholic Church refers to as ex cathedra teaching was not enunciated and defined until 1870. One needs to keep this in mind when applying this test to the case of Honorius and the judgement of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. In the mind of this "infallible" Council the pope was a heretic. In its official condemnation of him, he is judged not on the basis of the criteria for ex cathedra statements which was defined some 1200 years later. One simply cannot avoid the historical facts. An "infallible" Ecumenical Council has condemned an "infallible" pope, in his official capacity, for heresy.
No redefining of terms can erase the simple facts of history or the implications of those facts for the dogma of papal infallibility. This has direct bearing upon the issue of authority and jurisdiction. If an Ecumenical Council can excommunicate a bishop of Rome then the ultimate authority in the early Church was not the bishop of Rome but the Council. The fact of this condemnation clearly demonstrates that contrary to the claims of Vatican I, the early Church never viewed the bishops of Rome to be infallible. No Church father has ever taught such a doctrine and it is contradicted by the practice of the early Church fathers and Councils, III Constantinople being but one example.
Debates on Honorius at Antioch
Mr Tan,
Here's an even shorter catechism and primer on papal infallibility:
Q1: Is the Pope always right?
A1: Yes.
Q2: What to do when the Pope is wrong?
A2: Refer to Q1.
Q3: But what if there is CLEAR EVIDENCE that he is wrong?
A3: Then he is wrong as a PRIVATE THEOLOGIAN, but not as a POPE.
Q4: But what if he is CONDEMNED by an ENTIRE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL in his CAPACITY AS POPE?
A4: Then tighten the definition of papal infallibility to EXCLUDE those circumstances under which he is condemned.
YOU: You may continue to attack what the Catholic Church does NOT teach us about the Infallibility of the Pope. Initially I was upset by it. But now, I enjoy reading it. I am getting used more and more to such attacks from anti-Catholics like you.
ME: Wrong again, I am anti-Roman Catholicism, anti-Roman Catholic. I wish you Jesus and hope that this exchange will save your soul, not damn it. It is a pity that that moment of sorrow didn't last because that may have perhaps lead to your awakening but alas, you are like the seed that is sown on the pathway:
"When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path." (Matthew 13:19 NIV)
YOU: Attacking the Catholic Church for what the Church does NOT teach, for what the Church does NOT believe, for what the Church does NOT practise. The Church does not teach that Popes are infallible all the time, in all that they say, in all that they write, in all that they teach. Period.
ME: Nobody says that they are infallible all the time. Please don't kid yourself about what we said. This self-kidding serves only to cushion your fall from your misconceptions. We know very well what the RCC teaches.
The evidence of the historical records showed clearly that Honorius was condemned in his capacity as a pope, not a private capacity. In other words, at the time of the 6th Ecumenical Council (680-681 AD), nobody believed in what papal infallibility nonsense. Honorius was the bishop and he taught heresy and he was condemned. Period. This papal infallibility nonsense, as you yourself pointed out, was never defined until Vatican I (1869-1870), which is 1200 years LATER!!
The 6EC had no problem condemning Honorius and no need to distinguish what he did officially or privately simply because there was no such thing as papal infallibility. So, when Vatican I invented papal infallibility, Honorius immediately became an embarrassment and a sore thumb.
Don't strain your logic and mind too much trying to brainwash it to believe that Honorius was condemned as a private theologian. It is going to make you nuts.
Think logically - one single man can be at the same time INFALLIBLE and also HERETICAL. You are telling me that that chair has something supernatural, that somehow when Honorius stepped into it, he was instantly transformed into another person, an infallible person! When he got back down from the chair, he is Honorius the heretic!
YOU: In the case of Pope Honorius, the letter was written only to Sergius, who exploited it to expound his heretical views. Pope Honorius was condemned as heretic, because he did not exercise his papal office to condemn the heresy; instead, he "followed the mind of Sergius", allowing his heresy to pollute the Church. That's why Pope Leo II condemned Pope Honorius for NEGLIGENCE in suppressing the heresy. He was a heretic in the sense that he "followed the mind of Sergius".
ME: We are not interested in how one Pope tries to cover up for another. We are interested in what the 6EC THOUGHT about this whole matter. You should be too. Stop looking at the propaganda of your own RCC, look at the 6EC.
This reminds me a bit of this ministerial salary thingy. I just find it odd that the same people debate and ultimately decide if they should give themselves a big raise in wages.
Similarly, don't look inward for what one Pope tries to defend another. Also, what is missed here is that these are papal infallibility teachings came 1200 years later.
To suggest that the Sixth Ecumenical Council does not invalidate the teaching of papal infallibility because Honorius did not make an ex cathedra statement is historically absurd. This is to erect arbitrary conditions which were not existent at the time to save oneself the embarrassment of a historical fact which undermines one's position.
The issue is not what do individual Roman Catholic apologists say, but what did the Sixth Ecumenical Council say. On what basis did it condemn Pope Honorius? By its own words it condemned him in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian, for advancing heretical teachings which it says were Satanically inspired and would affect the entire Church. It specifically states that Honorius advanced these teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them. And it condemns him by name as a heretic, anathematizing him as such.
According to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology an Ecumenical Council is infallible so all the arguments which attempt to dismiss the judgement of this Council saying that it was mistaken or that it rushed to judgement or whatever, are simply erroneous and empty, on the basis of their own theology. So an infallible Ecumenical Council (from a Roman Catholic perspective) has condemned as a heretic a bishop of Rome for teaching heresy.
YOU: This is an example of infallible teaching in the sense of the definition given by Vatican I Council. Infallible because:
1. The teaching comes from General Council, the highest corporate authority of the Catholic Church, and is RATIFIED by the Pope from the Chair of Peter; 2. It defines a doctrine concerning faith and moral; 3. IT IS TO BE FIRMLY BELIEVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL.
ME: So did Honorius fit this bill? Let's see:
The Council makes the following statements, you really have to read everything below, no shortcuts:
Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.
But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema.
And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!...
Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).
ESPECIALLY THE LAST SESSION. The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:
1. The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his official capacity as pope and not as a private theologian.
2. He is condemned for following after and confirming the heresy of monotheletism.
3. He is condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.
Surely these are not activities of a PRIVATE THEOLOGIAN but those carried out IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE INFALLIBLE POPE! Of course, 1200 years later, to protect the "integrity" of this papal infallibility nonsense, one needs to invent criteria that circumvent this embarrassing incident. But history cannot be changed - the infallible Pope Honorius was condemned posthumously and irreformably by the 6EC for heresy.
So much for papal infallibility!
Christopher.
THE LETTERS THAT DAMNED HONORIUS.
It is not important what Mr Tan, or Karl Keating or other apologists or even what Protestants like James White said about Honorius! What is important is to go back into history, to the 6th Ecumenical Council and see how THEY viewed Honorius!
Did the 6EC saw Honorius in his capacity as Pope, did they say he preached heretical doctrines, did they condemn him as Pope, did they thereby abolished the concept of papal infallibility, and is their decision final and authoritative?
THE ANSWER TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS IS YES. AND IN FACT, SO SERIOUS WAS THIS CONDEMNATION THAT A POPE, FROM THE FIFTH TO THE ELEVENTH CENTURIES, HAD TO SWEAR THAT HE RECOGNISED THE 6EC, BEFORE HE TOOK PAPAL OFFICE! It is only after the 11th century that Honorius' condemnation has become too embarrassing.
And that is all that matters, Mr Tan. Don't argue with history or you become a laughing stock.
Now, I may not have read the actual letters and the contents but for Mr Tan to say that these letters do not in fact promulgate any doctrine is to say that the 6EC was a sham, that the Council "maligned" Honorius. But surely this cannot be accepted given the fact that the RCC recognises the 6EC. And according to its own teaching, the EC is also infallible!
In his classic and authoritative series on the history of the Councils, Roman Catholic historian Charles Joseph Hefele affirms this verdict in relating the following irrefutable facts regarding Honorius and the Sixth Ecumenical Council:
"It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic!...That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him:
At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says:
"After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign...to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor...them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine."
Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.
Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus"
Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read:
"The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ.
After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things:
"Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them."
In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein:
We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.
In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes:
"With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome...the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself...We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present...besides, we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."
It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius...in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council...in his letter to the Spanish bishops...and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig.
Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by...the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after...Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith:
"We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning ... Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc."
The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places...To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself.
In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath...according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius"
(Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).
These facts are highly significant. Von Dollinger was the leading Roman Catholic historian of the last century who taught Church history for 47 years. He makes these comments:
This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church.
(Janus Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).
Christopher.
To all readers:
I don’t wish to sound like a broken record repeating the same historical facts. I believe anyone who wish to be factual and is after the truth can read the entire proceedings to find out for yourself. I will sum up here.
There are two urls that one must visit:
1. The 6th Ecumenical Council
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/6const3/
2. The Catholic Encyclopaedia for its futile attempts at its exculpation of Honorius:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
The first one gives us the historical facts as they stand. The second one attempts explanations and this is where all of Mr Tan’s arguments come from. Might as well get it all over with once and for all.
Mr Tan’s arguments:
1. Honorius did not speak ex-cathedra
Before you think that this is the universal and final conclusion of the Roman Catholic Church with regards to Honorius’ letters, let it be known that this is a divided opinion, with more on our side saying that Honorius did formally defined heresy ex-cathedra.
Those Who Said He Did Not Speak Ex-Cathedra
From the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
“On the other hand the chief advocates of papal infallibility, for instance, such great men as Melchior Canus in the sixteenth century, Thomassinus in the seventeenth, Pietro Ballerini in the eighteenth, Cardinal Perrone in the nineteenth, have been careful to point out that Honorius did not define anything ex cathedra”
And, if I may add, Karl Keating and Mr Tan Yew Hock in the twenty-first century. Note that these are proponents of papal infallibility.
And what was the argument?
Mr Tan: Readers may read the definition of Vatican I Council on Papal Infallibility in my previous postings. Repeat: the doctrine must be defined and to be held by the entire church. Whether Pope Honorius is condemned or not is irrelevant. He is condemned for the contents of the 2 letters his wrote to Sergius. Both letters are addressed to Sergius, and NOT TO THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.
So Mr Tan applies anachronistically a 1870 ruling to a 681 event. My rebuttal is provided by those who said Honorius did speak ex-cathedra. The council, for instance, said in Session XVIII,
Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome..., has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris
Mr Tan insists that the letters were only for Sergius, and misses the point that what he said in those letters and what he did with those things he said that really mattered. Clearly the 6EC understood that.
Those Who Said He Did Speak Ex-Cathedra
From the 6th Ecumenical Council (6EC) AD 681,
Session XIII: The holy council said:
“After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.
“But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, … And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.”
Session XVIII:
But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome..., has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).
From the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
“The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance. But before, and even just after, the Vatican Council such a view was sometimes urged, though almost solely by the opponents of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Part of a second letter of Honorius to Sergius was read at the eighth council. It disapproves rather more strongly of the mention of either one operation or two; but it has the merit of referring to the words of St. Leo which Sergius had cited.”
Although one of Honorius’ letters did not promulgate anything, his other letters did. There is no escape from this because Sergius drafted the Ecthesis (exposition) based on this:
“Sergius, after receiving the pope's letter approving his recent cautiousness, composed an "Ecthesis", or exposition, which was issued by the emperor towards the end of 638. In conformity with the words of Honorius it orders all the subjects of Heraclius to confess one Will in our Lord, and to avoid the expressions "one operation" and "two operations".”
Others, from the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
“The more famous Gallicans, such as Bossuet, Dupin, Richer, and later ones as Cardinal de la Luzerne and (at the time of the Vatican Council) Maret, Gratry, and many others, usually held with all Protestant writers that Honorius had formally defined heresy, and was condemned for so doing. They added, of course, that such a failure on the part of an individual pope did not compromise the general and habitual orthodoxy of the Roman See…
A theory put forward by Pennacchi at the time of the Vatican Council attracted an unnecessary amount of attention. He agreed with the Protestants and Gallicans in proclaiming that the letter of Honorius was a definition ex cathedra; …
Bishop Hefele before 1870 took the view that Honorius's letter was not strictly heretical but was gravely incorrect, and that its condemnation by an ecumenical council was a serious difficulty against the "personal" infallibility of the popes. After his hesitating acceptance of the Vatican decrees he modified his view; he now taught that Honorius's letter was a definition ex cathedra, that it was incorrectly worded, but that the thought of the writer was orthodox …”
Other modern-day apologists,
John Meyendorff:
“This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenical councils.
It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries - Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists at Vatican I in 1870 would refer to this case.
Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church.
They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century.
Without denying the pope's good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly”
(John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir's, 1989), p. 353).
Jaroslav Pelikan affirms the same thing in these comments:
“In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome”
(Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)
The condemnation by Pope Leo II is significant. He affirmed the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, confirming by this that Honorius had actively undermined the orthodox faith. W.J. Sparrow Simpson summarizes Leo's viewpoint in these comments:
Leo accepted the decisions of Constantinople. He has carefully examined the Acts of the Council and found them in harmony with the declarations of faith of his predecessor, Agatho, and of the Synod of the Lateran. He anathematized all the heretics, including his predecessor, Honorius, who so far from aiding the Apostolic See with the doctrine of the Apostolic Tradition, attempted to subvert the faith by a profane betrayal
(W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (London: John Murray, 1909), p. 35).
Von Dollinger was the leading Roman Catholic historian of the last century who taught Church history for 47 years. He makes these comments:
This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church
(Janus Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).
The key here is to remember this: it does not matter what the modern day Roman Catholic Church now says Honorius crime was (which the brief survey above shows it to be in flux), look at the historical archives and decide for yourselves in AD 681, what did the Council think!
The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:
- The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his official capacity as pope and not as a private theologian.
- He is condemned for following after and confirming the heresy of monotheletism.
- He is condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.
Although there are still some die-hards Roman Catholics like Mr Tan who still hold on to this flawed argument, it is clear from the 6EC as well as the Catholic Encyclopaedia as well as other weightier, if not equal, RC authorities, that Honorius preached doctrine ex-cathedra in those letters, even though he wasn’t seated on the chair.
We just have to remember that Honorius was promoting, teaching and disseminating heretical doctrine to the church and the letters to Sergius were the evidence of his position. This comes under his power as the infalllible pope.
To say that he must also do this and that according to some criteria set up 1200 years later to qualify for ex-cathedra status is simply committing an anachronistic error. The fact of the matter is that all popes before AD1870 have no idea whatsoever of any of the criteria for papal infallibility that was to be promulgated in AD1870! If we hold on to this, many pre-1870 Roman Catholic Church doctrines such as purgatory should then be fallible.
Mr Tan’s attempt to salvage the case should not come as any surprise. In fact, for your information, the Catholic Encyclopaedia even records some Roman Catholics in the very state of denial:
“Bellarmine and Baronius followed Pighius in denying that Honorius was condemned at all. Baronius argued that the Acts of the Council were falsified by Theodore, a Patriarch of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the emperor, but was restored at a later date; we are to presume that the council condemned him, but that he substituted "Honorius" for "Theodorus" in the Acts. This theory has frequently been shown to be untenable.”
2. Honorius Was Misinterpreted and Misquoted
Another exculpatory reason given by Mr Tan is that Honorius didn’t actually teach monotheletism, he merely used one will in order to emphasise that there are no two persons or two wills.
The Catholic Encyclopaedia traces this “goof-up”,
THE REPLY OF HONORIUS
“It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing.
Honorius entirely agrees with the caution which Sergius recommends. He praises Sergius for eventually dropping the new expression "one operation", but he unfortunately also agrees with him that it will be well to avoid "two operations" also; for if the former sounds Eutychian, the latter may be judged to be Nestorian.
Another passage is even more difficult to account for. Following the lead of Sergius, who had said that "two operations" might lead people to think two contrary wills were admitted in Christ, Honorius (after explaining the communicatio idiomatum, by which it can be said that God was crucified, and that the Man came down from heaven) adds: "Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin." Other passages in the letter are orthodox. But it is plain that the pope simply followed Sergius, without going more deeply into the question.”
This is the main thing that Honorius was condemned for – he spoke of one will. The crucial question here is what did Honorius mean by confessing one will? Note: To the 6EC, the Emperor and the Roman legates present at the council, it meant that Honorius taught monotheletism and he was condemned for this. To Rome, Honorius was not teaching monotheletism, he was just emphasising one will in contrast to two persons / two wills.
This creates an interesting situation. If the Roman Catholic Church is right about Honorius, then the 6th Ecumenical Council is wrong, and if the 6th Ecumenical Council is right, then the Roman Catholic Church today is wrong. We can’t have it both ways.
THE ECTHESIS OF HERACLIUS
Sergius, after receiving the pope's letter approving his recent cautiousness, composed an "Ecthesis", or exposition, which was issued by the emperor towards the end of 638. In conformity with the words of Honorius it orders all the subjects of Heraclius to confess one Will in our Lord, and to avoid the expressions "one operation" and "two operations".
This was the other thing that Honorius was condemned for – he said to avoid two wills also.
Before Sergius died, in December, he assembled a great synod at Constantinople, which accepted the Ecthesis as "truly agreeing with the Apostolic preaching"; the letter from the Apostolic See was evidently the surety for this. Honorius was already dead, and had no opportunity of approving or disapproving the imperial document which had been based upon his letter…
The Roman envoys who came to Constantinople in 640 to obtain the emperor's confirmation of the new pope, Severinus, refused to accept the Ecthesis, on the ground that Rome was above all synodical law. Severinus only reigned two months, but condemned the Ecthesis, and so did his successor, John IV.
Emperor Heraclius then wrote to the pope, laying the blame on Sergius, and disowning the Ecthesis. He died shortly afterwards (February, 641).
Notice the beginning of a distinction between Honorius and Sergius. However, the 6EC’s condemnation is clear, that Honorius and Sergius were condemned together. The Catholic Encyclopaedia also acknowledges this later on.
To his elder son John IV addressed a letter known as the "Apology for Pope Honorius". He explains quite truly that both Sergius and Honorius asserted one Will only because they would not admit contrary wills; yet he shows by his argument that they were wrong in using so misleading an expression.
So here is the GREAT MISUNDERSTANDING. John IV attempts to exculpate Honorius by this statement above.
St. Maximus of Constantinople, a monk and formerly secretary of Heraclius, now becomes the protagonist of orthodoxy and of submission to Rome. His defence of Honorius is based upon the statements of a certain abbot, John Symponus, the composer of the letter of Honorius, to the effect that the pope only meant to deny that Christ had not two contrary human wills, such as are found in our fallen nature. It is true that the words of Honorius are inconclusively though not necessarily, heretical. Unfortunately the Monophysites habitually argued in just the same inconclusive way, from the fact that Christ could have no rebellious lower will, to prove that His Divine and human will were not distinct faculties. No doubt Honorius did not really intend to deny that there is in Christ a human will, the higher faculty; but he used words which could be interpreted in the sense of that heresy, and he did not recognize that the question was not about the unity of the Person Who wills, nor about the entire agreement of the Divine Will with the human faculty, but about the distinct existence of the human faculty as an integrant part of the Humanity of Christ.
THE TYPE OF CONSTANS
Pyrrhus, the successor of Sergius, was condemned at Rome for refusing to withdraw the Ecthesis. Emperor Constans deposed him for political reasons, and set up a new patriarch, Paul. Pyrrhus recanted at Rome. Paul, on his appointment, sent the customary confession of faith to the pope. As it did not confess two wills, it was condemned by Pope Theodore. Paul first showed anger, but then prevailed on Constans to withdraw the Ecthesis, for which was substituted a Typos, or "Type", in which it was again forbidden to speak of one or two operations, but "one Will" was no longer taught; instead it was said that neither one nor two wills were to be spoken of, but no blame was to attach to any one who had used either expression in the past. The penalties for disobedience were to be: deposition for bishops and clergy, excommunication, loss of goods or perpetual exile for others.
This edict was based upon a misinterpretation of the Apology of John IV, who had shown that "one Will" was an improper expression, but had declared that Honorius and Sergius had used it in an orthodox sense. But John IV had neither defended nor blamed Honorius and Sergius for wishing the expression "two operations" to be avoided. It was consequently assumed that Honorius was right in this, and it was quite logical to assimilate the question of one or two wills to that of one or two operations. The penalties were severe; but both patriarch and emperor declared that they forced no man's conscience.
The Type, unlike the Ecthesis, was not an exposition of faith, but a mere prohibition of the use of certain words, for the avoidance of wrangling. The edict was issued about the first half of 649. Pope Theodore died in May, and was succeeded by St. Martin I, who in the great Lateran Council of 649 solemnly condemned the Ecthesis and the Type as heretical, together with Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus (who had fallen back), and Paul. The emperor was furious. He had the pope dragged to Constantinople, loaded with chains, and exiled him to the Crimea, where he died a martyr for the Faith in 655. St. Maximus also suffered for his devotion to orthodoxy and his loyalty to the Holy See.
The decrees of the Lateran Council which were sent to all bishops by St. Martin as papal dogmatic decisions, mark a new stage in the Honorius controversy. Honorius and Sergius must stand or fall together. John IV defended both. St. Martin condemns Sergius and Cyrus, and not a word is said in favour of Honorius. It was evidently felt that he could not be defended, if the Type was to be condemned as heretical because it forbade the orthodox expressions "two operations" and "two Wills", since in this it was simply following Honorius. But be it carefully noted that the Type of Constans is not Monothelite. Its "heresy" consists in forbidding the use of orthodox expressions together with their heretical contraries. A study of the Acts of the Lateran Council will show that the question was not as to the toleration of Monothelite expressions, for they were forbidden by the Type, but the prohibition of the orthodox formulæ. No doubt it was still held at Rome that Honorius had not intended to teach "one Will", and was, therefore, not a positive heretic. But no one would deny that he recommended the negative course which the Type enforced under savage penalties, and that he objectively deserved the same condemnation.
IN WHAT SENSE HONORIUS WAS CONDEMNED
Constans was murdered in 668. His successor, Constantine Pogonatus, probably did not trouble to enforce the Type, but East and West remained divided until his wars against the Saracens were over in 678, and he began to think of reunion. By his desire Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at a general council which met at Constantinople on 7 Nov., 680. They brought with them a long dogmatic letter in which the pope defined the faith with authority as the successor of St. Peter.
He emphatically declares, remembering Honorius, that the Apostolic Church of St. Peter has never fallen into error. He condemns the Ecthesis and Type, with Cyrus, Sergius, Theodore of Pharan, Pyrrhus, Paul, and his successor Peter. He leaves no power of deliberation to the council.
Here we see Rome’s attempt at salvaging papal infallibility and their standing in Christendom. Agatho’s letter was biased, condemning everyone except Honorius. So, in Rome’s eye, Honorius was an innocent victim of an exploitation, as Mr Tan puts it, of Sergius.
Before I comment, a similar account is given by Philip Schaff,
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-131.htm#P5927_1323872
It will be sufficient for the purposes of this volume to state that Roman Catholic Curialist writers are not at one as to how the matter is to be treated.
Pennacchi, in his work referred to above, is of opinion that Honorius's letters were strictly speaking Papal decrees, set forth auctoritate apostolica, and therefore irreformable, but he declares, contrary to the opinion of almost all theologians and to the decree of this Council, that they are orthodox, and that the Council erred in condemning them; as he expresses it, the decree rests upon all error in facto dogmatico. To save an Ecumenical Synod from error, he thinks the synod ceased to be ecumenical before it took this action, and was at that time only a synod of a number of Orientals!
Cardinal Baronius has another way out of the difficulty. He says that the name of Honorius was forged and put in the decree by an erasure in the place of the name of Theodore, the quondam Patriarch, who soon after the Council got himself restored to the Patriarchal position.
Baronius moreover holds that Honorius's letters have been corrupted, that the Acts of the Council have been corrupted, and, in short, that everything which declares or proves that Honorius was a heretic or was condemned by an Ecumenical Council as such, is untrustworthy and false. The groundlessness, not to say absurdity, of Baronius's view has been often exposed by those of his own communion, a brief but sufficient summary of the refutation will be found in Hefele, who while taking a very halting and unsatisfactory position himself, yet is perfectly clear that Baronius's contention is utterly indefensible.
Most Roman controversialists of recent years have admitted both the fact of Pope Honorius's condemnation (which Baronius denies), and the monothelite (and therefore heretical) character of his epistles, but they are of opinion that these letters were not his ex cathedra utterances as Doctor Universalis, but mere expressions of the private opinion of the Pontiff as a theologian. With this matter we have no concern in this connexion.
I shall therefore say nothing further on this point but shall simply supply the leading proofs that Honorius was as a matter of fact condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
In Agatho’s letter to the Council, he explained that it was necessary to stress one will as against two wills but it wasn’t one will as in monotheletism. In other words, Agatho was trying to say that Honorius didn’t intend his use of one will to be an endorsement of monotheletism, it was abused by Sergius, et al. So while the rest are being condemned, Honorius is not mentioned at all in his letter. Agatho put up quite a defense, quoting at length from many church fathers and the heretics’ writings to try and prove that Honorius was innocent.
But was this to be accepted by the 6EC?
Now the important thing here to remember is that Agatho didn’t have Honorius letters, they were first opened at the Council. He was obviously trying to safekeep Rome’s authority.
The thing to see is - did the Council find as damning evidence of Honorius embrace of monotheletism? The answer is YES, which is why they added Honorius to the dishonour roll!
The Easterns are to have the privilege of reunion by simply accepting his letter. He sent a book of testimonies from the Fathers, which were carefully verified. The Monothelite Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, had been allowed to present other testimonies, which were examined and found to be incorrect. The Patriarch of Constantinople, George, and all the council accepted the papal letter, and Macarius was condemned and deposed for not accepting it. Honorius, so far, had been thrice appealed to by Macarius, but had been mentioned by no one else.
In the twelfth session, 12 March, 681, a packet was produced which Macarius had sent to the emperor, but which the latter had not opened. It proved to contain the letter of Sergius to Cyrus and to Honorius, the forged letter of Mennas to Vigilius, and the letter of Honorius to Sergius.
In the thirteenth session, 28 March, the two letters of Sergius were condemned, and the council added: "Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God", that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious and great emperor, "and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema.
And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas".
These last words are true enough, and if Sergius was to be condemned Honorius could not be rescued. The legates made no objection to his condemnation.
The question had indeed arisen unexpectedly out of the reading of Macarius's packet; but the legates must have had instructions from the pope how to act under the circumstances. Some other writings of the condemned heretics were further read, including part of a second letter of Honorius, and these were all condemned to be burnt.
Note: The 6EC condemned Honorius as a monothelite even with the presence of the Roman legates because of the evidence of the letters that Macarius produced.
Since they were opened and then burnt there and then, it was obvious that Rome didn’t possess them and as such, why should we take Rome’s word over and against the 6EC’s which possessed and read those damning letters, witnessed and agreed by the Roman legates?
Clearly, the 6EC found Honorius guilty as charged, he was guilty of embracing monotheletism. There was no misinterpretation, misunderstanding or miscarriage of justice.
Rome can continue believing what they wish, even trying to change history in their councils. What Roman Catholic bishops decide on Roman Catholic matters in a Roman Catholic council presided by a Roman Catholic pope has only historical significance for Christendom, not judicial significance, no matter how many Roman Catholics believe otherwise.
On 9 Aug., in the last session, George of Constantinople petitioned "that the persons be not anathematized by name", that is, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter. He only mentions his own predecessors; but Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus, and Honorius would evidently have been spared also, had the legates supported the suggestion. But there was no attempt to save the reputation of Honorius, and the petition of George was negatived by the synod. In the final acclamations, anathema to Honorius, among the other heretics, was shouted. The solemn dogmatic decree, signed by the legates, all the bishops, and the emperor, condemns the heretics mentioned by St. Agatho "and also Honorius who was pope of elder Rome", while it enthusiastically accepts the letter of St. Agatho.
So, did the Council err in anathematising Honorius? Did they mistake his good intentions? Remember this: if the Roman Catholic Church is right about Honorius, then the 6th Ecumenical Council is wrong, and if the 6th Ecumenical Council is right, then the Roman Catholic Church today is wrong. We can’t have it both ways.
But either way, it proves one thing – there is no such thing as infallibility, either of the ecumenical councils, church fathers, bishops or popes.
3. Honorius Was Condemned for Negligence, Not Heresy?
Yet another excuse could be that Honorius was not condemned as a positive heretic, just for his negligence in stopping the heresy! He should have more positively stopped the one-will heresy and actively proclaimed the one person, two-will orthodox beliefs.
That is what he should have done but we shouldn’t condemn him because he did this in his interest to maintain peace and unity.
Is this true? Did the 6EC investigate and found this to be true? Unfortunately for Mr Tan, no. Both the Emperor and the 6EC refute this.
In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes:
"With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches.
These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome...the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself...
We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present...besides, we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."
The Emperor’s understanding of the 6EC’s decision is nothing like negligence! The Emperor understood it as Honorius embraced monotheletism, promoted it and gave credence and authority to its adherents! This is why Honorius and Sergius were also appealed to for authority by monothelites. Jaroslav Pelikan affirms this in these comments:
In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)
Monotheletes were claiming Honorius and Sergius for them! This is what is recorded in the Acts,
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-122.htm#P5789_1232249
Extracts from the Acts. Session I.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 609 et seqq.)
[After a history of the assembly of the Council, the Acts begin with the Speech of the Papal Legatee, as follows:]
Most benign lord, in accordance with the Sacra to our most holy Pope1 from your God-instructed majesty, we have been sent by him to the most holy footsteps of your God-confirmed serenity, bearing with us his suggestion (, suggestione) as well as the other suggestion of his Synod equally addressed to your divinely preserved Piety by the venerable bishops subject to it, which also we offered to your God-crowned Fortitude. Since, then, during the past forty-six years, more or less, certain novelties in expression, contrary to the Orthodox faith, have been introduced by those who were at several times bishops of this, your royal and God-preserved city, to wit: Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, as also by Cyrus, at one time archbishop of the city of Alexandria, as well also as by Theodore, who was bishop of a city called Pharan, and by certain others their followers, and since these things have in no small degree brought confusion into the Church throughout the whole world, for they taught dogmatically that there was but one will in the dispensation of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, and one operation; and since many times your servant, our apostolic see, has fought against this, and then prayed against it, and by no means been able, even up to now, to draw away from such a depraved opinion its advocates, we beseech your God-crowned fortitude, that such as share these views of the most holy church of Constantinople may tell us, what is the source of this new-fangled language.
[Answer of the Monothelites made at the Emperor's bidding:] We have brought out no new method of speech, but have taught whatever we have received from the holy Ecumenical Synods, and from the holy approved Fathers, as well as from the archbishops of this imperial city, to wit: Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, as also from Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, and from Cyrus who was Pope of Alexandria, that is to say with reference to will and operation, and so we have believed, and so we believe, so we preach; and further we are ready to stand by, and defend this faith.
Of course, Roman Catholics argue that just because someone else claims that Honorius is a monothelite doesn’t mean he is, it could be hearsay. True, but this is not the point. The point is that monothelites at the time have reasons and evidences to believe that Honorius and Sergius preached monotheletism! These were the witnesses! Today, Roman Catholics, some 1400 years later, want us to believe otherwise.
In the twelfth session, 12 March, 681, a packet was produced which Macarius had sent to the emperor, but which the latter had not opened. It proved to contain the letter of Sergius to Cyrus and to Honorius, the forged letter of Mennas to Vigilius, and the letter of Honorius to Sergius. In the thirteenth session, 28 March, the two letters of Sergius were condemned, and the council added:
"Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God, that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious and great emperor, "and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema.
And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas".
The 6EC anathematised Honorius for actually confirming the heresy. And in fact, for promoting and disseminating it, not for negligence!
Session XVIII:
But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome..., has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).
What about Roman popes Agatho and Leo II? Before examining what they say, let us be realistic about this. Honorius was Rome’s Bishop and he was singled out for heresy just when Rome was enjoying a prominent status as the see of Peter. From Agatho’s letter, it was clear that he was not going to support Honorius’ condemnation, from the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
By his desire Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at a general council which met at Constantinople on 7 Nov., 680. They brought with them a long dogmatic letter in which the pope defined the faith with authority as the successor of St. Peter. He emphatically declares, remembering Honorius, that the Apostolic Church of St. Peter has never fallen into error. He condemns the Ecthesis and Type, with Cyrus, Sergius, Theodore of Pharan, Pyrrhus, Paul, and his successor Peter. He leaves no power of deliberation to the council.
Although Agatho specifically left out Honorius in the dishonour roll of heretics which included Sergius, we saw earlier that the 6EC found the evidence overwhelmingly damning and thus could not exculpate Honorius. It was more than just negligence, it was full embrace of heresy by Honorius. That was the 6EC’s final decision.
Again, a reminder. Never mind what modern apologists tell you about Honorius. The important thing is still the thinking and judgement of the 6EC on Honorius. What was their finding and decision? They were the first hand witnesses and people involved.
Let us see where this negligence theory originated and what evidence is offered in its support. From the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
St. Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself:
"We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius,...and 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."
This appears to express exactly the mind of the council, only that the council avoided suggesting that Honorius disgraced the Roman Church. The last words of the quotation are given above as in the Greek of the letter, because great importance has been attached to them by a large number of Catholic apologists.
Pennacchi, followed by Grisar, taught that by these words Leo II explicitly abrogated the condemnation for heresy by the council, and substituted a condemnation for negligence. Nothing, however, could be less explicit. Hefele, with many others before and after him, held that Leo II by the same words explained the sense in which the sentence of Honorius was to be understood.
Such a distinction between the pope's view and the council's view is not justified by close examination of the facts. At best such a system of defence was exceedingly precarious, for the milder reading of the Latin is just as likely to be original: "but by profane treachery attempted to pollute its purity".
In this form Honorius is certainly not exculpated, yet the pope declares that he did not actually succeed in polluting the immaculate Roman Church. However, in his letter to the Spanish King Erwig, he has: "And with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished." To the Spanish bishops he explains his meaning: "With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence." That is, he did not insist on the "two operations", but agreed with Sergius that the whole matter should be hushed up.
First, note that Rome claimed that what Leo II said was more important than what the 6EC said because as pope, he was supposed to ratify the EC’s decisions.
This is besides the point. The point is what did the 6EC find about Honorius? They found him guilty of embracing, promulgating and disseminating monotheletism and anathematised him as such. The Roman legates present at the council did not object to this verdict. Neither did Leo II in his letter!
Leo was obviously trying to exculpate Honorius with an excuse of his negligence. At first, he said that Honorius was not wrong, i.e. he did not embrace monotheletism, he just used one will in an way that was easily misunderstood to be heresy. Then in his letter to the Spanish king, he admitted that Honorius did in fact tarnished Rome’s authority which implied that he believed that Honorius was guilty as charged, i.e. he embraced monotheletism.
The account here claims that the 6EC actually concurred with Leo II in admitting that Honorius was not only negligent but also by his negligence has tarnished the apostolic see of Rome. The distinction is only that the 6EC did not outrightly say that Honorius disgraced Rome. In fact, the account even claimed that Honorius was not condemned as a monothelite by the 6EC! Clearly, this is twisting what the 6EC concluded.
But again, what really matters is not what Roman Catholic popes and bishops try to change, it is what the 6EC concluded. The Catholic Encyclopaedia concludes,
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.
The Encyclopaedia also quotes the Emperor’s letter:
The emperor's official letter to the pope is particularly explicit on these points. It should be noted that he calls Honorius "the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself", again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences by St. Maximus. It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. 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.
When we read the Emperor’s words that Honorius was the “confirmer of the heresy”, we understand it to be that by his embracing of monotheletism, he was in fact lending it his papal authority. Rome would like us to believe something else. Well, you be the judge.
Is it true that the Emperor’s words supported the assertion that Honorius was condemned not as a monothelite? Here is a summary of the Imperial Edict which has not been translated in Schaff’s history,
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-132.htm#P5954_1330619
The Imperial Edict Posted in the Third Atrium of the Great Church Near What is Called Dicymbala.
In the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, the most pious Emperor, the peaceful and Christ-loving Constantine, an Emperor faithful to God in Jesus Christ, to all our Christ-loving people living in this God-preserved and royal city.
[The document is very long, Hefele gives the following epitome, which is all sufficient for the ordinary reader, who will remember that it is an Edict of the Emperor and not anything proceeding from the council.]
Hefele's Epitome (Hist. of the Councils, Vol.v., p. 178).
"The heresy of Apollinaris, etc., has been renewed by Theodore of Pharan and confirmed by Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, who also contradicted himself. Also Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter; more recently. Macarius, Stephen, and Polychronius had diffused Monothelitism. He, the Emperor, had therefore convoked this holy and Ecumenical Synod, and published the present edict with the confession of faith, in order to confirm and establish its decrees. (There follows here an extended confession of faith, with proofs for the doctrine of two wills and operations.) As he recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy (, further, Cyrus, etc., and ordained that no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and one energy. In no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved. Whoever did not obey the imperial edict should, if he were a bishop or cleric be deposed; if an official, punished with confiscation of property and loss of the girdle (); if a private person, banished from the residence and all other cities."
So, the question is here again, what did the 6EC view was Honorius’ crime? I repeat,
"Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God, that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious and great emperor, "and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema.
And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas".
The 6EC anathematised Honorius for actually confirming the heresy. And in fact, for promoting and disseminating it, not for negligence!
Session XVIII:
But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome..., has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).
Honorius was condemned based on the evidences presented at the hearing and he must only be acquitted based on evidences, not by someone with supposedly infallible power! He may be pardoned but not acquitted, in other words, Honorius remained guilty as charge although he can be forgiven. Pardon does not suddenly make what is wrong to become right! And if he, as the infallible pope, can be guilty of ex-cathedra heresy, there is no such thing as papal infallibility.
So, readers have to decide if what the 6EC decided was negligence or heresy. If negligence, then Mr Tan is right, it has no impact on papal infallibility. But I think the evidence is clear – he was condemned for heresy in spite of papal infallibility which demonstrates that there is no such thing.
4. The Decisions of the 6EC Not Ratified by Roman Popes?
Another possible reason Mr Tan might give is that the council’s decision is anathematising Honorius was not ratified by the pope, hence, is not infallible. This is apparently a Roman Catholic requirement to recognise the council. But the records show otherwise.
From the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
St. Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom.
Not only that, the condemnation was repeated at the next synod at Trullo, by the 7th and 8th EC, and even creedalised in the Liber Diurnus! From the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils without special remark; also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: "Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ii, 9).
Charles Hefelee writes,
In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath...according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius"
(Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).
If this is not ratification, what is?
Side Issue: The 6EC Validated Papal Infallibility?
From the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
The council, according to custom, presented an address of congratulation to the emperor, which was signed by all the bishops. In it they have much to say of the victory which Agatho, speaking with the voice of Peter, gained over heresy. They anathematize the heretics by name, Theodore, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, Peter, Cyrus, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things", and Macarius with his followers.
The letter to the pope, also signed by all, gives the same list of heretics, and congratulates Agatho on his letter "which we recognize as pronounced by the chiefest head of the Apostles". The modern notion that the council was antagonistic to the pope receives no support form the Acts. On the contrary all the Easterns, except the heretic Macarius, were evidently delighted with the possibility of reunion. They had never been Monothelites, and had no reason to approve the policy of silence enforced under savage penalties by the Type. They praise with enthusiasm the letter of St. Agatho, in which the authority and inerrancy of the papacy are extolled. They themselves say no less; they affirm that the pope has indeed spoken, according to his claim, with the voice of Peter.
The emperor's official letter to the pope is particularly explicit on these points. It should be noted that he calls Honorius "the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself", again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences by St. Maximus. It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. 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.
There are two points to address:
What Does the Council Mean by “chiefest Head of the Apostles”?
Roman Catholics claim that in the letter, the authority and inerrancy of the Pope are extolled, is it so? Let’s see the context of this statement:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-130.htm#P5914_1316163
Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed [father]; and therefore Christ our true God, who is the creator and governing power of all things, gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church.
Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up, having been urged to making a decree by Constantine who divinely reigns, and wields a most clement sceptre. And by his help we have overthrown the error of impiety, having as it were laid siege to the nefarious doctrine of the heretics.
Note that the context. The council did no such thing as extolling the authority and inerrancy of the papacy at all! They were talking only about what Agatho wrote in the letter, i.e. the doctrine of two wills which already has been preached by the many church fathers and councils before as Agatho himself admitted in this letter! He was merely re-stating it and the Council merely concurred with what he wrote!
What this demonstrates is not papal authority and infallibility or inerrancy, it DEMONSTRATES THAT WHAT IS HELD BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH IS FAITHFUL TO THE WORD. Not only was this doctrine of two wills held by the church fathers, in The Definition of Faith of the 6EC, it was amply supported by Scriptures!
Agatho had no more authority than the authority of the Word. It was because what he said was Scriptural, hence, it was authoritative and divine. In other words, the Scriptures was the foundation and the universal church, the communal interpretation the cornerstone of authority and infallibility, not Agatho.
Furthermore, it is clear that what the council held “written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles” was only this letter, it is not a blanket statement of perpetual infallibility at all!
In the mind of this "infallible" Council Honorius was a heretic. In its official condemnation of him, he is judged not on the basis of the criteria for ex cathedra statements which was defined some 1200 years later. One simply cannot avoid the historical facts. An "infallible" Ecumenical Council has condemned an "infallible" pope, in his official capacity, for heresy. No redefining of terms can erase the simple facts of history or the implications of those facts for the dogma of papal infallibility. This has direct bearing upon the issue of authority and jurisdiction.
If an Ecumenical Council can excommunicate a bishop of Rome then the ultimate authority in the early Church was not the bishop of Rome but the Council. The fact of this condemnation clearly demonstrates that contrary to the claims of Vatican I, the early Church never viewed the bishops of Rome to be infallible. No Church father has ever taught such a doctrine and it is contradicted by the practice of the early Church fathers and Councils, III Constantinople being but one example.
Conclusion
What we can see is that as far as the 6EC is concerned, Honorius was anathematised in his capacity as the Pope for embracing, confirming and disseminating monotheletism to the entire church, knowing that it is heretical doctrine.
The 6EC made no mistakes such as misinterpreting Honorius’ letters, nor did they in any way regard those letters as private correspondences, nor did they feel that those letters were not promulgating any doctrines. They clearly anathematised Honorius for intentional propagation of heresy, not just for negligence.
To the 6EC, there was no such thing as papal infallibility, hence, they do not hesitate to condemn any bishops or popes found to promote heresy. Their loyalty is to the Word.
What we can say to Rome’s efforts in trying to salvage the broken pieces of papal infallibility doctrine is that history has unequivocally demonstrated that neither Jesus nor the NT church ever held such a belief.
I end with Von Dollinger’s words. He was the leading Roman Catholic historian of the last century who taught Church history for 47 years. He makes these comments:
This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or inerrancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church.
(Janus Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).
Christopher.
http://www.aomin.org/FailuretoDocument.html
Failure to Document: Catholic Answers Glosses Over History
James White
Perhaps this is why Catholic Answers, while claiming to be in the "forefront" of Catholic Apologetics, refuses to engage in public debate against those they know are prepared and ready. Who knows? But one thing is for sure: the new article by Steven O'Reilly in the October, 2000 This Rock magazine rivals the sad attempts of the Watchtower Society to completely and utterly misrepresent the facts of Church History. Steven O'Reilly, who has recently been attempting to do what Catholic Answers won't do in public (respond to Protestant apologists, though, of course, as it is part of the editorial policy of CA, they refuse to refer to Protestant apologists, but instead choose the much more emotionally useful phrase "anti-Catholic"), again plies the trade of the defender of Rome's a-historical modern doctrines. But this time he reaches new lows in misrepresenting history and truth. The article is titled, "Guilty Only of Failure to Teach" and is subtitled "The Case of Pope Honorius Doesn't Disprove Papal Infallibility." It begins on page 28 of the 10/2000 issue of This Rock magazine.
I have recently had the opportunity of twice debating leading Roman Catholic apologists on the subject of Papal Infallibility. The first debate, with Timothy Staples, took place in Fullerton in July, and the second, with Robert Sungenis, took place in early October in Clearwater, Florida. In both debates the issue of Honorius took center stage. In fact, in the second debate with Mr. Sungenis, the second round of the debate was limited to the topic of Honorius' condemnation as a heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council, and that by pre-arrangement.
Before looking at O'Reilly's attempt to save Honorius, a few background issues should be addressed.
First, I would like to present the basic facts of the issue as I presented them in my opening statement on Honorius in the debate with Robert Sungenis. Then, I will comment on the fact that the defense used by Staples and O'Reilly is directly contradictory to that used by Sungenis: that is, if Staples and O'Reilly are correct, Sungenis is in error, and vice versa. Finally, I will respond to the horrifically partial presentation made by O'Reilly as yet another documented instance of the kind of apologetic offered by Catholic Answers.
The Facts About Honorius
Honorius was the bishop of Rome from 625 to 638. In 634 Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, wrote to Honorius concerning Sergius’ attempts to bring the monophysites, those who asserted that there was only one nature in Christ, into the catholic fold. Sergius was a monothelite, one who believed that while Christ was indeed one person with two natures, He had but one will, since the will was a function of the one person, not a function of the two natures. Honorius, in responding to Sergius, provides the single clearest example of Papal error that violates the definition of infallibility as given by Rome itself. Honorius agreed with Sergius, clearly, in his first letter. He wrote to Sergius as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian. He responded as the bishop of Rome to an official inquiry to the See of Rome regarding a matter of faith and morals. He wrote to a fellow bishop of the church, and in speaking of the very issue of whether Christ had one will or two, he wrote, en qelhma oJmologou`men tou` Kurivouj Ihsou Cristou (hen thelēma homologoumen ton Kuriuous Iēsou Christoui). Make sure you note the use of the plural, “we confess.” Honorius did not say, “Oh, I think maybe it’s like this.” He employed the very same plural that Roman bishops use today to refer to their representation of the church as a whole.
Now we surely can safely admit that Honorius was not the leading theologian of his day. He made an error based upon ignorance of the issues involved. The biblical standard of the elder or bishop in the church is not, thankfully, infallibility. And surely no one in that day believed in papal infallibility, so to judge Honorius on the basis of modern standards is without merit. His case is famous for no other reason than the glaring and obvious anachronism of Rome’s modern teaching. Rome proclaims her bishop infallible when teaching as the pastor of all Christians on matters of faith and morals. Obviously, it was the intention of the Vatican decree to say that the bishops of Rome have always had this “charisma of infallibility,” which would mean it is the Roman Catholic position that this teaching was valid in Honorius’ day just as much as it is today. So it is Rome that has placed the spotlight upon all the Popes of history, not Protestants.
Now, there is absolutely, positively no question that Honorius was, in fact, condemned as a heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council which met in Constantinople in 680-681 for a teaching he promulgated in an official letter sent to Sergius as the bishop of Rome.
1. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the 13th Session, near the beginning.
2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session as being “hurtful to the soul.” This includes the letter that contains the phrase en qelhma oJmologou`men (hen thelema homologoumen).
3. In the 16th Session the bishops exclaimed “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.”
4. In the decree of faith published at the 18th Session it is stated that “the originator of all evil... found a fit tool for his will in... Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.” Further, this Ecumenical Council said that Honorius taught the heretical doctrine. They said that Satan had “actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy …”
5. The Papal legates, representatives of Pope Agatho, made no attempt to stop the burning of the letters, and subscribed to every anathema placed upon Honorius, as well as to the statement that Satan himself had used the bishop of Rome as a “tool for his will.”
6. 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.
7. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says “We have destroyed the fort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Paran, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc.” Note that the Council believed its actions to be in full accord with Agatho’s wishes and Agatho’s letter!
8. 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.”
9. Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius. So strong was Leo’s confirmation that Baronius rejected it, saying it had to have been spurious, and even Cardinal Bellarmine tried to say it had been corrupted. Neither saw in Leo’s words any softening of the Council’s act, though some modern Catholic apologists have attempted to find in Leo’s sentence a ray of hope: Leo anathematizes Honorius “who did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.”
10. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the canons of the Council of Trullo which met less than two decades after Constantinople (Trullan Canons No. 1). This shows that the condemnation of Honorius was accepted by the wider church immediately after the Council, and amongst those who were familiar with Leo’s letter.
11. 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.
12. 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.) This means that in Rome itself the condemnation with anathema as a heretic was embraced and accepted.
13. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope up to the eleventh century, states in no uncertain terms, “smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.” Every single Pope who took to the chair of Peter for three hundred years did so by anathematizing his predecessor, Honorius.
14. 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, and the name remains there until the sixteenth century!
Patrick Madrid, in his book Pope Fiction, erroneously asserts that Pope Leo “redefined” the language of the 6th Ecumenical Council. He writes that Leo “confirmed the council’s decree but redefined its language regarding Pope Honorius, making it clear that Honorius had not endorsed the Monotheletism of Sergius, but had failed in his duty to condemn it. Officially, therefore, Honorius was condemned for his negligence, but not for heresy” (p. 160). This is truly imaginative, but it is also utterly untrue. Leo did not alter any wording of the council. He never said the Council had erred in its condemnation, nor did he dream he had the authority to over rule it even if it did! Madrid is referring to the letter of Leo to the Emperor I cited above: he uses the anathema and says that Honorius “permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.” It is self-evident that Madrid’s forced reading is in error for two reasons: first, the 6th Ecumenical Council specifically said that Honorius and the others taught the heresy. Was the Council wrong? Did Leo say it was wrong? No, he did not. Secondly, it was not Leo’s alleged “correction” that appears in the 7th and 8th Ecumenical Councils, but the words of the 6th, where Honorius is condemned as a heretic. Madrid follows this with a glorious example of anachronistic interpretation of ancient church history in the light of modern Roman beliefs when he quotes Warren Carroll’s statement,
The fact remains that no decree of a council has effect in the Catholic Church unless and until it is confirmed by the reigning Pope, and only in the form that he confirms it. There is no “supreme law” prescribing how the Pope shall designate his confirmation. Pope Honorius, therefore, was never condemned for heresy by the supreme Church authority, but only for negligence in allowing a heresy to spread and grow, when he should have denounced it.
Such is utterly without historical merit. The universal church at that time did not believe in the idea that a council had to await the approval of the bishop of Rome. That concept had to wait to find its universal expression in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals almost 200 years yet in the future from the time of the 6th Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo. That a belief, first introduced by fraudulent means in the middle of the 9th century would have to be read back into the context of the clear and obvious condemnation of Honorius in the 7th century, in a vain attempt to save him as well as rescue a dogma defined in the 19th century, is clear evidence of the impossible task facing the defender of papal infallibility.
Further, the fact that every possible defense has been offered for Honorius’ condemnation proves one thing: none of those offered are compelling. Thus we see why Newman feared the prospect of having to defend decisions which may “...be most difficult to maintain logically in the face of historical facts.” Newman understood that the unbiased observer could not help but conclude that the definition of the Vatican Council was proclaimed without any concern for the truths of history itself.
We would be wise to consider as well that during the deliberations prior to the announcement of Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council, the Pope, while excluding those who opposed the definition of infallibility from publishing in Rome, allowed those who supported the definition to print their books and have access to the newspapers in the city itself. One of those works that the Pope allowed to be printed in Rome, and in fact had distributed amongst the members of the Council (while all replies were disallowed), was that of Professor Pennachi. Pennachi firmly advanced the assertion that Honorius’ letters were ex cathedra, that they were orthodox, and that the Council erred, being made up primarily of Orientals, not Westerners. Bishop Hefele, a member of the Vatican Council, a historian of whom Schaff said, “Hefele has forgotten more about the history of Councils than the infallible Pope ever knew,” an opponent of infallibility prior to the Council, but one who submitted thereafter, not only refuted Pennachi fully, but had to completely revise his own writings on Honorius after the decree came out, much like Newman. I heartily recommend the narrative provided by Philip Schaff of how Pope Pius IX utilized everything short of the barrel of a gun to obtain the definition of his own infallibility, and how completely different was this allegedly ecumenical Council in comparison with that of Nicea. There is nothing in the history of the First Vatican Council that will cause any person to be anything but distrustful of the allegedly infallible pronouncement that came therefrom.
We should also realize that to expect the men of the past, who manifestly did not believe the modern formulation of this doctrine, to conform to any kind of specific “formula” for a teaching to be infallible likewise, is to completely gut history of its meaning. It is a common defense to say, “Look, Honorius did not teach this ex cathedra, so it does not violate the definition.” The problem is, no one back then operated on such a modern platform, therefore, to act as if they did is to violate all logical standards of historical inquiry. Further, it is likewise to render every single Papal statement of the past “safe” from the allegation of error. That is, if you insist that a certain “formula” be used, you can simply dismiss all papal errors as not having been pronounced “ex cathedra,” and all is well. The serious investigator, however, will look at the Vatican council’s declaration and ask, “Do the facts of history support this claim?”
And finally, I remind us all: Honorius died forty years prior to the Council of Constantinople. For four decades his letters existed, teaching what would later be identified as a heresy by an ecumenical Council. No Pope of Rome uttered a word in condemnation during those four decades. It would be like having a Pope teach heresy in 1960, and having to wait till this very year for there to be a “correction,” and then only from a gathered council, not from the Pope himself. For forty years those letters existed, and if you had looked to the bishop of Rome’s teachings during those years, you would have been led into formal heresy thereby. How, then, can we know that the recently promulgated Papal statement Dominus Iesus will not, twenty, forty, or a hundred years from now, likewise be burned as “hurtful to the soul” at some future council? The fact is, we cannot, and hence the uselessness of the idea of Papal Infallibility. What a contrast, then, between this, and the unchanging, and unchangeable, infallibility of God’s Word, the Bible.
The Thousand Excuses
As was noted above, every possible explanation has been offered by Roman Catholic controversialists regarding the issue of Honorius. The fact that Rome has to multiply its excuses shows that none of them are compelling or historically consistent. IF Honorius' letters were orthodox, then there is no reason to worry about whether they were ex cathedra or not; IF they were not ex cathedra, then it doesn't matter if they were orthodox. IF Leo "changed" the decisions of the Council, then none of the other considerations are relevant. The fact that Roman apologists are forced to pile excuse upon excuse upon excuse shows that they know that no single argument is compelling. It seems that they are more concerned about keeping their constituency happy (i.e., providing excuses for those who want to believe) than providing meaningful defense of the modern dogma in a historical setting.
Another reason for the multiplicity of conflicting excuses is easily discerned in this quotation from John Meyendorff, found in the article O'Reilly is allegedly responding to (he ignores it in his reply), found at http://www.christiantruth.com/pope.html,
This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries - Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists at Vatican I in 1870 would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope's good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir's, 1989), p. 353).
The simple fact of the matter is that no one in the days of Honorius believed in "Papal Infallibility" as it is defined today. In reality, no papal statement of the past is liable to be proven in error since it can always be argued that they "did not intend it to be a binding statement upon the entire church." So, through the wonderful use of hindsight, any errant Papal teaching can be considered non-binding, and any Papal teaching that is still in vogue can be said to be consistent with the "universal faith of the Church." It's truly a wonderful system that actually means nothing at all, since you can never know if a current Pope's teaching will get the stamp of approval of future generations, or will end up on the scrap-heap of "he didn't mean that infallibly" pronouncements. But this very anachronistic element of the belief results in all sorts of conflicting and self-contradictory explanations for past papal misstatements. Since the modern construct has no connection to the ancient situation, Roman apologists are forced to pick and choose from among the ancient circumstances to come up with their defense. As each may put more weight on this circumstance or that, they end up contradicting each other. So while Staples and O'Reilly defend Honorius as orthodox, Sungenis can admit his error and his condemnation. If the first position is right, the second is in error, and vice-versa. Such is the quandary of the apologist who must defend an anachronism.
Guilty of Failure to Honestly Represent History
It was most interesting, then, to encounter the attempt on the part of Steven O'Reilly (who is authoring a book on the Papacy, according to the article) to do some "damage control" on the Honorius issue in the October edition of This Rock magazine. Bill Webster had quite properly pointed out the particularly shallow attempt on the part of Karl Keating to address Honorius in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, in an article on his webpage (specifically, http://www.christiantruth.com/pope.html, but make sure to see http://www.christiantruth.com/articles.html as well). O'Reilly, who seemingly has taken up the banner of Catholic Answers in attempting to respond to historical issues (see my two previous rebuttals of his attempts, Whitewashing Church History and Serving Up Circular Arguments), carefully crafts a presentation that would make Bill Clinton or Al Gore proud. By carefully spinning a few facts, making grand conclusions before even admitting the most damaging evidence into the mix, and ignoring all sorts of other factual matters, O'Reilly presents a lopsided (to those who know the facts) defense that surely sounds good if there is no interaction or rebuttal from anyone who might be able to push down his house of cards (making the Catholic Answers unwillingness to enter the public arena against meaningful opposition all the more glaring).
For example, long before O'Reilly admits that Honorius specifically said, "We confess one will in our Lord Jesus Christ" in his letters to Sergius (hence their being burned at the Council, a fact he conveniently forgets to mention), he instead weaves a very unfair (and pretty much undocumented) story of how Honorius was actually orthodox, how he merely failed to teach, etc., in words that make it sound like the facts of history are on his side, when they are not. When he finally introduces the actual words of Honorius presenting monotheletism, he has already presented the "spin" he needs to get Honorius out of trouble. But let's look at the major problem with O'Reilly's attempt to rescue Honorius from the facts of history.
The majority of the facts presented above never appear in O'Reilly's article. He never relates the words of the Council. Instead, we find the majority of space dedicated to Agatho's letter, Leo's letter after the Council, etc. But not a whisper about the actual words and actions of the Council. How in the world can one expect to honestly deal with the Council's actions when you utterly ignore what they said and did? This is why I said above that this is very much like how the Watchtower has manhandled patristics in the past, especially their incredible attempt to deny Ignatius' testimony to the deity of Christ by conveniently forgetting to ever cite Ignatius himself, preferring to only site the pseudo-Ignatian epistles (2/1/92 Watchtower). This comes to a grand climax when O'Reilly produces a paragraph that, if it represents the nature of the book he is intending to publish, will put it right up there with the "silence speaks volumes" arguments of Stephen Ray. Here is the context: Agatho wrote a pompous, arrogant letter to the Council (something Roman pontiffs became adept at doing since the days of Stephen in the 3rd century). In it he speaks glowingly of his apostolic authority, and, according to George Salmon, for the first time puts pen to paper in using Luke 22 in defense of papal primacy and authority. In the process he speaks of the consistency of the Roman see in theological truth, etc. O'Reilly writes that in his letter Agatho "asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see and stated that he and all of his predecessors, thus inclusive of Honorius, 'have never ceased to exhort and warn them (i.e. the monothelites) with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma.' " Ignoring the Council's reply to Agatho, which I noted above, O'Reilly then writes one of the most amazing paragraphs I've read in a while:
The council professed its agreement with Agatho's letter, anathematized any who rejected it, and said its condemnations were in accordance with it. Therefore, any conciliar condemnation of Honorius must be understood in light of such agreement. Consequently, since Agatho counted Honorius among his orthodox predecessors, so too did the council.
Writing like this truly amazes me. I would enjoy getting to cross-examine Mr. O'Reilly in a moderated debate regarding such an assertion. Here's how it might go:
W: Mr. O'Reilly, did Pope Agatho mention Honorius by name in his letter to the Council?
O: Well, not specifically, but he did mention his predecessors, which would include Honorius.
W: But he never once says, "Honorius was orthodox" in his letter, correct?
O: Not in those words.
W: Agatho died before the Council's decisions arrived in Rome, correct?
O: Yes.
W: You said in your presentation that the Council counted Honorius as orthodox, correct?
O: That is the logical conclusion of their acceptance of Agatho's letter, yes.
W: Then could you explain why the Council had Honorius' letters burned as hurtful to the soul?
O: Well, they were hurtful because they did not promote the full truth. They failed to teach.
W: Could you then explain these words of the Council, which you failed to note in your presentation:
"Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.” And could you explain why in the 18th session they taught that Satan “the originator of all evil... found a fit tool for his will in... Honorius, Pope of Old Rome" and why they went on to say that Honorius and the others had taught this false doctrine? Does that sound like the words of a Council that counted Honorius as orthodox?
[I have no idea how Mr. O'Reilly would respond, since he chose to ignore these facts in his presentation.]
W: And is it not true, Mr. O'Reilly, that when the Council wrote to Agatho they said, "We have destroyed the fort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Paran, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc.”? How can you tell us that the Council counted Honorius as orthodox when they said they slew him with the anathema as a heretic? And finally, Mr. O'Reilly, how in the world can you make presentations like this, knowing full well the Council said these things, and yet utterly ignore these facts in your presentation?
I have no idea how Mr. O'Reilly would respond. I would love to find out, in person, in debate, if he'd be willing to do so.
And so what do we learn from this kind of writing? Aside from the normal truths that we must always check sources, etc., the main thing we learn is something about the mindset of the apologists for Catholic Answers. Aside from the seemingly obligatory "anti-Catholic" rhetoric, Mr. O'Reilly is proving himself to be a faithful son of Rome: just as Rome did not hesitate to get full benefit of such things as the Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, so too her modern defenders are not at all hesitant to use partial truths to promote their cause. A full review of the facts shows that the defenses he offers are utterly untenable: yet, since these "apologetics" publications refuse to engage the other side in one-on-one debate, they seem to feel they can get away with this kind of activity. By God's grace, we continue to point out this consistent deceptive behavior, and pray for the deliverance of those who have been entrapped by it.
James White
No he comprobado si todas las webs siguen funcionando....están en inglés:
http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/HN_Open/get/messageboard/354/13/2/7/1/1.html?frame=newset
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm
http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html
http://www.bartleby.com/65/fa/FalseDec.html
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ca/canonlaw.html
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/decretals.htm
http://www.egwestate.andrews.edu/gc/gcappendix.html
Y aquí, el plato fuerte:
Essays concerning Historical Evidences Against Papal Infallibility and Primacy of Universal Jurisdiction
Contents
The following articles are historical evidences that demonstrate the early church fathers’ reactions to the Pope of Rome as far as the latter’s claim to being Doctor Universalis or Vicar of Christ. Roman Catholics can assert all they want about the Pope’s allegedly universal jurisdiction over all the ancient churches but they won’t find any shred of historical evidences for that assertion!
1. Irenaeus Rebuked Victor of Rome
2. Basil Sided with Meletius of Antioch Against Rome
3. Cyprian Regards Rome’s Re-Baptism as Heretical
4. Gregory the Great Rejected I Maccabees as Canonical
5. Forgeries and the Papacy by William Webster
As long as the true facts of Church history were well known, the papacy could not emerge. However, in the 9th century, a literary forgery occurred which completely revolutionized the ancient government of the Church in the West. It provided a legal foundation for the ascendancy of the papacy in Western Christendom. This forgery is known as the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals, written around 845 A.D. Webster exposes this document.
6. An Ecumenical Council Officially Condemns a Pope for Heresy by William Webster
Historically, papal infallibility was never part of the teaching or practice of the early Church, nor was it ever part of the doctrinal content of saving faith as taught by it. The 6th Ecumenical Council (III Constantinople) held in 680-681 A.D. posthumously excommunicated from the Church and forever branded a heretic Pope Honorius, who reigned as bishop of Rome from 625 to 638 A.D. Webster discusses this issue. [Debates with Tan Yew Hock at Antioch.]
7. Failure to Document: Catholic Answers Glosses Over History by James White
James White gives good summary of the arguments and rebuts well the lame attempts by Catholic apologists such as Tim Staples, Robert Sugenis and Steven O’Reilly to defend Honorius.
Irenaeus Rebuked Victor of Rome
Basil Sided with Meletius of Antioch Against Rome
The History
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch06.htm
§ 73. The Meletian Schism at Antioch.
The Meletian schism at Antioch was interwoven with the Arian controversies, and lasted through more than half a century.
In 361 the majority of the Antiochian church elected as bishop Meletius, who had formerly been an Arian, and was ordained by this party, but after his election professed the Nicene orthodoxy. He was a man of rich persuasive eloquence, and of a sweet and amiable disposition, which endeared him to the Catholics and Arians. But his doctrinal indecision offended the extremists of both parties. When he professed the Nicene faith, the Arians deposed him in council, sent him into exile, and transferred his bishopric to Euzoius, who had formerly been banished with Arius. The Catholics disowned Euzoius, but split among themselves; the majority adhered to the exiled Meletius, while the old and more strictly orthodox party, who had hitherto been known as the Eustathians, and with whom Athanasius communicated, would not recognize a bishop of Arian consecration, though Catholic in belief, and elected Paulinus, a presbyter of high character, who was ordained counter-bishop by Lucifer of Calaris.
The doctrinal difference between the Meletians and the old Nicenes consisted chiefly in this: that the latter acknowledged three hypostases in the divine trinity, the former only three prosopa; the one laying the stress on the triplicity of the divine essence, the other on its unity.
The orthodox orientals declared for Meletius, the occidentals and Egyptians for Paulinus, as legitimate bishop of Antioch. Meletius, on returning from exile under the protection of Gratian, proposed to Paulinus that they should unite their flocks, and that the survivor of them should superintend the church alone; but Paulinus declined, since the canons forbade him to take as a colleague one who had been ordained by Arians. Then the military authorities put Meletius in possession of the cathedral, which had been in the hands of Euzoius. Meletius presided, as senior bishop, in the second ecumenical council (381), but died a few days after the opening of it—a saint outside the communion of Rome. His funeral was imposing: lights were borne before the embalmed corpse, and psalms sung in divers languages, and these honors were repeated in all the cities through which it passed on its transportation to Antioch, beside the grave of St. Babylas. The Antiochians engraved his likeness on their rings, their cups, and the walls of their bedrooms. So St. Chrysostom informs us in his eloquent eulogy on Meletius. Flavian was elected his successor, although Paulinus was still alive. This gave rise to fresh troubles, and excited the indignation of the bishop of Rome. Chrysostom labored for the reconciliation of Rome and Alexandria to Flavian. But the party of Paulinus, after his death in 389, elected Evarius as successor († 392), and the schism continued down to the year 413 or 415, when the bishop Alexander succeeded in reconciling the old orthodox remnant with the successor of Meletius. The two parties celebrated their union by a splendid festival, and proceeded together in one majestic stream to the church.
Thus a long and tedious schism was brought to a close, and the church of Antioch was permitted at last to enjoy that peace which the Athanasian synod of Alexandria in 362 had desired for it in vain.
Basil’s Letter to Terentius, the Commander of the Army
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/Npnf2-08-232.htm
Letter CCXIV (214th)
To Count Terentius.
(Footnote from Letter XCIX (96th): On Terentius. He was an orthodox Christian, though in favour with Valens. In 372 he was in command of twelve legions in Georgia, and Basil communicates with him about providing bishops for the Armenian Church. According to some manuscripts of Letter CV (105th), his three daughters were deaconesses)
1. When I heard that your excellency had again been compelled to take part in public affairs, I was straightway distressed (for the truth must be told) at the thought of how contrary to your mind it must be that you after once giving up the anxieties of official life, and allowing yourself leisure for the care of your sold, should again beforced back into your old career. But then I bethought me that peradventure the Lord has ordained that your lordship should again appear in public from this wish to grant the boon of one alleviation for the countless pains which now beset the Church in our part of the world. I am, moreover, cheered by the thought that I am about to meet your excellency once again before I depart this life.
2. But a further rumour has reached me that you are in Antioch, and are transacting the business in hand with the chief authorities. And, besides this, I have heard that the brethren who are of the party of Paulinus are entering on some discussion with your excellency on the subject of union with us; and by "us" I mean those who are supporters of the blessed man of God, Meletius (Footnote: On the divisions of Antioch, cf. Theod., H.E. iii. 2. Basil was no doubt taking the wise course in supporting Meletius, whose personal orthodoxy was unimpeachable. But the irreconcilable Eustathians could not forgive him his Arian nomination). I hear, moreover, that the Paulinians are carrying about a letter of the Westerns (Footnote: This description might apply to either of the two letters written by Damasus to Paulinus on the subject of the admission to communion of Vitalius, bishop of the Apollinarian schism at Antioch. (Labbe. Conc. ii. 864 and 900, and Theod H.E. v. ii.) The dates may necessitate its being referred to the former), assigning to them the episcopate of the Church in Antioch, but speaking under a false impression of Meletius, the admirable bishop of the true Church of God. I am not astonished at this. They (Footnote: i.e. the Westerns) are totally ignorant of what is going on here; the others, though they might be supposed to know, give an account to them in which party is put before truth; and it is only what one might expect that they should either be ignorant of the truth, or should even endeavour to conceal the reasons which led the blessed Bishop Athanasius to write to Paulinus. But your excellency has on the spot those who are able to tell you accurately what passed between the bishops in the reign of Jovian, and from them I beseech you to get information (Footnote: cf. Letter cclviii. and the Prolegomena to Athanasius in this edition, p. lxi. The events referred to took place in the winter of 363, when Athanasius was at Antioch, and in the early part of 364 on his return to Alexandria). I accuse no one; I pray that I may have love to all, and "especially unto them who are of the household of faith;" and therefore I congratulate those who have received the letter from Rome. And, although it is a grand testimony in their favour, I only hope it is true and confirmed by facts. But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from ment (Footnote: St. Basil seems quite unaware of any paramount authority in a letter from Rome cf. Prolegomena). Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints…
(Basil then proceeds to explain his stand on ousia and hypostasis – the centre of controversy between Meletius and Paulinus)
3. Consider well, my excellent friend, that the falsifiers of the truth, who have introduced the Arian schism as an innovation on the sound faith of the Fathers, advance no other reason for refusing to accept the pious opinion of the Fathers than the meaning of the homoousion which they hold in their wickedness, and to the slander of the whole faith, alleging our contention to be that the Son is consubstantial in hypostasis. If we give them any opportunity by our being carried away by men who propound these sentiments and their like, rather from simplicity than from malevolence, there is nothing to prevent our giving them an unanswerable ground of argument against ourselves and confirming the heresy of those whose one end is in all their utterances about the Church, not so much to establish their own position as to calumniate mine. What more serious calumny could there be? What better calculated to disturb the faith of the majority than that some of us could be shewn to assert that there is one hypostasis of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? We distinctly lay down that there is a difference of Persons; but this statement was anticipated by Sabellius, who affirms that God is one by hypostasis, but is described by Scripture in different Persons, according to the requirements of each individual case; sometimes under the name of Father, when there is occasion for this Person; sometimes under the name of Son when there is a descent to human interests or any of the operations of the oeconomy; and sometimes under the Person of Spirit when the occasion demands such phraseology. If, then, any among us are shewn to assert that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in substance (), while we maintain the three perfect Persons, how shall we escape giving clear and incontrovertible proof of the truth of what is being asserted about us?
4. The non-identity of hypostasis and ousia is, I take it, suggested even by our western brethren, where, from a suspicion of tile inadequacy of their own language, they have given the word ousia in the Greek, to the end that any possible difference of meaning might be preserved in the clear and unconfounded distinction of terms. If you ask me to state shortly my own view, I shall state that ousia has the same relation to hypostasis as the common has to the particular. Every one of us both shares in existence by the common term of essence (ousia) and by his own properties is such an one and such an one. In the same manner, in the matter in question, the term ousia is common, like goodness, or Godhead, or any similar attribute; while hypostasis is contemplated in the special property of Fatherhood, Sonship, or the power to sanctify. If then they describe the Persons as being without hypostasis, the statement is per se absurd; but if they concede that the Persons exist in real hypostasis, as they acknowledge, let them so reckon them that the principle of the homoousion may be preserved in the unity of the Godhead, and that the doctrine preached may be the recognition of true religion, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the perfect and complete hypostasis of each of the Persons named. Nevertheless, there is one point which I should like to have pressed on your excellency, that you and all who like you care for the truth, and honour the combatant in the cause of true religion, ought to wait for the lead to be taken in bringing about this union and peace by the foremost authorities in the Church, whom I count as pillars and foundations of the truth and of the Church, and reverence all the more because they have been sent away for punishment, and have been exiled far from home. Keep yourself, I implore you, clear of prejudice, that in you, whom God has given me as a staff and support in all things, I may be able to find rest.
Basil’s Subsequent Letter to Meletius
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/Npnf2-08-234.htm
Letter CCXVI (216th).
To Meletius, bishop of Antioch.
Many other journeys have taken me from home. I have been as far as Pisidia to settle the matters concerning the brethren in Isauria in concert with the Pisidian bishops. Thence I journeyed into Pontus, for Eustathius had caused no small disturbance at Dazimon, and had caused there a considerable secession from our church. I even went as far as the home of my brother Peter, and, as this is not far from Neocaesarea, there was occasion of considerable trouble to the Neocaesareans, and of much rudeness to myself. Some men fled when no one was in pursuit. And I was supposed to be intruding uninvited, simply to get compliments from the folk there. As soon as I got home, after contracting a severe illness from the bad weather and my anxieties. I straightway received a letter from the East to tell me that Paulinus had had certain letters from the West addressed to him, in acknowledgement of a sort of higher claim; and that the Antiochene rebels were vastly elated by them, and were next preparing a form of creed and offering to make its terms a condition of union with our Church. Besides all this it was reported to me that they had seduced to their faction that most excellent man Terentius. I wrote to him at once as forcibly as I could. to induce him to pause; and I tried to point out their disingenuousness.
Basil’s Letter to Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/Npnf2-08-276.htm#P5819_1825466
Letter CCLVIII (253rd)
To Epiphanius the bishop
(Footnote: On Epiphanius: The learned and saintly bishop of Salamis in Cyprus. About this time he published his great work against heresy, the , and also travelled to Antioch to reconcile the Apollinarian Vitalis to Paulinus. On the failure of his efforts, and the complicated state of parties at Antioch at this time, cf. Epiphan., lxxvii. 20-23; Jerome. Epp. 57, 58, and Soz., H. E. vi. 25)
3. As to the Church at Antioch (I mean that which is in agreement in the same doctrine), may the Lord grant that one day we may see it united. It is in peril of being specially open to the attacks of the enemy, who is angry with it because there the name of Christian first obtained. There heresy is divided against orthodoxy, and orthodoxy is divided against herself.
My position, however, is this. The right reverend bishop Meletius was the first to speak boldly for the truth, and fought that good fight in the days of Constantine, Therefore my Church has felt strong affection towards him, for the sake of that brave and firm stand, and has held communion with him. I, therefore, by God's grace, have held him to be in communion up to this time; and, if God will, I shall continue to do so.
Moreover the very blessed Pope Athanasius came from Alexandria, and was most anxious that communion should be established between Meletius and himself; but by the malice of counsellors their conjunction was put off to another season. Would that this had not been so!
I have never accepted communion with any one of those who have since been introduced into the see, not because I count them unworthy, but because I see no ground for the condemnation of Meletius. Nevertheless I have heard many things about tile brethren, without giving heed to them, because the accused were not brought face to face with their accusers, according to that which is written, "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" I cannot therefore at present write to them, right honourable brother, and I ought not to be forced to do so. It will be becoming to your peaceful disposition not to cause union in one direction and disunion in another, but to restore the severed member to the original union. First, then, pray; next, to the utmost of your ability, exhort, that ambition may be driven from their hearts, and that reconciliation may be effected between them both to restore strength to the Church, and to destroy the rage of oar foes. It has given great comfort to my soul that, in addition to your other right and accurate statements in theology, you should acknowledge the necessity of stating that the hypostases are three. Let the brethren at Antioch be instructed by you after this manner. Indeed I am confident that they have been so instructed; for I am sure you would never have accepted communion with them unless you had carefully made sure of this point in them.
Cyprian Regards Rome’s Re-Baptism as Heretical
Gregory the Great Rejected I Maccabees as Canonical
Extracted from William Webster’s Rebuttal to Art Sippo on the Canon of the Old Testament.
Gregory the Great was pope from 590 to 604 A.D. Mr. Sippo says there is no evidence Gregory wrote his commentary on Job while he was pope. Roman Catholic patristics scholar, William Jurgens, gives the following background to Gregory’s commentary, which refute Sippo’s allegations:
When Gregory, while Apocrisarius in Constantinople, met Bishop Leander of Seville about the year 578, Leander asked him to write a commentary on the Book of Job. Gregory’s response was his Moralia or Moralium libri or Expositio in librum Iob, at which he worked intermittently for many years, finally completing the work in thirty-five books about the year 595 A.D. The Moral Teachings is devoted mostly to discussions of questions in moral theology and of practical applications of Gregory’s solutions. In a sense it may be regarded as the first manual of moral and ascetic theology (William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), Volume III, p. 313).
Please note that William Jurgens affirms the fact that Gregory did indeed write his commentary while he was pope. What is more, in asserting that the book of I Maccabees is not canonical, Gregory is not sharing his personal opinion as a private theologian, but is simply stating the position of the Church of his day. He states:
With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed" (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424).
Gregory the Great would never have purposefully expressed a view contrary to that which he knew had been authoritatively established by the Church. Clearly, when the Church received the Apocryphal books as canonical it defined the term canonical in the sense expressed by Cardinal Cajetan above. The term had a broad and a narrow meaning. In its broad sense it encompassed all the books which were acceptable to be read in the Churches, which included the Apocrypha. But in its narrow meaning it meant only the books of the Hebrew Canon were sanctioned as truly canonical for the purposes of establishing doctrine.
Furthermore, Mr. Sippo states that the Commentary on Job was not an official Church document. This is erroneous. As was pointed out in the statements above on the Glossa ordinaria, Gregory’s Commentary on Job was the standard commentary for the entire Western Church of the Middle Ages. He is teaching here in his official capacity as pope on issues related to morals. The fact that the Commentary on Job was written while he was pope and was used as an official commentary for the entire Western Church is proof enough that this work was an official Church document. And Gregory never retracted what he had written about the Apocrypha. Thus, we have the official and authoritative perspective of a bishop of Rome in the late seventh century regarding the canonical status of the Apocrypha.
http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html
Forgeries and the Papacy
The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy
By William Webster
The Full Development of the Papacy in the Ninth Century and the Forgery Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals
In the middle of the ninth century, a radical change began in the Western Church, which dramatically altered the Constitution of the Church, and laid the ground work for the full development of the papacy. The papacy could never have emerged without a fundamental restructuring of the Constitution of the Church and of men’s perceptions of the history of that Constitution. As long as the true facts of Church history were well known, it would serve as a buffer against any unlawful ambitions. However, in the 9th century, a literary forgery occurred which completely revolutionized the ancient government of the Church in the West. It provided a legal foundation for the ascendancy of the papacy in Western Christendom. This forgery is known as the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals, written around 845 A.D. The Decretals are a complete fabrication of Church history. They set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of the popes over the universal Church prior to the fourth century and make it appear that the popes had always exercised sovereign dominion and had ultimate authority even over Church Councils. Nicholas I (858–867) was the first to use them as the basis for advancing his claims of authority. But it was not until the 11th century with Pope Gregory VII that the these decretals were used in a significant way to alter the government of the Western Church. It was at this time that the Decretals were combined with two other major forgeries, The Donation of Constantine and the Liber Pontificalis, along with other falsified writings, and codified into a system of Church law which elevated Gregory and all his successors as absolute monarchs over the Church in the West. These writings were then utilized by Gratian in composing his Decretum. The Decretum, which was first published in 1151 A.D., was intended as a collection of everything that Gratian could find which could give historical precedent to the teaching of papal primacy, and therefore the authority of tradition, which could then carry the force of law in the Church. It had such success that it became the standard work of the law of the Roman Church and thus the basis of all canon law and Scholastic theology. Some Roman Catholic apologists claim that though there were forgeries in the Church, these really had very little impact upon the advancement and development of the papacy, since it was already an established reality by the time the forgeries appeared. Karl Keating, for example, states that practically all the commentators, with the exception of fundamentalists, agree with this assessment. But this is completely false. The historical facts reveal that the papacy was never a reality as far as the universal Church is concerned. There are many eminent Roman Catholic historians who have testified to that fact as well as to the importance of the forgeries, especially those of Pseudo-Isidore. One such historian is Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger. He was the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the last century, who taught Church history for 47 years as a Roman Catholic. He makes these important comments:
In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.
That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians.
The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers...and with Gratia’s own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chokeful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116).
The Importance and Influence of Pseudo-Isidore
The Protestant historian, George Salmon, explains the importance and influence of Pseudo–Isidore:
In the ninth century another collection of papal letters...was published under the name of Isidore, by whom, no doubt, a celebrated Spanish bishop of much learning was intended. In these are to be found precedents for all manner of instances of the exercise of sovereign dominion by the pope over other Churches. You must take notice of this, that it was by furnishing precedents that these letters helped the growth of papal power. Thenceforth the popes could hardly claim any privilege but they would find in these letters supposed proofs that the privilege in question was no more than had been always claimed by their predecessors, and always exercised without any objection... On these spurious decretals is built the whole fabric of Canon Law. The great schoolman, Thomas Aquinas, was taken in by them, and he was induced by them to set the example of making a chapter on the prerogatives of the pope an essential part of the treatises on the Church... Yet completely successful as was this forgery, I suppose there never was a more clumsy one. These decretal epistles had undisputed authority for some seven hundred years, that is to say, down to the time of the Reformation.
If we want to know what share these letters had in the building of the Roman fabric we have only to look at the Canon Law. The ‘Decretum’ of Gratia quotes three hundred and twenty-four times the epistles of the popes of the first four centuries; and of these three hundred and twenty–four quotations, three hundred and thirteen are from the letters which are now universally known to be spurious (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (London: John Murray, 1914), pp. 449, 451, 453).
Thomas Aquinas Thesaurus of Greek Fathers or Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum – Another Forgery
In addition to the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals there were other forgeries which were successfully used for the promotion of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled Against the Errors of the Greeks. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers. Under the names of the eminent Greek fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus the Abbott, a Latin forger had compiled a catena of quotations interspersing a number that were genuine with many that were forged which was subsequently submitted to Pope Urban IV. This work became known as the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers or Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum. In addition the Latin author also included spurious canons from early Ecumenical Councils. Pope Urban in turn submitted the work to Thomas Aquinas who used many of the forged passages in his work Against the Errors of the Greeks mistakenly thinking they were genuine. These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries. The following is a sample of Thomas’ argumentation for the papacy using the spurious quotations from the Thesaurus:
Chapter thirty-four
That the same (the Roman Pontiff) possesses in the Church a fullness of power.
It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus:
“As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.”
And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on:
“The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Hebr. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation speaking in the person of Christ:
“Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”
This is also taught on the authority of Scripture. For in Matthew 16:19 the Lord said to Peter without restriction: Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven.
Chapter thirty-five
That he enjoys the same power conferred on Peter by Christ.
It is also shown that Peter is the Vicar of Christ and the Roman Pontiff is Peter’s successor enjoying the same power conferred on Peter by Christ. For the canon of the Council of Chalcedon says:
“If any bishop is sentenced as guilty of infamy, he is free to appeal the sentence to the blessed bishop of old Rome, whom we have as Peter the rock of refuge, and to him alone, in the place of God, with unlimited power, is granted the authority to hear the appeal of a bishop accused of infamy in virtue of the keys given him by the Lord.”
And further on: “And whatever has been decreed by him is to be held as from the vicar of the apostolic throne.”
Likewise, Cyril, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, says, speaking in the person of Christ:
“You for a while, but I without end will be fully and perfectly in sacrament and authority with all those whom I shall put in your place, just as I am also with you.”
And Cyril of Alexandria in his Thesaurus says that the Apostles “in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in all their teaching that Peter and his Church are in the place of the Lord, granting him participation in every chapter and assembly, in every election and proclamation of doctrine.” And further on:
“To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine ordinancebow the head, and the rulers of the world obey him as the Lord Jesus himself.” And Chrysostom, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “Feed my sheep (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren"
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks. Found in James Likoudis, Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism (New Rochelle: Catholics United for the Faith, 1992), pp. 182-184).
With the exception of the last reference to Chrysostom all of Thomas’ references cited to Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom and the Council of Chalcedon are forgeries. The remainder of Aquinas’ treatise in defense of the papacy is similar in nature. Edward Denny gives the following historical summary of these forgeries and their use by Thomas Aquinas:
Incorporations Of Pseudo-Isodorian Decretals into other Works
As the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals were by no means the first, so they were not the last forgeries in the interests of the advancement of the Papal system. Gratian himself, in addition to using the forged Decretals and the fabrications of others who preceded him, had incorporated also into the Decretum fresh corruptions of his own with that object, but amongst such forgeries a catena of spurious passages from the Greek Fathers and Councils, put forth in the thirteenth century, had probably, next to the Pseudo-lsidorian Decretals, the widest influence in this direction.
The object of this forgery was as follows: The East had been separated from the West since the excommunication by Pope Leo IX of Michael Cerularius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and that of the former by the latter in July 1054, in which the other Eastern Patriarchs concurred. The Latins, especially the Dominicans, who had established themselves in the East, made strenuous efforts to induce the Easterns to submit to the Papacy. The great obstacle in the way of their success was the fact that the Orientals knew nothing of such claims as those which were advanced by the Roman Bishops. In their belief the highest rank in the Hierarchy of the Church was that of Patriarch. This was clearly expressed by the Patrician Babanes at the Council of Constantinople, 869. ‘God,’ he said, ‘hath placed His Church in the five patriarchates, and declared in His Gospel that they should never utterly fail, because they are the heads of the Church. For that saying, “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” meaneth this, when two fall they run to three; when three fall they run to two; but when four perchance have fallen, one, which remains in Christ our God, the Head of all, calls back again the remaining body of the Church.”
They were ignorant of any autocratic power residing jure divino in the Bishop of Rome. They regarded Latin authors with suspicions as the fautors of the unprimitive claims of the Bishop of Old Rome; hence if they were to be persuaded that the Papalist pretensions were Catholic, and thus induced to recognise them, the only way would be to produce evidence provided ostensibly from Greek sources. Accordingly a Latin theologian drew up a sort of Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum, in which, amongst genuine extracts from Greek Fathers, lie mingled spurious passages purporting to be taken from various Councils and writings of Fathers, notably St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Maximus the Abbot.
This work was laid before Urban IV, who was deceived by it. He was thus able to use it in his correspondence with the Emperor, Michael Palaeologus, to prove that from ‘the Apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs it was to be sought what was to be held, or what was to be believed, since it is his right to lay down, to ordain, to disprove, to command, to loose and to bind in the place of Him who appointed him, and delivered and granted to no one else but him alone what is supreme. To this throne also all Catholics bend the head by divine law, and the primates of the world confessing the true faith are obedient and turn their thoughts as if to Jesus Christ Himself, and regard him as the Sun, and from Him receive the light of truth to the salvation of souls according as the genuine writers of some of the Holy Fathers, both Greek and others, firmly assert.”
Urban, moreover, sent this work to St. Thomas Aquinas...The testimony of these extracts was to him of great value, as he believed that he had in them irrefragable proof that the great Eastern theologians, such as St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and the Fathers of the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, recognised the monarchical position of the Pope as ruling the whole Church with absolute power. Consequently he made use of these fraudulent documents in all honesty in setting forth the prerogatives of the Papacy. The grave result followed that, through his authority, the errors which he taught on the subject of the Papacy were introduced into the schools, fortified by the testimony of these fabrications, and thus were received as undoubted truth, whence resulted consequences which can hardly be fully estimated.
It was improbable that the Greeks, who had ample means of discovering the real character of these forgeries, should finally accept them and the teaching based on them; but in the West itself there were no theologians competent to expose the fraud, so that these forgeries were naturally held to be of weighty authority. The high esteem attached to the writings of St. Thomas was an additional reason why this should be the case (Edward Denny, Papalism (London: Rivingtons, 1912), pp. 114-117).
Von Döllinger elaborates on the far reaching influence of these forgeries, especially in their association with the authority of Aquinas, on succeeding generations of theologians and their extensive use as a defense of the papacy:
In theology, from the beginning of the fourteenth century, the spurious passages of St. Cyril and forged canons of Councils maintained their ground, being guaranteed against all suspicion by the authority of St. Thomas. Since the work of Trionfo in 1320, up to 1450, it is remarkable that no single new work appeared in the interests of the Papal system. But then the contest between the Council of Basle and Pope Eugenius IV evoked the work of Cardinal Torquemada, besides some others of less importance. Torquemada’s argument, which was held up to the time of Bellarmine to be the most conslusive apology of the Papal system, rests entirely on fabrications later than the pseudo-Isidore, and chiefly on the spurious passages of St. Cyril. To ignore the authority of St. Thomas is, according to the Cardinal, bad enough, but to slight the testimony of St. Cyril is intolerable. The Pope is infallible; all authority of other bishops is borrowed or derived frorn his. Decisions of Councils without his assent are null and void. These fundamental principles of Torquemada are proved by spurious passages of Anacletus, Clement, the Council of Chalcedon, St. Cyril, and a mass of forged or adulterated testimonies. In the times of Leo X and Clement III, the Cardinals Thomas of Vio, or Cajetan, and Jacobazzi, followed closely in his footsteps. Melchior Canus built firmly on the authority of Cyril, attested by St. Thomas, and so did Bellarmine and the Jesuits who followed him. Those who wish to get a bird’s–eye view of the extent to which the genuine tradition of Church authority was still overlaid and obliterated by the rubbish of later inventions and forgeries about 1563, when the Loci of Canus appeared, must read the fifth book of his work. It is indeed still worse fifty years later in this part of Bellarmine’s work. The difference is that Canus was honest in his belief, which cannot be said of Bellarmine.
The Dominicans, Nicolai, Le Quien, Quetif, and Echard, were the first to avow openly that their master St. Thomas, had been deceived by an imposter, and had in turn misled the whole tribe of theologians and canonists who followed him. On the one hand, the Jesuits, including even such a scholar as Labbe, while giving up the pseudo–Isidorian decretals, manifested their resolve to still cling to St. Cyril. In Italy, as late as 1713, Professor Andruzzi of Bologna cited the most important of the interpolations of St. Cyril as a conclusive argument in his controversial treatise against the patriarch Dositheus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 233-234).
The Authority of Rome Rests Upon a Forgery!
The authority claims of Roman Catholicism ultimately devolve upon the institution of the papacy. The papacy is the center and source from which all authority flows for Roman Catholicism. Rome has long claimed that this institution was established by Christ and has been in force in the Church from the very beginning. But the historical record gives a very different picture. This institution was promoted primarily through the falsification of historical fact through the extensive use of forgeries as Thomas Aquinas' apologetic for the papacy demonstrates. Forgery is its foundation. As an institution it was a much later development in Church history, beginning with the Gregorian reforms of pope Gregory VII in the 11th century and was restricted completely to the West. The Eastern Church never accepted the false claims of the Roman Church and refused to submit to its insistence that the Bishop of Rome was supreme ruler of the Church. This they knew was not true to the historical record and was a perversion of the true teaching of Scripture, the papal exegesis of which was not taught by the Church fathers.
The Eastern Church Rejects the Papal Claims of Rome
Dr. Aristeides Papadakis is an Orthodox historian and Professor of Byzantine history at the University of Maryland. He gives the following analysis of the Eastern Church’s attitude towards the claims of the bishops of Rome especially as they were formulated in the 11th century Gregorian reforms. He points out that on the basis of the exegesis of scripture and the facts of history, the Eastern Church has consistently rejected the papal claims of Rome:
What was in fact being implied in the western development was the destruction of the Church’s pluralistic structure of government. Papal claims to supreme spiritual and doctrinal authority quite simply, were threatening to transform the entire Church into a vast centralized diocese... Such innovations were the result of a radical reading of the Church’s conciliar structure of government as revealed in the life of the historic Church. No see, regardless of its spiritual seniority, had ever been placed outside of this structure as if it were a power over or above the Church and its government... Mutual consultation among Churches—Episcopal collegiality and conciliarity, in short—had been the quintessential character of Church government from the outset. It was here that the locus of supreme authority in the Church could be found. Christendom indeed was both a diversity and a unity, a family of basically equal sister-Churches, whose unity rested not on any visible juridical authority, but on conciliarity, and on a common declaration of faith and the sacramental life.
The ecclesiology of communion and fraternity of the Orthodox, which was preventing them from following Rome blindly and submissively like slaves, was based on Scripture and not merely on history or tradition. Quite simply, the power to bind and loose mentioned in the New Testament had been granted during Christ’s ministry to every disciple and not just to Peter alone...In sum, no one particular Church could limit the fulness of God’s redeeming grace to itself, at the expense of the others. Insofar as all were essentially identical, the fulness of catholicity was present in all equally. In the event, the Petrine biblical texts, cherished by the Latins, were beside the point as arguments for Roman ecclesiology and superiority. The close logical relationship between the papal monarchy and the New Testament texts, assumed by Rome, was quite simply undocumented. For all bishops, as successors of the apostles, claim the privilege and power granted to Peter. Differently put, the Savior’s words could not be interpreted institutionally, legalistically or territorially, as the foundation of the Roman Church, as if the Roman pontiffs were alone the exclusive heirs to Christ’s commission. It is important to note parenthetically that a similar or at least kindred exegesis of the triad of Matt. 16:18, Luke 22:32 and John 21:15f. was also common in the West before the reformers of the eleventh century chose to invest it with a peculiar ‘Roman’ significance. Until then, the three proof–texts were viewed primarily ‘as the foundation of the Church, in the sense that the power of the keys was conferred on a sacerdotalis ordo in the person of Peter: the power granted to Peter was symbolically granted to the whole episcopate.’ In sum, biblical Latin exegetes before the Gregorian reform did not view the New Testament texts unambiguously as a blueprint for papal sovereignty; their understanding overall was non–primatial.
The Byzantine indictment against Rome also had a strong historical component. A major reason why Orthodox writers were unsympathetic to the Roman restatement of primacy was precisely because it was so totally lacking in historical precedent. Granted that by the twelfth century papal theorists had become experts in their ability to circumvent the inconvenient facts of history. And yet, the Byzantines were ever ready to hammer home the theme that the historical evidence was quite different. Although the Orthodox may not have known that Gregorian teaching was in part drawn from the forged decretals of pseudo–Isidore (850’s), they were quite certain that it was not based on catholic tradition in either its historical or canonical form. On this score, significantly, modern scholarship agrees with the Byzantine analysis. As it happens, contemporary historians have repeatedly argued that the universal episcopacy claimed by the eleventh–century reformers would have been rejected by earlier papal incumbents as obscenely blasphemous (to borrow the phrase of a recent scholar). The title ‘universal’ which was advanced formally at the time was actually explicitly rejected by earlier papal giants such as Gregory I. To be brief, modern impartial scholarship is reasonably certain that the conventional conclusion which views the Gregorians as defenders of a consistently uniform tradition is largely fiction.
‘The emergence of a papal monarchy from the eleventh century onwards cannot be represented as the realization of a homogenous development, even within the relatively closed circle of the western, Latin, Church’ (R.A. Marcus, From Augustine to Gregory the Great (London: Variorum Reprints, 1983), p. 355).
It has been suggested that the conviction that papatus (a new term constructed on the analogy of episcopatus in the eleventh century) actually represented a rank or an order higher than that of bishop, was a radical revision of Church structure and government. The discontinuity was there and to dismiss it would be a serious oversight
(Aristeides Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1994), pp. 158-160, 166-167).
http://www.christiantruth.com/pope.html
An Ecumenical Council Officially Condemns a Pope for Heresy
Historical Facts Proving That the Bishops of Rome Are not Infallible and Were Never Considered So by the Early Church
By William Webster
The Roman Catholic Council of Vatican I in 1870 is renowned for its dogmatic teaching that the Bishops of Rome, when teaching ex cathedra, are infallible. This teaching was stated to be consistent with the belief and practice the Church from its inception and throughout its long history. In other words it taught that this doctrine was not a doctrine that developed over time. The Council declared this teaching to be a dogma necessary to be believed for salvation and it anathematizes all who dare to disagree with or who oppose these assertions. The official teaching of Vatican I is as follows:
Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Christian religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if anyone—which may God avert—presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema...This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation...The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper, 1877), Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, Chp. 4, pp. 266-71).
The Papal Infallibility – Never A Part of the Early Church Teaching
Though Vatican I appeals to history as a validation for its claims, it is the very facts of history which prove them to be spurious. Historically, papal infallibility was never part of the teaching or practice of the early Church, nor was it ever part of the doctrinal content of saving faith as taught by it. This is well illustrated by the actions of the 6th Ecumenical Council (III Constantinople) held in 680-681 A.D.
[Chris’ note: Roman Catholics may reject this Council on the basis that Rome was in fact not represented at the council. See the introduction to the Trullan Canons at http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/6trullo/intro.htm. It clearly states that although the West was summoned, they were not represented as no one turned up. However, the important point to note is that Pope John VIII and Pope Hadrian I subsequently ratified the canons]
This Council is well known in Church history for its official condemnation of a number of leading Eastern Bishops as well as a Bishop of Rome for embracing and promoting heretical teachings. The particular Pope who was posthumously excommunicated from the Church and forever branded a heretic was Pope Honorius, who reigned as bishop of Rome from 625 to 638 A.D. In a number of letters written to Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople, and several other individuals, Honorius officially embraced the heresy of monotheletism, which teaches that Christ had only one will, the divine. The orthodox position is that Christ, though one person, possesses two wills because he is divine and human. There is absolutely no doubt that he held to the teaching of one will in Christ. Jaroslav Pelikan makes these comments:
In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151).
Roman Catholics Downplay Honorius’ Role
There are many past and present Roman apologists who downplay the importance of Pope Honorius. It is typical in Roman Catholic writings to find the issue of Honorius dealt with in a very superficial way. For example the following comments by Karl Keating are representative:
Actually, Honorius elected to teach nothing at all. Ronald Knox, in a letter to Arnold Lunn reprinted in their book Difficulties, put the matter like this: And Honorius, so far from pronouncing an infallible opinion in the Monothelite controversy, was quite extraordinarily not (as Gore used to say) pronouncing a decision at all. To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an opportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the Pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 229).
In one paragraph Keating dismisses this whole issue as trivial and Protestant objections as nothing more than a misrepresentation of the true facts. But one thing Mr. Keating does not do is to give the judgment of the Council itself in its own words. He simply states that Honorius did not teach anything and is therefore not guilty of heresy. Is this how the Council understood the situation? Absolutely not! To allow the Council to speak for itself is enough to dispel Keating and Knox's assertions. The facts speak for themselves. Honorius was personally condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. This was ratified by two succeeding Ecumenical Councils. He was also condemned by name by Pope Leo II, and by every pope up through the eleventh century who took the oath of papal office. In his classic and authoritative series on the history of the Councils, Roman Catholic historian Charles Joseph Hefele affirms this verdict in relating the following irrefutable facts regarding Honorius and the Sixth Ecumenical Council:
It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic!...That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him:
At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says: "After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign...to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor...them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine."
Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.
Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus"
Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read: "The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ.
After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things: "Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them."
In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein: We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.
In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes: "With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome...the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself...We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present...besides, we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."
It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius...in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council...in his letter to the Spanish bishops...and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig. Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by...the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after...Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: "We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning...Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc." The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places...To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath...according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius" (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).
These facts are highly significant. Von Dollinger was the leading Roman Catholic historian of the last century who taught Church history for 47 years. He makes these comments:
This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church (Janus Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).
Roman Catholics Claim That Honorius Was Condemned As An Individual, not as Pope
Roman Catholic apologists generally attempt to salvage the dogma of papal infallibility from the case with Honorius by saying that he was not giving an ex cathedra statement but merely his opinion as a private theologian. Therefore he was not condemned in his official capacity as the pope. According to the Roman Catholic Church there are certain conditions which must be met for the teaching of the pope to fall within the overall guidelines of that which is considered to be. He must be teaching in his official capacity as the pope and he must be defining doctrine for the entire Church. The claim is made that Honorius did not meet these conditions. However, a careful reading of the official acts of the Council prove that it thought otherwise. The reader can judge for himself from the Council's own statements how the situation with Honorius was viewed and whether it would have agreed with the assertions of Keating and Knox that Honorius did not actively teach anything. The Council makes the following statements:
Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!...
Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).
The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:
The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his official capacity as pope and not as a private theologian.
He is condemned for following after and confirming the heresy of monotheletism.
He is condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.
To suggest that the Sixth Ecumenical Council does not invalidate the teaching of papal infallibility because Honorius did not make an ex cathedra statement is historically absurd. This is to erect arbitrary conditions which were not existent at the time to save oneself the embarrassment of a historical fact which undermines one's position. The issue is not what do individual Roman Catholic apologists say, but what did the Sixth Ecumenical Council say. On what basis did it condemn Pope Honorius? By its own words it condemned him in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian, for advancing heretical teachings which it says were Satanically inspired and would affect the entire Church. It specifically states that Honorius advanced these teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them. And it condemns him by name as a heretic, anathematizing him as such. According to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology an Ecumenical Council is infallible so all the arguments which attempt to dismiss the judgement of this Council saying that it was mistaken or that it rushed to judgement or whatever, are simply erroneous and empty, on the basis of their own theology. So an infallible Ecumenical Council (from a Roman Catholic perspective) has condemned as a heretic a bishop of Rome for teaching heresy. It is quite obvious that these Eastern fathers did not view the bishops of Rome as infallible. John Meyendorff states that, contrary to the assertions of many Roman Catholics that Honorius did in fact teach the doctrine of monotheletism in a positive sense and helped confirm Sergius in the heresy. Meyendorff gives this summary:
This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries - Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists at Vatican I in 1870 would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope's good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir's, 1989), p. 353).
Jaroslav Pelikan affirms the same thing in these comments:
In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)
Charles Hefele affirms the fact that Leo II also condemned Honorius as a heretic and confirmed the decrees of the Council:
It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius...in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council...in his letter to the Spanish bishops...and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).
The condemnation by Pope Leo II is significant. He affirmed the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, confirming by this that Honorius had actively undermined the orthodox faith. W.J. Sparrow Simpson summarizes Leo's viewpoint in these comments:
Leo accepted the decisions of Constantinople. He has carefully examined the Acts of the Council and found them in harmony with the declarations of faith of his predecessor, Agatho, and of the Synod of the Lateran. He anathematized all the heretics, including his predecessor, Honorius, who so far from aiding the Apostolic See with the doctrine of the Apostolic Tradition, attempted to subvert the faith by a profane betrayal (W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (London: John Murray, 1909), p. 35).
It is significant that the letter of Honorius to Sergius was used in the East by the proponents of the Monothelite heresy as justification for their position. As Sparrow Simpson observes:
"This letter of Honorius was utilised in the East to justify the Monothelite heresy the existence of one will in Christ (W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (London: John Murray, 1909), p. 33).
The definition of what the Roman Catholic Church refers to as ex cathedra teaching was not enunciated and defined until 1870. One needs to keep this in mind when applying this test to the case of Honorius and the judgement of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. In the mind of this "infallible" Council the pope was a heretic. In its official condemnation of him, he is judged not on the basis of the criteria for ex cathedra statements which was defined some 1200 years later. One simply cannot avoid the historical facts. An "infallible" Ecumenical Council has condemned an "infallible" pope, in his official capacity, for heresy.
No redefining of terms can erase the simple facts of history or the implications of those facts for the dogma of papal infallibility. This has direct bearing upon the issue of authority and jurisdiction. If an Ecumenical Council can excommunicate a bishop of Rome then the ultimate authority in the early Church was not the bishop of Rome but the Council. The fact of this condemnation clearly demonstrates that contrary to the claims of Vatican I, the early Church never viewed the bishops of Rome to be infallible. No Church father has ever taught such a doctrine and it is contradicted by the practice of the early Church fathers and Councils, III Constantinople being but one example.
Debates on Honorius at Antioch
Mr Tan,
Here's an even shorter catechism and primer on papal infallibility:
Q1: Is the Pope always right?
A1: Yes.
Q2: What to do when the Pope is wrong?
A2: Refer to Q1.
Q3: But what if there is CLEAR EVIDENCE that he is wrong?
A3: Then he is wrong as a PRIVATE THEOLOGIAN, but not as a POPE.
Q4: But what if he is CONDEMNED by an ENTIRE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL in his CAPACITY AS POPE?
A4: Then tighten the definition of papal infallibility to EXCLUDE those circumstances under which he is condemned.
YOU: You may continue to attack what the Catholic Church does NOT teach us about the Infallibility of the Pope. Initially I was upset by it. But now, I enjoy reading it. I am getting used more and more to such attacks from anti-Catholics like you.
ME: Wrong again, I am anti-Roman Catholicism, anti-Roman Catholic. I wish you Jesus and hope that this exchange will save your soul, not damn it. It is a pity that that moment of sorrow didn't last because that may have perhaps lead to your awakening but alas, you are like the seed that is sown on the pathway:
"When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path." (Matthew 13:19 NIV)
YOU: Attacking the Catholic Church for what the Church does NOT teach, for what the Church does NOT believe, for what the Church does NOT practise. The Church does not teach that Popes are infallible all the time, in all that they say, in all that they write, in all that they teach. Period.
ME: Nobody says that they are infallible all the time. Please don't kid yourself about what we said. This self-kidding serves only to cushion your fall from your misconceptions. We know very well what the RCC teaches.
The evidence of the historical records showed clearly that Honorius was condemned in his capacity as a pope, not a private capacity. In other words, at the time of the 6th Ecumenical Council (680-681 AD), nobody believed in what papal infallibility nonsense. Honorius was the bishop and he taught heresy and he was condemned. Period. This papal infallibility nonsense, as you yourself pointed out, was never defined until Vatican I (1869-1870), which is 1200 years LATER!!
The 6EC had no problem condemning Honorius and no need to distinguish what he did officially or privately simply because there was no such thing as papal infallibility. So, when Vatican I invented papal infallibility, Honorius immediately became an embarrassment and a sore thumb.
Don't strain your logic and mind too much trying to brainwash it to believe that Honorius was condemned as a private theologian. It is going to make you nuts.
Think logically - one single man can be at the same time INFALLIBLE and also HERETICAL. You are telling me that that chair has something supernatural, that somehow when Honorius stepped into it, he was instantly transformed into another person, an infallible person! When he got back down from the chair, he is Honorius the heretic!
YOU: In the case of Pope Honorius, the letter was written only to Sergius, who exploited it to expound his heretical views. Pope Honorius was condemned as heretic, because he did not exercise his papal office to condemn the heresy; instead, he "followed the mind of Sergius", allowing his heresy to pollute the Church. That's why Pope Leo II condemned Pope Honorius for NEGLIGENCE in suppressing the heresy. He was a heretic in the sense that he "followed the mind of Sergius".
ME: We are not interested in how one Pope tries to cover up for another. We are interested in what the 6EC THOUGHT about this whole matter. You should be too. Stop looking at the propaganda of your own RCC, look at the 6EC.
This reminds me a bit of this ministerial salary thingy. I just find it odd that the same people debate and ultimately decide if they should give themselves a big raise in wages.
Similarly, don't look inward for what one Pope tries to defend another. Also, what is missed here is that these are papal infallibility teachings came 1200 years later.
To suggest that the Sixth Ecumenical Council does not invalidate the teaching of papal infallibility because Honorius did not make an ex cathedra statement is historically absurd. This is to erect arbitrary conditions which were not existent at the time to save oneself the embarrassment of a historical fact which undermines one's position.
The issue is not what do individual Roman Catholic apologists say, but what did the Sixth Ecumenical Council say. On what basis did it condemn Pope Honorius? By its own words it condemned him in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian, for advancing heretical teachings which it says were Satanically inspired and would affect the entire Church. It specifically states that Honorius advanced these teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them. And it condemns him by name as a heretic, anathematizing him as such.
According to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology an Ecumenical Council is infallible so all the arguments which attempt to dismiss the judgement of this Council saying that it was mistaken or that it rushed to judgement or whatever, are simply erroneous and empty, on the basis of their own theology. So an infallible Ecumenical Council (from a Roman Catholic perspective) has condemned as a heretic a bishop of Rome for teaching heresy.
YOU: This is an example of infallible teaching in the sense of the definition given by Vatican I Council. Infallible because:
1. The teaching comes from General Council, the highest corporate authority of the Catholic Church, and is RATIFIED by the Pope from the Chair of Peter; 2. It defines a doctrine concerning faith and moral; 3. IT IS TO BE FIRMLY BELIEVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL.
ME: So did Honorius fit this bill? Let's see:
The Council makes the following statements, you really have to read everything below, no shortcuts:
Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.
But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema.
And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!...
Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).
ESPECIALLY THE LAST SESSION. The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:
1. The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his official capacity as pope and not as a private theologian.
2. He is condemned for following after and confirming the heresy of monotheletism.
3. He is condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.
Surely these are not activities of a PRIVATE THEOLOGIAN but those carried out IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE INFALLIBLE POPE! Of course, 1200 years later, to protect the "integrity" of this papal infallibility nonsense, one needs to invent criteria that circumvent this embarrassing incident. But history cannot be changed - the infallible Pope Honorius was condemned posthumously and irreformably by the 6EC for heresy.
So much for papal infallibility!
Christopher.
THE LETTERS THAT DAMNED HONORIUS.
It is not important what Mr Tan, or Karl Keating or other apologists or even what Protestants like James White said about Honorius! What is important is to go back into history, to the 6th Ecumenical Council and see how THEY viewed Honorius!
Did the 6EC saw Honorius in his capacity as Pope, did they say he preached heretical doctrines, did they condemn him as Pope, did they thereby abolished the concept of papal infallibility, and is their decision final and authoritative?
THE ANSWER TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS IS YES. AND IN FACT, SO SERIOUS WAS THIS CONDEMNATION THAT A POPE, FROM THE FIFTH TO THE ELEVENTH CENTURIES, HAD TO SWEAR THAT HE RECOGNISED THE 6EC, BEFORE HE TOOK PAPAL OFFICE! It is only after the 11th century that Honorius' condemnation has become too embarrassing.
And that is all that matters, Mr Tan. Don't argue with history or you become a laughing stock.
Now, I may not have read the actual letters and the contents but for Mr Tan to say that these letters do not in fact promulgate any doctrine is to say that the 6EC was a sham, that the Council "maligned" Honorius. But surely this cannot be accepted given the fact that the RCC recognises the 6EC. And according to its own teaching, the EC is also infallible!
In his classic and authoritative series on the history of the Councils, Roman Catholic historian Charles Joseph Hefele affirms this verdict in relating the following irrefutable facts regarding Honorius and the Sixth Ecumenical Council:
"It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic!...That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him:
At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says:
"After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign...to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor...them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine."
Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.
Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus"
Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read:
"The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ.
After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things:
"Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them."
In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein:
We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.
In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes:
"With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome...the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself...We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present...besides, we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."
It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius...in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council...in his letter to the Spanish bishops...and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig.
Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by...the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after...Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith:
"We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning ... Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc."
The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places...To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself.
In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath...according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius"
(Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).
These facts are highly significant. Von Dollinger was the leading Roman Catholic historian of the last century who taught Church history for 47 years. He makes these comments:
This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church.
(Janus Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).
Christopher.
To all readers:
I don’t wish to sound like a broken record repeating the same historical facts. I believe anyone who wish to be factual and is after the truth can read the entire proceedings to find out for yourself. I will sum up here.
There are two urls that one must visit:
1. The 6th Ecumenical Council
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/6const3/
2. The Catholic Encyclopaedia for its futile attempts at its exculpation of Honorius:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
The first one gives us the historical facts as they stand. The second one attempts explanations and this is where all of Mr Tan’s arguments come from. Might as well get it all over with once and for all.
Mr Tan’s arguments:
1. Honorius did not speak ex-cathedra
Before you think that this is the universal and final conclusion of the Roman Catholic Church with regards to Honorius’ letters, let it be known that this is a divided opinion, with more on our side saying that Honorius did formally defined heresy ex-cathedra.
Those Who Said He Did Not Speak Ex-Cathedra
From the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
“On the other hand the chief advocates of papal infallibility, for instance, such great men as Melchior Canus in the sixteenth century, Thomassinus in the seventeenth, Pietro Ballerini in the eighteenth, Cardinal Perrone in the nineteenth, have been careful to point out that Honorius did not define anything ex cathedra”
And, if I may add, Karl Keating and Mr Tan Yew Hock in the twenty-first century. Note that these are proponents of papal infallibility.
And what was the argument?
Mr Tan: Readers may read the definition of Vatican I Council on Papal Infallibility in my previous postings. Repeat: the doctrine must be defined and to be held by the entire church. Whether Pope Honorius is condemned or not is irrelevant. He is condemned for the contents of the 2 letters his wrote to Sergius. Both letters are addressed to Sergius, and NOT TO THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.
So Mr Tan applies anachronistically a 1870 ruling to a 681 event. My rebuttal is provided by those who said Honorius did speak ex-cathedra. The council, for instance, said in Session XVIII,
Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome..., has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris
Mr Tan insists that the letters were only for Sergius, and misses the point that what he said in those letters and what he did with those things he said that really mattered. Clearly the 6EC understood that.
Those Who Said He Did Speak Ex-Cathedra
From the 6th Ecumenical Council (6EC) AD 681,
Session XIII: The holy council said:
“After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.
“But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, … And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.”
Session XVIII:
But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome..., has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).
From the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
“The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance. But before, and even just after, the Vatican Council such a view was sometimes urged, though almost solely by the opponents of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Part of a second letter of Honorius to Sergius was read at the eighth council. It disapproves rather more strongly of the mention of either one operation or two; but it has the merit of referring to the words of St. Leo which Sergius had cited.”
Although one of Honorius’ letters did not promulgate anything, his other letters did. There is no escape from this because Sergius drafted the Ecthesis (exposition) based on this:
“Sergius, after receiving the pope's letter approving his recent cautiousness, composed an "Ecthesis", or exposition, which was issued by the emperor towards the end of 638. In conformity with the words of Honorius it orders all the subjects of Heraclius to confess one Will in our Lord, and to avoid the expressions "one operation" and "two operations".”
Others, from the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
“The more famous Gallicans, such as Bossuet, Dupin, Richer, and later ones as Cardinal de la Luzerne and (at the time of the Vatican Council) Maret, Gratry, and many others, usually held with all Protestant writers that Honorius had formally defined heresy, and was condemned for so doing. They added, of course, that such a failure on the part of an individual pope did not compromise the general and habitual orthodoxy of the Roman See…
A theory put forward by Pennacchi at the time of the Vatican Council attracted an unnecessary amount of attention. He agreed with the Protestants and Gallicans in proclaiming that the letter of Honorius was a definition ex cathedra; …
Bishop Hefele before 1870 took the view that Honorius's letter was not strictly heretical but was gravely incorrect, and that its condemnation by an ecumenical council was a serious difficulty against the "personal" infallibility of the popes. After his hesitating acceptance of the Vatican decrees he modified his view; he now taught that Honorius's letter was a definition ex cathedra, that it was incorrectly worded, but that the thought of the writer was orthodox …”
Other modern-day apologists,
John Meyendorff:
“This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenical councils.
It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries - Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists at Vatican I in 1870 would refer to this case.
Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church.
They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century.
Without denying the pope's good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly”
(John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir's, 1989), p. 353).
Jaroslav Pelikan affirms the same thing in these comments:
“In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome”
(Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)
The condemnation by Pope Leo II is significant. He affirmed the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, confirming by this that Honorius had actively undermined the orthodox faith. W.J. Sparrow Simpson summarizes Leo's viewpoint in these comments:
Leo accepted the decisions of Constantinople. He has carefully examined the Acts of the Council and found them in harmony with the declarations of faith of his predecessor, Agatho, and of the Synod of the Lateran. He anathematized all the heretics, including his predecessor, Honorius, who so far from aiding the Apostolic See with the doctrine of the Apostolic Tradition, attempted to subvert the faith by a profane betrayal
(W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (London: John Murray, 1909), p. 35).
Von Dollinger was the leading Roman Catholic historian of the last century who taught Church history for 47 years. He makes these comments:
This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church
(Janus Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).
The key here is to remember this: it does not matter what the modern day Roman Catholic Church now says Honorius crime was (which the brief survey above shows it to be in flux), look at the historical archives and decide for yourselves in AD 681, what did the Council think!
The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:
- The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his official capacity as pope and not as a private theologian.
- He is condemned for following after and confirming the heresy of monotheletism.
- He is condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.
Although there are still some die-hards Roman Catholics like Mr Tan who still hold on to this flawed argument, it is clear from the 6EC as well as the Catholic Encyclopaedia as well as other weightier, if not equal, RC authorities, that Honorius preached doctrine ex-cathedra in those letters, even though he wasn’t seated on the chair.
We just have to remember that Honorius was promoting, teaching and disseminating heretical doctrine to the church and the letters to Sergius were the evidence of his position. This comes under his power as the infalllible pope.
To say that he must also do this and that according to some criteria set up 1200 years later to qualify for ex-cathedra status is simply committing an anachronistic error. The fact of the matter is that all popes before AD1870 have no idea whatsoever of any of the criteria for papal infallibility that was to be promulgated in AD1870! If we hold on to this, many pre-1870 Roman Catholic Church doctrines such as purgatory should then be fallible.
Mr Tan’s attempt to salvage the case should not come as any surprise. In fact, for your information, the Catholic Encyclopaedia even records some Roman Catholics in the very state of denial:
“Bellarmine and Baronius followed Pighius in denying that Honorius was condemned at all. Baronius argued that the Acts of the Council were falsified by Theodore, a Patriarch of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the emperor, but was restored at a later date; we are to presume that the council condemned him, but that he substituted "Honorius" for "Theodorus" in the Acts. This theory has frequently been shown to be untenable.”
2. Honorius Was Misinterpreted and Misquoted
Another exculpatory reason given by Mr Tan is that Honorius didn’t actually teach monotheletism, he merely used one will in order to emphasise that there are no two persons or two wills.
The Catholic Encyclopaedia traces this “goof-up”,
THE REPLY OF HONORIUS
“It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing.
Honorius entirely agrees with the caution which Sergius recommends. He praises Sergius for eventually dropping the new expression "one operation", but he unfortunately also agrees with him that it will be well to avoid "two operations" also; for if the former sounds Eutychian, the latter may be judged to be Nestorian.
Another passage is even more difficult to account for. Following the lead of Sergius, who had said that "two operations" might lead people to think two contrary wills were admitted in Christ, Honorius (after explaining the communicatio idiomatum, by which it can be said that God was crucified, and that the Man came down from heaven) adds: "Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin." Other passages in the letter are orthodox. But it is plain that the pope simply followed Sergius, without going more deeply into the question.”
This is the main thing that Honorius was condemned for – he spoke of one will. The crucial question here is what did Honorius mean by confessing one will? Note: To the 6EC, the Emperor and the Roman legates present at the council, it meant that Honorius taught monotheletism and he was condemned for this. To Rome, Honorius was not teaching monotheletism, he was just emphasising one will in contrast to two persons / two wills.
This creates an interesting situation. If the Roman Catholic Church is right about Honorius, then the 6th Ecumenical Council is wrong, and if the 6th Ecumenical Council is right, then the Roman Catholic Church today is wrong. We can’t have it both ways.
THE ECTHESIS OF HERACLIUS
Sergius, after receiving the pope's letter approving his recent cautiousness, composed an "Ecthesis", or exposition, which was issued by the emperor towards the end of 638. In conformity with the words of Honorius it orders all the subjects of Heraclius to confess one Will in our Lord, and to avoid the expressions "one operation" and "two operations".
This was the other thing that Honorius was condemned for – he said to avoid two wills also.
Before Sergius died, in December, he assembled a great synod at Constantinople, which accepted the Ecthesis as "truly agreeing with the Apostolic preaching"; the letter from the Apostolic See was evidently the surety for this. Honorius was already dead, and had no opportunity of approving or disapproving the imperial document which had been based upon his letter…
The Roman envoys who came to Constantinople in 640 to obtain the emperor's confirmation of the new pope, Severinus, refused to accept the Ecthesis, on the ground that Rome was above all synodical law. Severinus only reigned two months, but condemned the Ecthesis, and so did his successor, John IV.
Emperor Heraclius then wrote to the pope, laying the blame on Sergius, and disowning the Ecthesis. He died shortly afterwards (February, 641).
Notice the beginning of a distinction between Honorius and Sergius. However, the 6EC’s condemnation is clear, that Honorius and Sergius were condemned together. The Catholic Encyclopaedia also acknowledges this later on.
To his elder son John IV addressed a letter known as the "Apology for Pope Honorius". He explains quite truly that both Sergius and Honorius asserted one Will only because they would not admit contrary wills; yet he shows by his argument that they were wrong in using so misleading an expression.
So here is the GREAT MISUNDERSTANDING. John IV attempts to exculpate Honorius by this statement above.
St. Maximus of Constantinople, a monk and formerly secretary of Heraclius, now becomes the protagonist of orthodoxy and of submission to Rome. His defence of Honorius is based upon the statements of a certain abbot, John Symponus, the composer of the letter of Honorius, to the effect that the pope only meant to deny that Christ had not two contrary human wills, such as are found in our fallen nature. It is true that the words of Honorius are inconclusively though not necessarily, heretical. Unfortunately the Monophysites habitually argued in just the same inconclusive way, from the fact that Christ could have no rebellious lower will, to prove that His Divine and human will were not distinct faculties. No doubt Honorius did not really intend to deny that there is in Christ a human will, the higher faculty; but he used words which could be interpreted in the sense of that heresy, and he did not recognize that the question was not about the unity of the Person Who wills, nor about the entire agreement of the Divine Will with the human faculty, but about the distinct existence of the human faculty as an integrant part of the Humanity of Christ.
THE TYPE OF CONSTANS
Pyrrhus, the successor of Sergius, was condemned at Rome for refusing to withdraw the Ecthesis. Emperor Constans deposed him for political reasons, and set up a new patriarch, Paul. Pyrrhus recanted at Rome. Paul, on his appointment, sent the customary confession of faith to the pope. As it did not confess two wills, it was condemned by Pope Theodore. Paul first showed anger, but then prevailed on Constans to withdraw the Ecthesis, for which was substituted a Typos, or "Type", in which it was again forbidden to speak of one or two operations, but "one Will" was no longer taught; instead it was said that neither one nor two wills were to be spoken of, but no blame was to attach to any one who had used either expression in the past. The penalties for disobedience were to be: deposition for bishops and clergy, excommunication, loss of goods or perpetual exile for others.
This edict was based upon a misinterpretation of the Apology of John IV, who had shown that "one Will" was an improper expression, but had declared that Honorius and Sergius had used it in an orthodox sense. But John IV had neither defended nor blamed Honorius and Sergius for wishing the expression "two operations" to be avoided. It was consequently assumed that Honorius was right in this, and it was quite logical to assimilate the question of one or two wills to that of one or two operations. The penalties were severe; but both patriarch and emperor declared that they forced no man's conscience.
The Type, unlike the Ecthesis, was not an exposition of faith, but a mere prohibition of the use of certain words, for the avoidance of wrangling. The edict was issued about the first half of 649. Pope Theodore died in May, and was succeeded by St. Martin I, who in the great Lateran Council of 649 solemnly condemned the Ecthesis and the Type as heretical, together with Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus (who had fallen back), and Paul. The emperor was furious. He had the pope dragged to Constantinople, loaded with chains, and exiled him to the Crimea, where he died a martyr for the Faith in 655. St. Maximus also suffered for his devotion to orthodoxy and his loyalty to the Holy See.
The decrees of the Lateran Council which were sent to all bishops by St. Martin as papal dogmatic decisions, mark a new stage in the Honorius controversy. Honorius and Sergius must stand or fall together. John IV defended both. St. Martin condemns Sergius and Cyrus, and not a word is said in favour of Honorius. It was evidently felt that he could not be defended, if the Type was to be condemned as heretical because it forbade the orthodox expressions "two operations" and "two Wills", since in this it was simply following Honorius. But be it carefully noted that the Type of Constans is not Monothelite. Its "heresy" consists in forbidding the use of orthodox expressions together with their heretical contraries. A study of the Acts of the Lateran Council will show that the question was not as to the toleration of Monothelite expressions, for they were forbidden by the Type, but the prohibition of the orthodox formulæ. No doubt it was still held at Rome that Honorius had not intended to teach "one Will", and was, therefore, not a positive heretic. But no one would deny that he recommended the negative course which the Type enforced under savage penalties, and that he objectively deserved the same condemnation.
IN WHAT SENSE HONORIUS WAS CONDEMNED
Constans was murdered in 668. His successor, Constantine Pogonatus, probably did not trouble to enforce the Type, but East and West remained divided until his wars against the Saracens were over in 678, and he began to think of reunion. By his desire Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at a general council which met at Constantinople on 7 Nov., 680. They brought with them a long dogmatic letter in which the pope defined the faith with authority as the successor of St. Peter.
He emphatically declares, remembering Honorius, that the Apostolic Church of St. Peter has never fallen into error. He condemns the Ecthesis and Type, with Cyrus, Sergius, Theodore of Pharan, Pyrrhus, Paul, and his successor Peter. He leaves no power of deliberation to the council.
Here we see Rome’s attempt at salvaging papal infallibility and their standing in Christendom. Agatho’s letter was biased, condemning everyone except Honorius. So, in Rome’s eye, Honorius was an innocent victim of an exploitation, as Mr Tan puts it, of Sergius.
Before I comment, a similar account is given by Philip Schaff,
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-131.htm#P5927_1323872
It will be sufficient for the purposes of this volume to state that Roman Catholic Curialist writers are not at one as to how the matter is to be treated.
Pennacchi, in his work referred to above, is of opinion that Honorius's letters were strictly speaking Papal decrees, set forth auctoritate apostolica, and therefore irreformable, but he declares, contrary to the opinion of almost all theologians and to the decree of this Council, that they are orthodox, and that the Council erred in condemning them; as he expresses it, the decree rests upon all error in facto dogmatico. To save an Ecumenical Synod from error, he thinks the synod ceased to be ecumenical before it took this action, and was at that time only a synod of a number of Orientals!
Cardinal Baronius has another way out of the difficulty. He says that the name of Honorius was forged and put in the decree by an erasure in the place of the name of Theodore, the quondam Patriarch, who soon after the Council got himself restored to the Patriarchal position.
Baronius moreover holds that Honorius's letters have been corrupted, that the Acts of the Council have been corrupted, and, in short, that everything which declares or proves that Honorius was a heretic or was condemned by an Ecumenical Council as such, is untrustworthy and false. The groundlessness, not to say absurdity, of Baronius's view has been often exposed by those of his own communion, a brief but sufficient summary of the refutation will be found in Hefele, who while taking a very halting and unsatisfactory position himself, yet is perfectly clear that Baronius's contention is utterly indefensible.
Most Roman controversialists of recent years have admitted both the fact of Pope Honorius's condemnation (which Baronius denies), and the monothelite (and therefore heretical) character of his epistles, but they are of opinion that these letters were not his ex cathedra utterances as Doctor Universalis, but mere expressions of the private opinion of the Pontiff as a theologian. With this matter we have no concern in this connexion.
I shall therefore say nothing further on this point but shall simply supply the leading proofs that Honorius was as a matter of fact condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
In Agatho’s letter to the Council, he explained that it was necessary to stress one will as against two wills but it wasn’t one will as in monotheletism. In other words, Agatho was trying to say that Honorius didn’t intend his use of one will to be an endorsement of monotheletism, it was abused by Sergius, et al. So while the rest are being condemned, Honorius is not mentioned at all in his letter. Agatho put up quite a defense, quoting at length from many church fathers and the heretics’ writings to try and prove that Honorius was innocent.
But was this to be accepted by the 6EC?
Now the important thing here to remember is that Agatho didn’t have Honorius letters, they were first opened at the Council. He was obviously trying to safekeep Rome’s authority.
The thing to see is - did the Council find as damning evidence of Honorius embrace of monotheletism? The answer is YES, which is why they added Honorius to the dishonour roll!
The Easterns are to have the privilege of reunion by simply accepting his letter. He sent a book of testimonies from the Fathers, which were carefully verified. The Monothelite Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, had been allowed to present other testimonies, which were examined and found to be incorrect. The Patriarch of Constantinople, George, and all the council accepted the papal letter, and Macarius was condemned and deposed for not accepting it. Honorius, so far, had been thrice appealed to by Macarius, but had been mentioned by no one else.
In the twelfth session, 12 March, 681, a packet was produced which Macarius had sent to the emperor, but which the latter had not opened. It proved to contain the letter of Sergius to Cyrus and to Honorius, the forged letter of Mennas to Vigilius, and the letter of Honorius to Sergius.
In the thirteenth session, 28 March, the two letters of Sergius were condemned, and the council added: "Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God", that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious and great emperor, "and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema.
And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas".
These last words are true enough, and if Sergius was to be condemned Honorius could not be rescued. The legates made no objection to his condemnation.
The question had indeed arisen unexpectedly out of the reading of Macarius's packet; but the legates must have had instructions from the pope how to act under the circumstances. Some other writings of the condemned heretics were further read, including part of a second letter of Honorius, and these were all condemned to be burnt.
Note: The 6EC condemned Honorius as a monothelite even with the presence of the Roman legates because of the evidence of the letters that Macarius produced.
Since they were opened and then burnt there and then, it was obvious that Rome didn’t possess them and as such, why should we take Rome’s word over and against the 6EC’s which possessed and read those damning letters, witnessed and agreed by the Roman legates?
Clearly, the 6EC found Honorius guilty as charged, he was guilty of embracing monotheletism. There was no misinterpretation, misunderstanding or miscarriage of justice.
Rome can continue believing what they wish, even trying to change history in their councils. What Roman Catholic bishops decide on Roman Catholic matters in a Roman Catholic council presided by a Roman Catholic pope has only historical significance for Christendom, not judicial significance, no matter how many Roman Catholics believe otherwise.
On 9 Aug., in the last session, George of Constantinople petitioned "that the persons be not anathematized by name", that is, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter. He only mentions his own predecessors; but Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus, and Honorius would evidently have been spared also, had the legates supported the suggestion. But there was no attempt to save the reputation of Honorius, and the petition of George was negatived by the synod. In the final acclamations, anathema to Honorius, among the other heretics, was shouted. The solemn dogmatic decree, signed by the legates, all the bishops, and the emperor, condemns the heretics mentioned by St. Agatho "and also Honorius who was pope of elder Rome", while it enthusiastically accepts the letter of St. Agatho.
So, did the Council err in anathematising Honorius? Did they mistake his good intentions? Remember this: if the Roman Catholic Church is right about Honorius, then the 6th Ecumenical Council is wrong, and if the 6th Ecumenical Council is right, then the Roman Catholic Church today is wrong. We can’t have it both ways.
But either way, it proves one thing – there is no such thing as infallibility, either of the ecumenical councils, church fathers, bishops or popes.
3. Honorius Was Condemned for Negligence, Not Heresy?
Yet another excuse could be that Honorius was not condemned as a positive heretic, just for his negligence in stopping the heresy! He should have more positively stopped the one-will heresy and actively proclaimed the one person, two-will orthodox beliefs.
That is what he should have done but we shouldn’t condemn him because he did this in his interest to maintain peace and unity.
Is this true? Did the 6EC investigate and found this to be true? Unfortunately for Mr Tan, no. Both the Emperor and the 6EC refute this.
In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes:
"With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches.
These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome...the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself...
We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present...besides, we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."
The Emperor’s understanding of the 6EC’s decision is nothing like negligence! The Emperor understood it as Honorius embraced monotheletism, promoted it and gave credence and authority to its adherents! This is why Honorius and Sergius were also appealed to for authority by monothelites. Jaroslav Pelikan affirms this in these comments:
In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)
Monotheletes were claiming Honorius and Sergius for them! This is what is recorded in the Acts,
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-122.htm#P5789_1232249
Extracts from the Acts. Session I.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 609 et seqq.)
[After a history of the assembly of the Council, the Acts begin with the Speech of the Papal Legatee, as follows:]
Most benign lord, in accordance with the Sacra to our most holy Pope1 from your God-instructed majesty, we have been sent by him to the most holy footsteps of your God-confirmed serenity, bearing with us his suggestion (, suggestione) as well as the other suggestion of his Synod equally addressed to your divinely preserved Piety by the venerable bishops subject to it, which also we offered to your God-crowned Fortitude. Since, then, during the past forty-six years, more or less, certain novelties in expression, contrary to the Orthodox faith, have been introduced by those who were at several times bishops of this, your royal and God-preserved city, to wit: Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, as also by Cyrus, at one time archbishop of the city of Alexandria, as well also as by Theodore, who was bishop of a city called Pharan, and by certain others their followers, and since these things have in no small degree brought confusion into the Church throughout the whole world, for they taught dogmatically that there was but one will in the dispensation of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, and one operation; and since many times your servant, our apostolic see, has fought against this, and then prayed against it, and by no means been able, even up to now, to draw away from such a depraved opinion its advocates, we beseech your God-crowned fortitude, that such as share these views of the most holy church of Constantinople may tell us, what is the source of this new-fangled language.
[Answer of the Monothelites made at the Emperor's bidding:] We have brought out no new method of speech, but have taught whatever we have received from the holy Ecumenical Synods, and from the holy approved Fathers, as well as from the archbishops of this imperial city, to wit: Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, as also from Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, and from Cyrus who was Pope of Alexandria, that is to say with reference to will and operation, and so we have believed, and so we believe, so we preach; and further we are ready to stand by, and defend this faith.
Of course, Roman Catholics argue that just because someone else claims that Honorius is a monothelite doesn’t mean he is, it could be hearsay. True, but this is not the point. The point is that monothelites at the time have reasons and evidences to believe that Honorius and Sergius preached monotheletism! These were the witnesses! Today, Roman Catholics, some 1400 years later, want us to believe otherwise.
In the twelfth session, 12 March, 681, a packet was produced which Macarius had sent to the emperor, but which the latter had not opened. It proved to contain the letter of Sergius to Cyrus and to Honorius, the forged letter of Mennas to Vigilius, and the letter of Honorius to Sergius. In the thirteenth session, 28 March, the two letters of Sergius were condemned, and the council added:
"Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God, that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious and great emperor, "and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema.
And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas".
The 6EC anathematised Honorius for actually confirming the heresy. And in fact, for promoting and disseminating it, not for negligence!
Session XVIII:
But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome..., has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).
What about Roman popes Agatho and Leo II? Before examining what they say, let us be realistic about this. Honorius was Rome’s Bishop and he was singled out for heresy just when Rome was enjoying a prominent status as the see of Peter. From Agatho’s letter, it was clear that he was not going to support Honorius’ condemnation, from the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
By his desire Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at a general council which met at Constantinople on 7 Nov., 680. They brought with them a long dogmatic letter in which the pope defined the faith with authority as the successor of St. Peter. He emphatically declares, remembering Honorius, that the Apostolic Church of St. Peter has never fallen into error. He condemns the Ecthesis and Type, with Cyrus, Sergius, Theodore of Pharan, Pyrrhus, Paul, and his successor Peter. He leaves no power of deliberation to the council.
Although Agatho specifically left out Honorius in the dishonour roll of heretics which included Sergius, we saw earlier that the 6EC found the evidence overwhelmingly damning and thus could not exculpate Honorius. It was more than just negligence, it was full embrace of heresy by Honorius. That was the 6EC’s final decision.
Again, a reminder. Never mind what modern apologists tell you about Honorius. The important thing is still the thinking and judgement of the 6EC on Honorius. What was their finding and decision? They were the first hand witnesses and people involved.
Let us see where this negligence theory originated and what evidence is offered in its support. From the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
St. Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself:
"We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius,...and 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."
This appears to express exactly the mind of the council, only that the council avoided suggesting that Honorius disgraced the Roman Church. The last words of the quotation are given above as in the Greek of the letter, because great importance has been attached to them by a large number of Catholic apologists.
Pennacchi, followed by Grisar, taught that by these words Leo II explicitly abrogated the condemnation for heresy by the council, and substituted a condemnation for negligence. Nothing, however, could be less explicit. Hefele, with many others before and after him, held that Leo II by the same words explained the sense in which the sentence of Honorius was to be understood.
Such a distinction between the pope's view and the council's view is not justified by close examination of the facts. At best such a system of defence was exceedingly precarious, for the milder reading of the Latin is just as likely to be original: "but by profane treachery attempted to pollute its purity".
In this form Honorius is certainly not exculpated, yet the pope declares that he did not actually succeed in polluting the immaculate Roman Church. However, in his letter to the Spanish King Erwig, he has: "And with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished." To the Spanish bishops he explains his meaning: "With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence." That is, he did not insist on the "two operations", but agreed with Sergius that the whole matter should be hushed up.
First, note that Rome claimed that what Leo II said was more important than what the 6EC said because as pope, he was supposed to ratify the EC’s decisions.
This is besides the point. The point is what did the 6EC find about Honorius? They found him guilty of embracing, promulgating and disseminating monotheletism and anathematised him as such. The Roman legates present at the council did not object to this verdict. Neither did Leo II in his letter!
Leo was obviously trying to exculpate Honorius with an excuse of his negligence. At first, he said that Honorius was not wrong, i.e. he did not embrace monotheletism, he just used one will in an way that was easily misunderstood to be heresy. Then in his letter to the Spanish king, he admitted that Honorius did in fact tarnished Rome’s authority which implied that he believed that Honorius was guilty as charged, i.e. he embraced monotheletism.
The account here claims that the 6EC actually concurred with Leo II in admitting that Honorius was not only negligent but also by his negligence has tarnished the apostolic see of Rome. The distinction is only that the 6EC did not outrightly say that Honorius disgraced Rome. In fact, the account even claimed that Honorius was not condemned as a monothelite by the 6EC! Clearly, this is twisting what the 6EC concluded.
But again, what really matters is not what Roman Catholic popes and bishops try to change, it is what the 6EC concluded. The Catholic Encyclopaedia concludes,
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.
The Encyclopaedia also quotes the Emperor’s letter:
The emperor's official letter to the pope is particularly explicit on these points. It should be noted that he calls Honorius "the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself", again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences by St. Maximus. It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. 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.
When we read the Emperor’s words that Honorius was the “confirmer of the heresy”, we understand it to be that by his embracing of monotheletism, he was in fact lending it his papal authority. Rome would like us to believe something else. Well, you be the judge.
Is it true that the Emperor’s words supported the assertion that Honorius was condemned not as a monothelite? Here is a summary of the Imperial Edict which has not been translated in Schaff’s history,
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-132.htm#P5954_1330619
The Imperial Edict Posted in the Third Atrium of the Great Church Near What is Called Dicymbala.
In the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, the most pious Emperor, the peaceful and Christ-loving Constantine, an Emperor faithful to God in Jesus Christ, to all our Christ-loving people living in this God-preserved and royal city.
[The document is very long, Hefele gives the following epitome, which is all sufficient for the ordinary reader, who will remember that it is an Edict of the Emperor and not anything proceeding from the council.]
Hefele's Epitome (Hist. of the Councils, Vol.v., p. 178).
"The heresy of Apollinaris, etc., has been renewed by Theodore of Pharan and confirmed by Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, who also contradicted himself. Also Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter; more recently. Macarius, Stephen, and Polychronius had diffused Monothelitism. He, the Emperor, had therefore convoked this holy and Ecumenical Synod, and published the present edict with the confession of faith, in order to confirm and establish its decrees. (There follows here an extended confession of faith, with proofs for the doctrine of two wills and operations.) As he recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy (, further, Cyrus, etc., and ordained that no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and one energy. In no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved. Whoever did not obey the imperial edict should, if he were a bishop or cleric be deposed; if an official, punished with confiscation of property and loss of the girdle (); if a private person, banished from the residence and all other cities."
So, the question is here again, what did the 6EC view was Honorius’ crime? I repeat,
"Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God, that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious and great emperor, "and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema.
And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas".
The 6EC anathematised Honorius for actually confirming the heresy. And in fact, for promoting and disseminating it, not for negligence!
Session XVIII:
But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome..., has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).
Honorius was condemned based on the evidences presented at the hearing and he must only be acquitted based on evidences, not by someone with supposedly infallible power! He may be pardoned but not acquitted, in other words, Honorius remained guilty as charge although he can be forgiven. Pardon does not suddenly make what is wrong to become right! And if he, as the infallible pope, can be guilty of ex-cathedra heresy, there is no such thing as papal infallibility.
So, readers have to decide if what the 6EC decided was negligence or heresy. If negligence, then Mr Tan is right, it has no impact on papal infallibility. But I think the evidence is clear – he was condemned for heresy in spite of papal infallibility which demonstrates that there is no such thing.
4. The Decisions of the 6EC Not Ratified by Roman Popes?
Another possible reason Mr Tan might give is that the council’s decision is anathematising Honorius was not ratified by the pope, hence, is not infallible. This is apparently a Roman Catholic requirement to recognise the council. But the records show otherwise.
From the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
St. Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom.
Not only that, the condemnation was repeated at the next synod at Trullo, by the 7th and 8th EC, and even creedalised in the Liber Diurnus! From the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils without special remark; also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: "Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ii, 9).
Charles Hefelee writes,
In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath...according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius"
(Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).
If this is not ratification, what is?
Side Issue: The 6EC Validated Papal Infallibility?
From the Catholic Encyclopaedia,
The council, according to custom, presented an address of congratulation to the emperor, which was signed by all the bishops. In it they have much to say of the victory which Agatho, speaking with the voice of Peter, gained over heresy. They anathematize the heretics by name, Theodore, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, Peter, Cyrus, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things", and Macarius with his followers.
The letter to the pope, also signed by all, gives the same list of heretics, and congratulates Agatho on his letter "which we recognize as pronounced by the chiefest head of the Apostles". The modern notion that the council was antagonistic to the pope receives no support form the Acts. On the contrary all the Easterns, except the heretic Macarius, were evidently delighted with the possibility of reunion. They had never been Monothelites, and had no reason to approve the policy of silence enforced under savage penalties by the Type. They praise with enthusiasm the letter of St. Agatho, in which the authority and inerrancy of the papacy are extolled. They themselves say no less; they affirm that the pope has indeed spoken, according to his claim, with the voice of Peter.
The emperor's official letter to the pope is particularly explicit on these points. It should be noted that he calls Honorius "the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself", again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences by St. Maximus. It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. 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.
There are two points to address:
What Does the Council Mean by “chiefest Head of the Apostles”?
Roman Catholics claim that in the letter, the authority and inerrancy of the Pope are extolled, is it so? Let’s see the context of this statement:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-130.htm#P5914_1316163
Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed [father]; and therefore Christ our true God, who is the creator and governing power of all things, gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church.
Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up, having been urged to making a decree by Constantine who divinely reigns, and wields a most clement sceptre. And by his help we have overthrown the error of impiety, having as it were laid siege to the nefarious doctrine of the heretics.
Note that the context. The council did no such thing as extolling the authority and inerrancy of the papacy at all! They were talking only about what Agatho wrote in the letter, i.e. the doctrine of two wills which already has been preached by the many church fathers and councils before as Agatho himself admitted in this letter! He was merely re-stating it and the Council merely concurred with what he wrote!
What this demonstrates is not papal authority and infallibility or inerrancy, it DEMONSTRATES THAT WHAT IS HELD BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH IS FAITHFUL TO THE WORD. Not only was this doctrine of two wills held by the church fathers, in The Definition of Faith of the 6EC, it was amply supported by Scriptures!
Agatho had no more authority than the authority of the Word. It was because what he said was Scriptural, hence, it was authoritative and divine. In other words, the Scriptures was the foundation and the universal church, the communal interpretation the cornerstone of authority and infallibility, not Agatho.
Furthermore, it is clear that what the council held “written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles” was only this letter, it is not a blanket statement of perpetual infallibility at all!
In the mind of this "infallible" Council Honorius was a heretic. In its official condemnation of him, he is judged not on the basis of the criteria for ex cathedra statements which was defined some 1200 years later. One simply cannot avoid the historical facts. An "infallible" Ecumenical Council has condemned an "infallible" pope, in his official capacity, for heresy. No redefining of terms can erase the simple facts of history or the implications of those facts for the dogma of papal infallibility. This has direct bearing upon the issue of authority and jurisdiction.
If an Ecumenical Council can excommunicate a bishop of Rome then the ultimate authority in the early Church was not the bishop of Rome but the Council. The fact of this condemnation clearly demonstrates that contrary to the claims of Vatican I, the early Church never viewed the bishops of Rome to be infallible. No Church father has ever taught such a doctrine and it is contradicted by the practice of the early Church fathers and Councils, III Constantinople being but one example.
Conclusion
What we can see is that as far as the 6EC is concerned, Honorius was anathematised in his capacity as the Pope for embracing, confirming and disseminating monotheletism to the entire church, knowing that it is heretical doctrine.
The 6EC made no mistakes such as misinterpreting Honorius’ letters, nor did they in any way regard those letters as private correspondences, nor did they feel that those letters were not promulgating any doctrines. They clearly anathematised Honorius for intentional propagation of heresy, not just for negligence.
To the 6EC, there was no such thing as papal infallibility, hence, they do not hesitate to condemn any bishops or popes found to promote heresy. Their loyalty is to the Word.
What we can say to Rome’s efforts in trying to salvage the broken pieces of papal infallibility doctrine is that history has unequivocally demonstrated that neither Jesus nor the NT church ever held such a belief.
I end with Von Dollinger’s words. He was the leading Roman Catholic historian of the last century who taught Church history for 47 years. He makes these comments:
This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or inerrancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church.
(Janus Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).
Christopher.
http://www.aomin.org/FailuretoDocument.html
Failure to Document: Catholic Answers Glosses Over History
James White
Perhaps this is why Catholic Answers, while claiming to be in the "forefront" of Catholic Apologetics, refuses to engage in public debate against those they know are prepared and ready. Who knows? But one thing is for sure: the new article by Steven O'Reilly in the October, 2000 This Rock magazine rivals the sad attempts of the Watchtower Society to completely and utterly misrepresent the facts of Church History. Steven O'Reilly, who has recently been attempting to do what Catholic Answers won't do in public (respond to Protestant apologists, though, of course, as it is part of the editorial policy of CA, they refuse to refer to Protestant apologists, but instead choose the much more emotionally useful phrase "anti-Catholic"), again plies the trade of the defender of Rome's a-historical modern doctrines. But this time he reaches new lows in misrepresenting history and truth. The article is titled, "Guilty Only of Failure to Teach" and is subtitled "The Case of Pope Honorius Doesn't Disprove Papal Infallibility." It begins on page 28 of the 10/2000 issue of This Rock magazine.
I have recently had the opportunity of twice debating leading Roman Catholic apologists on the subject of Papal Infallibility. The first debate, with Timothy Staples, took place in Fullerton in July, and the second, with Robert Sungenis, took place in early October in Clearwater, Florida. In both debates the issue of Honorius took center stage. In fact, in the second debate with Mr. Sungenis, the second round of the debate was limited to the topic of Honorius' condemnation as a heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council, and that by pre-arrangement.
Before looking at O'Reilly's attempt to save Honorius, a few background issues should be addressed.
First, I would like to present the basic facts of the issue as I presented them in my opening statement on Honorius in the debate with Robert Sungenis. Then, I will comment on the fact that the defense used by Staples and O'Reilly is directly contradictory to that used by Sungenis: that is, if Staples and O'Reilly are correct, Sungenis is in error, and vice versa. Finally, I will respond to the horrifically partial presentation made by O'Reilly as yet another documented instance of the kind of apologetic offered by Catholic Answers.
The Facts About Honorius
Honorius was the bishop of Rome from 625 to 638. In 634 Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, wrote to Honorius concerning Sergius’ attempts to bring the monophysites, those who asserted that there was only one nature in Christ, into the catholic fold. Sergius was a monothelite, one who believed that while Christ was indeed one person with two natures, He had but one will, since the will was a function of the one person, not a function of the two natures. Honorius, in responding to Sergius, provides the single clearest example of Papal error that violates the definition of infallibility as given by Rome itself. Honorius agreed with Sergius, clearly, in his first letter. He wrote to Sergius as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian. He responded as the bishop of Rome to an official inquiry to the See of Rome regarding a matter of faith and morals. He wrote to a fellow bishop of the church, and in speaking of the very issue of whether Christ had one will or two, he wrote, en qelhma oJmologou`men tou` Kurivouj Ihsou Cristou (hen thelēma homologoumen ton Kuriuous Iēsou Christoui). Make sure you note the use of the plural, “we confess.” Honorius did not say, “Oh, I think maybe it’s like this.” He employed the very same plural that Roman bishops use today to refer to their representation of the church as a whole.
Now we surely can safely admit that Honorius was not the leading theologian of his day. He made an error based upon ignorance of the issues involved. The biblical standard of the elder or bishop in the church is not, thankfully, infallibility. And surely no one in that day believed in papal infallibility, so to judge Honorius on the basis of modern standards is without merit. His case is famous for no other reason than the glaring and obvious anachronism of Rome’s modern teaching. Rome proclaims her bishop infallible when teaching as the pastor of all Christians on matters of faith and morals. Obviously, it was the intention of the Vatican decree to say that the bishops of Rome have always had this “charisma of infallibility,” which would mean it is the Roman Catholic position that this teaching was valid in Honorius’ day just as much as it is today. So it is Rome that has placed the spotlight upon all the Popes of history, not Protestants.
Now, there is absolutely, positively no question that Honorius was, in fact, condemned as a heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council which met in Constantinople in 680-681 for a teaching he promulgated in an official letter sent to Sergius as the bishop of Rome.
1. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the 13th Session, near the beginning.
2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session as being “hurtful to the soul.” This includes the letter that contains the phrase en qelhma oJmologou`men (hen thelema homologoumen).
3. In the 16th Session the bishops exclaimed “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.”
4. In the decree of faith published at the 18th Session it is stated that “the originator of all evil... found a fit tool for his will in... Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.” Further, this Ecumenical Council said that Honorius taught the heretical doctrine. They said that Satan had “actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy …”
5. The Papal legates, representatives of Pope Agatho, made no attempt to stop the burning of the letters, and subscribed to every anathema placed upon Honorius, as well as to the statement that Satan himself had used the bishop of Rome as a “tool for his will.”
6. 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.
7. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says “We have destroyed the fort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Paran, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc.” Note that the Council believed its actions to be in full accord with Agatho’s wishes and Agatho’s letter!
8. 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.”
9. Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius. So strong was Leo’s confirmation that Baronius rejected it, saying it had to have been spurious, and even Cardinal Bellarmine tried to say it had been corrupted. Neither saw in Leo’s words any softening of the Council’s act, though some modern Catholic apologists have attempted to find in Leo’s sentence a ray of hope: Leo anathematizes Honorius “who did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.”
10. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the canons of the Council of Trullo which met less than two decades after Constantinople (Trullan Canons No. 1). This shows that the condemnation of Honorius was accepted by the wider church immediately after the Council, and amongst those who were familiar with Leo’s letter.
11. 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.
12. 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.) This means that in Rome itself the condemnation with anathema as a heretic was embraced and accepted.
13. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope up to the eleventh century, states in no uncertain terms, “smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.” Every single Pope who took to the chair of Peter for three hundred years did so by anathematizing his predecessor, Honorius.
14. 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, and the name remains there until the sixteenth century!
Patrick Madrid, in his book Pope Fiction, erroneously asserts that Pope Leo “redefined” the language of the 6th Ecumenical Council. He writes that Leo “confirmed the council’s decree but redefined its language regarding Pope Honorius, making it clear that Honorius had not endorsed the Monotheletism of Sergius, but had failed in his duty to condemn it. Officially, therefore, Honorius was condemned for his negligence, but not for heresy” (p. 160). This is truly imaginative, but it is also utterly untrue. Leo did not alter any wording of the council. He never said the Council had erred in its condemnation, nor did he dream he had the authority to over rule it even if it did! Madrid is referring to the letter of Leo to the Emperor I cited above: he uses the anathema and says that Honorius “permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.” It is self-evident that Madrid’s forced reading is in error for two reasons: first, the 6th Ecumenical Council specifically said that Honorius and the others taught the heresy. Was the Council wrong? Did Leo say it was wrong? No, he did not. Secondly, it was not Leo’s alleged “correction” that appears in the 7th and 8th Ecumenical Councils, but the words of the 6th, where Honorius is condemned as a heretic. Madrid follows this with a glorious example of anachronistic interpretation of ancient church history in the light of modern Roman beliefs when he quotes Warren Carroll’s statement,
The fact remains that no decree of a council has effect in the Catholic Church unless and until it is confirmed by the reigning Pope, and only in the form that he confirms it. There is no “supreme law” prescribing how the Pope shall designate his confirmation. Pope Honorius, therefore, was never condemned for heresy by the supreme Church authority, but only for negligence in allowing a heresy to spread and grow, when he should have denounced it.
Such is utterly without historical merit. The universal church at that time did not believe in the idea that a council had to await the approval of the bishop of Rome. That concept had to wait to find its universal expression in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals almost 200 years yet in the future from the time of the 6th Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo. That a belief, first introduced by fraudulent means in the middle of the 9th century would have to be read back into the context of the clear and obvious condemnation of Honorius in the 7th century, in a vain attempt to save him as well as rescue a dogma defined in the 19th century, is clear evidence of the impossible task facing the defender of papal infallibility.
Further, the fact that every possible defense has been offered for Honorius’ condemnation proves one thing: none of those offered are compelling. Thus we see why Newman feared the prospect of having to defend decisions which may “...be most difficult to maintain logically in the face of historical facts.” Newman understood that the unbiased observer could not help but conclude that the definition of the Vatican Council was proclaimed without any concern for the truths of history itself.
We would be wise to consider as well that during the deliberations prior to the announcement of Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council, the Pope, while excluding those who opposed the definition of infallibility from publishing in Rome, allowed those who supported the definition to print their books and have access to the newspapers in the city itself. One of those works that the Pope allowed to be printed in Rome, and in fact had distributed amongst the members of the Council (while all replies were disallowed), was that of Professor Pennachi. Pennachi firmly advanced the assertion that Honorius’ letters were ex cathedra, that they were orthodox, and that the Council erred, being made up primarily of Orientals, not Westerners. Bishop Hefele, a member of the Vatican Council, a historian of whom Schaff said, “Hefele has forgotten more about the history of Councils than the infallible Pope ever knew,” an opponent of infallibility prior to the Council, but one who submitted thereafter, not only refuted Pennachi fully, but had to completely revise his own writings on Honorius after the decree came out, much like Newman. I heartily recommend the narrative provided by Philip Schaff of how Pope Pius IX utilized everything short of the barrel of a gun to obtain the definition of his own infallibility, and how completely different was this allegedly ecumenical Council in comparison with that of Nicea. There is nothing in the history of the First Vatican Council that will cause any person to be anything but distrustful of the allegedly infallible pronouncement that came therefrom.
We should also realize that to expect the men of the past, who manifestly did not believe the modern formulation of this doctrine, to conform to any kind of specific “formula” for a teaching to be infallible likewise, is to completely gut history of its meaning. It is a common defense to say, “Look, Honorius did not teach this ex cathedra, so it does not violate the definition.” The problem is, no one back then operated on such a modern platform, therefore, to act as if they did is to violate all logical standards of historical inquiry. Further, it is likewise to render every single Papal statement of the past “safe” from the allegation of error. That is, if you insist that a certain “formula” be used, you can simply dismiss all papal errors as not having been pronounced “ex cathedra,” and all is well. The serious investigator, however, will look at the Vatican council’s declaration and ask, “Do the facts of history support this claim?”
And finally, I remind us all: Honorius died forty years prior to the Council of Constantinople. For four decades his letters existed, teaching what would later be identified as a heresy by an ecumenical Council. No Pope of Rome uttered a word in condemnation during those four decades. It would be like having a Pope teach heresy in 1960, and having to wait till this very year for there to be a “correction,” and then only from a gathered council, not from the Pope himself. For forty years those letters existed, and if you had looked to the bishop of Rome’s teachings during those years, you would have been led into formal heresy thereby. How, then, can we know that the recently promulgated Papal statement Dominus Iesus will not, twenty, forty, or a hundred years from now, likewise be burned as “hurtful to the soul” at some future council? The fact is, we cannot, and hence the uselessness of the idea of Papal Infallibility. What a contrast, then, between this, and the unchanging, and unchangeable, infallibility of God’s Word, the Bible.
The Thousand Excuses
As was noted above, every possible explanation has been offered by Roman Catholic controversialists regarding the issue of Honorius. The fact that Rome has to multiply its excuses shows that none of them are compelling or historically consistent. IF Honorius' letters were orthodox, then there is no reason to worry about whether they were ex cathedra or not; IF they were not ex cathedra, then it doesn't matter if they were orthodox. IF Leo "changed" the decisions of the Council, then none of the other considerations are relevant. The fact that Roman apologists are forced to pile excuse upon excuse upon excuse shows that they know that no single argument is compelling. It seems that they are more concerned about keeping their constituency happy (i.e., providing excuses for those who want to believe) than providing meaningful defense of the modern dogma in a historical setting.
Another reason for the multiplicity of conflicting excuses is easily discerned in this quotation from John Meyendorff, found in the article O'Reilly is allegedly responding to (he ignores it in his reply), found at http://www.christiantruth.com/pope.html,
This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries - Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists at Vatican I in 1870 would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope's good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir's, 1989), p. 353).
The simple fact of the matter is that no one in the days of Honorius believed in "Papal Infallibility" as it is defined today. In reality, no papal statement of the past is liable to be proven in error since it can always be argued that they "did not intend it to be a binding statement upon the entire church." So, through the wonderful use of hindsight, any errant Papal teaching can be considered non-binding, and any Papal teaching that is still in vogue can be said to be consistent with the "universal faith of the Church." It's truly a wonderful system that actually means nothing at all, since you can never know if a current Pope's teaching will get the stamp of approval of future generations, or will end up on the scrap-heap of "he didn't mean that infallibly" pronouncements. But this very anachronistic element of the belief results in all sorts of conflicting and self-contradictory explanations for past papal misstatements. Since the modern construct has no connection to the ancient situation, Roman apologists are forced to pick and choose from among the ancient circumstances to come up with their defense. As each may put more weight on this circumstance or that, they end up contradicting each other. So while Staples and O'Reilly defend Honorius as orthodox, Sungenis can admit his error and his condemnation. If the first position is right, the second is in error, and vice-versa. Such is the quandary of the apologist who must defend an anachronism.
Guilty of Failure to Honestly Represent History
It was most interesting, then, to encounter the attempt on the part of Steven O'Reilly (who is authoring a book on the Papacy, according to the article) to do some "damage control" on the Honorius issue in the October edition of This Rock magazine. Bill Webster had quite properly pointed out the particularly shallow attempt on the part of Karl Keating to address Honorius in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, in an article on his webpage (specifically, http://www.christiantruth.com/pope.html, but make sure to see http://www.christiantruth.com/articles.html as well). O'Reilly, who seemingly has taken up the banner of Catholic Answers in attempting to respond to historical issues (see my two previous rebuttals of his attempts, Whitewashing Church History and Serving Up Circular Arguments), carefully crafts a presentation that would make Bill Clinton or Al Gore proud. By carefully spinning a few facts, making grand conclusions before even admitting the most damaging evidence into the mix, and ignoring all sorts of other factual matters, O'Reilly presents a lopsided (to those who know the facts) defense that surely sounds good if there is no interaction or rebuttal from anyone who might be able to push down his house of cards (making the Catholic Answers unwillingness to enter the public arena against meaningful opposition all the more glaring).
For example, long before O'Reilly admits that Honorius specifically said, "We confess one will in our Lord Jesus Christ" in his letters to Sergius (hence their being burned at the Council, a fact he conveniently forgets to mention), he instead weaves a very unfair (and pretty much undocumented) story of how Honorius was actually orthodox, how he merely failed to teach, etc., in words that make it sound like the facts of history are on his side, when they are not. When he finally introduces the actual words of Honorius presenting monotheletism, he has already presented the "spin" he needs to get Honorius out of trouble. But let's look at the major problem with O'Reilly's attempt to rescue Honorius from the facts of history.
The majority of the facts presented above never appear in O'Reilly's article. He never relates the words of the Council. Instead, we find the majority of space dedicated to Agatho's letter, Leo's letter after the Council, etc. But not a whisper about the actual words and actions of the Council. How in the world can one expect to honestly deal with the Council's actions when you utterly ignore what they said and did? This is why I said above that this is very much like how the Watchtower has manhandled patristics in the past, especially their incredible attempt to deny Ignatius' testimony to the deity of Christ by conveniently forgetting to ever cite Ignatius himself, preferring to only site the pseudo-Ignatian epistles (2/1/92 Watchtower). This comes to a grand climax when O'Reilly produces a paragraph that, if it represents the nature of the book he is intending to publish, will put it right up there with the "silence speaks volumes" arguments of Stephen Ray. Here is the context: Agatho wrote a pompous, arrogant letter to the Council (something Roman pontiffs became adept at doing since the days of Stephen in the 3rd century). In it he speaks glowingly of his apostolic authority, and, according to George Salmon, for the first time puts pen to paper in using Luke 22 in defense of papal primacy and authority. In the process he speaks of the consistency of the Roman see in theological truth, etc. O'Reilly writes that in his letter Agatho "asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see and stated that he and all of his predecessors, thus inclusive of Honorius, 'have never ceased to exhort and warn them (i.e. the monothelites) with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma.' " Ignoring the Council's reply to Agatho, which I noted above, O'Reilly then writes one of the most amazing paragraphs I've read in a while:
The council professed its agreement with Agatho's letter, anathematized any who rejected it, and said its condemnations were in accordance with it. Therefore, any conciliar condemnation of Honorius must be understood in light of such agreement. Consequently, since Agatho counted Honorius among his orthodox predecessors, so too did the council.
Writing like this truly amazes me. I would enjoy getting to cross-examine Mr. O'Reilly in a moderated debate regarding such an assertion. Here's how it might go:
W: Mr. O'Reilly, did Pope Agatho mention Honorius by name in his letter to the Council?
O: Well, not specifically, but he did mention his predecessors, which would include Honorius.
W: But he never once says, "Honorius was orthodox" in his letter, correct?
O: Not in those words.
W: Agatho died before the Council's decisions arrived in Rome, correct?
O: Yes.
W: You said in your presentation that the Council counted Honorius as orthodox, correct?
O: That is the logical conclusion of their acceptance of Agatho's letter, yes.
W: Then could you explain why the Council had Honorius' letters burned as hurtful to the soul?
O: Well, they were hurtful because they did not promote the full truth. They failed to teach.
W: Could you then explain these words of the Council, which you failed to note in your presentation:
"Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.” And could you explain why in the 18th session they taught that Satan “the originator of all evil... found a fit tool for his will in... Honorius, Pope of Old Rome" and why they went on to say that Honorius and the others had taught this false doctrine? Does that sound like the words of a Council that counted Honorius as orthodox?
[I have no idea how Mr. O'Reilly would respond, since he chose to ignore these facts in his presentation.]
W: And is it not true, Mr. O'Reilly, that when the Council wrote to Agatho they said, "We have destroyed the fort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Paran, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc.”? How can you tell us that the Council counted Honorius as orthodox when they said they slew him with the anathema as a heretic? And finally, Mr. O'Reilly, how in the world can you make presentations like this, knowing full well the Council said these things, and yet utterly ignore these facts in your presentation?
I have no idea how Mr. O'Reilly would respond. I would love to find out, in person, in debate, if he'd be willing to do so.
And so what do we learn from this kind of writing? Aside from the normal truths that we must always check sources, etc., the main thing we learn is something about the mindset of the apologists for Catholic Answers. Aside from the seemingly obligatory "anti-Catholic" rhetoric, Mr. O'Reilly is proving himself to be a faithful son of Rome: just as Rome did not hesitate to get full benefit of such things as the Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, so too her modern defenders are not at all hesitant to use partial truths to promote their cause. A full review of the facts shows that the defenses he offers are utterly untenable: yet, since these "apologetics" publications refuse to engage the other side in one-on-one debate, they seem to feel they can get away with this kind of activity. By God's grace, we continue to point out this consistent deceptive behavior, and pray for the deliverance of those who have been entrapped by it.
James White
Gabaón,
Dios le bendiga.
Le agradezco mucho su tiempo y sus palabras. Respeto la opinión que expresa en ellas en torno a la iglesia católica, y está de más decirle que no la comparto, por algo salí de ella. Aquí le expreso, con todo respeto, mis comentarios sobre lo que usted tan amablemente me comparte.
Lo que me dice de que "todos quieren ser parte del "equipo católico", me hace pensar en estas palabras de la Escritura:
"Entrad por la puerta estrecha; porque ancha es la puerta, y espacioso el camino que lleva a la perdición, y muchos son los que entran por ella; porque estrecha es la puerta, y angosto el camino que lleva a la vida, y pocos son los que la hallan" Mateo 7:13-14
Estas eran las preguntas que le hice en un principio, y sus palabras no le dieron respuesta a ninguna de ellas.
Doy gracias a Dios que usted y su familia hayan llegado a los pies de Cristo, pero este no es el caso de la gran mayoría de los católicos y sería miy importante el ver ¿por qué?.
Con respeto.
Joaquín
Dios le bendiga.
Le agradezco mucho su tiempo y sus palabras. Respeto la opinión que expresa en ellas en torno a la iglesia católica, y está de más decirle que no la comparto, por algo salí de ella. Aquí le expreso, con todo respeto, mis comentarios sobre lo que usted tan amablemente me comparte.
Respeto que usted vea a su iglesia como un equipo al que todo mundo quiere pertenecer. El que la iglesia católica tenga millones de feligreses es algo que en en beneficio de ella, por muchos aspectos. Pero yo me pregunto ¿Cuántos de esos fieles católicos, que están en las filas "del equipo más popular de la crestiandad", han llegado a los pies de Cristo?
Lo que me dice de que "todos quieren ser parte del "equipo católico", me hace pensar en estas palabras de la Escritura:
"Entrad por la puerta estrecha; porque ancha es la puerta, y espacioso el camino que lleva a la perdición, y muchos son los que entran por ella; porque estrecha es la puerta, y angosto el camino que lleva a la vida, y pocos son los que la hallan" Mateo 7:13-14
Doy gracias a Dios de que Cristo lo alcanzó a usted perteneciendo a la iglesia católica. Y lo dijo bien, Cristo fué el que lo alcanzó a usted. Que bueno que Cristo también alcanzó a su familia, pues esto demuestra Su fidelidad, y que cumple Sus promesas: "cree en el Señor Jesucristo, y serás salvo tú y tu casa". Pero de nuevo le pregunto ¿Es el caso de todos los fieles católicos? Honestamente yo creo que no, sino que sucede lo contrario.
El problema está, en que ese gran campode "bautizados", que no conocen a Cristo, se perderán y su destino será el mismo que el de la cizaña de la parábola de Jesús, si es que no llegan a los pies del Señor. Y lo más triste de todo, es que todos estos "bautizados" creen que por el hecho de ser miembros de una iglesia, y haber sido llevados por sus padres a "bautizarse" en ella, ya están salvados, en eso está su esperanza de salvación, y no en Cristo.
De nuevo yo le pregunto, si esto es cierto ¿por qué tanto fiel católico tiene su esperanza de salvación puesta en otra cosa y no en Cristo?
Estas eran las preguntas que le hice en un principio, y sus palabras no le dieron respuesta a ninguna de ellas.
Doy gracias a Dios que usted y su familia hayan llegado a los pies de Cristo, pero este no es el caso de la gran mayoría de los católicos y sería miy importante el ver ¿por qué?.
Con respeto.
Joaquín
Catholico34,
Antes de responder a sus preguntas, quiero comentarle algo respecto a su nota final. Ya le ofrecí disculpas por no incluir el correspondiente crédito del estudio que le transcribí, de nuevo no voy a justificarme de ninguna manera, pues simplemente no hice lo que debí de hacer y punto. Pero lo que si me deja sorprendido es que usted diga que el estudio, o mejor dicho, la transcripción que hice de´el, le haya parecido inútil. Es una verdadera lastima que así le haya parecido, y si eso piensa usted de un estudio que en lo personal me pareció muy bueno, pues que puedo esperar de lo que yo le pueda aportar. Y no me extraña, ya que he visto también como ha considerado usted las explicaciones de algunos de mis hermanos que para mí han sido hermosas. Pero eso me da esperanza, pues veo al Espíritu moviendo corazones, espero que uno de ellos llegue a ser el suyo.
El tema de la Escritura lo estabamos ya tratando en el primer epígrafe que abrió, ¿se acuerda? ese que quedó con varias respuestas pendientes de su parte. Con gusto le responderé a este cuestionamiento suyo, pero antes, me gustaría que nos aclarará las cuestiones que quedarón ahí, en ese foro. Solamente para ir cerrando los temas y no seguir divagando ¿Le parece?
Así que lo espero en el otro tema, en el cuál postearé algo para "resucitarlo", y lo hago también para no desviar el tema que Gabaón quiere tratar en este tema.
saludos!
Joaquín
Dios te bendiga Joaco.
Paz de Dios para usted.
Joaco, ¿qué le hace pensar a usted que el hecho de que la puerta sea estrecha no significa que por ella entrará toda una multitud? ¿no es precisamente lo contrario lo que atestigua el Apocalipsis?
Pero yo le he dicho que ciertamente una gran parte de los que están aquí no conocen a Jesús, también le he dicho que es el trabajo y el compromiso de los que sí le conocemos y somos católicos llevarles la Buena Nueva a esos, y le dije también que eso estamos haciendo.
Yo le exhortaría a que viera las cosas desde otro ángulo.
Usted descarta que aquí pueda haber algo de verdad porque ve un grueso de feligreses que no conocen al Señor. Yo le he dado la razón de por qué está ese grueso de feligreses aquí, sencillamente quieren ser parte de algo grande humanamente. Pero si aquí existe un número, aunque fuese pequeño de gente que hemos sido alcanzados por Cristo con todo y lo que a usted no le agrada del Catolicismo es porque sencillamente Cristo no tiene problemas con eso y de hecho lo ha usado para alcanzarnos.
No estreche su visión, el pecado que abunda entre el catolicismo no es un pecado que promueve, apoya o condona nuestra doctrina. Y no creo que me negará que lo puede encontrar, aunque en menor proporción, en cualquier otro sitio.
En el Amor de Jesús.
Gabaon.
Paz de Dios para usted.
Joaco, ¿qué le hace pensar a usted que el hecho de que la puerta sea estrecha no significa que por ella entrará toda una multitud? ¿no es precisamente lo contrario lo que atestigua el Apocalipsis?
Pero yo le he dicho que ciertamente una gran parte de los que están aquí no conocen a Jesús, también le he dicho que es el trabajo y el compromiso de los que sí le conocemos y somos católicos llevarles la Buena Nueva a esos, y le dije también que eso estamos haciendo.
Yo le exhortaría a que viera las cosas desde otro ángulo.
Usted descarta que aquí pueda haber algo de verdad porque ve un grueso de feligreses que no conocen al Señor. Yo le he dado la razón de por qué está ese grueso de feligreses aquí, sencillamente quieren ser parte de algo grande humanamente. Pero si aquí existe un número, aunque fuese pequeño de gente que hemos sido alcanzados por Cristo con todo y lo que a usted no le agrada del Catolicismo es porque sencillamente Cristo no tiene problemas con eso y de hecho lo ha usado para alcanzarnos.
No estreche su visión, el pecado que abunda entre el catolicismo no es un pecado que promueve, apoya o condona nuestra doctrina. Y no creo que me negará que lo puede encontrar, aunque en menor proporción, en cualquier otro sitio.
En el Amor de Jesús.
Gabaon.
Gabaón,
Le agradezco a usted sus aclaraciones, aunque aún sigo con las mismas dudas e inquietudes respecto a la gran mayoría de los fieles católicos, aquellos que creen que por haber sido bautizados en la "única y verdadera iglesia de Cristo" ya tiene asegurado un lugar en el cielo, o porque practican toda una serie de ritos y tradiciones están obrando conforme a la voluntad de Dios y le agradan. ¿Y Jesús? es un buen pretexto para celebrar en navidad, nada más.
Le agradezco a usted sus aclaraciones, aunque aún sigo con las mismas dudas e inquietudes respecto a la gran mayoría de los fieles católicos, aquellos que creen que por haber sido bautizados en la "única y verdadera iglesia de Cristo" ya tiene asegurado un lugar en el cielo, o porque practican toda una serie de ritos y tradiciones están obrando conforme a la voluntad de Dios y le agradan. ¿Y Jesús? es un buen pretexto para celebrar en navidad, nada más.