Tweet
As a lot of people know, I debated this topic once before in another thread that I created, though, I felt that I didn't fully lay this issue to rest, so I'll do so now.
As I already linked to it in the previously mentioned thread, this article: http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/honorius.html Does a valiant job at trying to prove its case that Honorius did not actually 'teach' the heresy, but simply let it be taught, and thus enabled it.
However, with further consideration, I have to say that the documents of Honorius himself, and the Council do, in fact, state that Pope Honorius taught the heresy. Though, one has to know that while this certain Papal decree did address matters of doctrine, not every Papal statement in such matters is infallible, it must fulfill a certain set of criteria before it becomes infallible.
Now the criteria officially stated in Vatican 1 is that the statement must be an official, carefully constructed, dogmatic statement concerning doctrine of faith or morals, meant to be binding to the whole Church, and it must be made ex cathedra. Though detractors will note that the Church did not actually have access to the Seat of Peter in the 6th century, and thus, this could not have been part of the criteria for an authoritative, infallible statement, this, is actually true. However, another criteria was used for the Pope to authoritatively addressing a doctrinal statement, so the question to ask is, did Pope Honorius' fulfill this criteria?
The answer? No, he did not.
The criteria the Popes of Honorius' days had to fulfill when making an authoritative, infallible, dogmatic doctrinal statement, was that:
1) The Pope must call the Roman Synod to confirm the teaching with the Council, with the intention to define a dogmatic teaching to be held by the full Church.
or
2) The Pope must verbally, clearly, and, with full intention, invoke his full apostolic authority of Saint Peter, to proclaim a dogmatic teaching to be held by the full Church.
A simple reading of Pope Honorius' letter, and a simple look at the history behind the incident, shows that he did neither. Thus, this is not an issue that can be used against the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
As I already linked to it in the previously mentioned thread, this article: http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/honorius.html Does a valiant job at trying to prove its case that Honorius did not actually 'teach' the heresy, but simply let it be taught, and thus enabled it.
However, with further consideration, I have to say that the documents of Honorius himself, and the Council do, in fact, state that Pope Honorius taught the heresy. Though, one has to know that while this certain Papal decree did address matters of doctrine, not every Papal statement in such matters is infallible, it must fulfill a certain set of criteria before it becomes infallible.
Now the criteria officially stated in Vatican 1 is that the statement must be an official, carefully constructed, dogmatic statement concerning doctrine of faith or morals, meant to be binding to the whole Church, and it must be made ex cathedra. Though detractors will note that the Church did not actually have access to the Seat of Peter in the 6th century, and thus, this could not have been part of the criteria for an authoritative, infallible statement, this, is actually true. However, another criteria was used for the Pope to authoritatively addressing a doctrinal statement, so the question to ask is, did Pope Honorius' fulfill this criteria?
The answer? No, he did not.
The criteria the Popes of Honorius' days had to fulfill when making an authoritative, infallible, dogmatic doctrinal statement, was that:
1) The Pope must call the Roman Synod to confirm the teaching with the Council, with the intention to define a dogmatic teaching to be held by the full Church.
or
2) The Pope must verbally, clearly, and, with full intention, invoke his full apostolic authority of Saint Peter, to proclaim a dogmatic teaching to be held by the full Church.
A simple reading of Pope Honorius' letter, and a simple look at the history behind the incident, shows that he did neither. Thus, this is not an issue that can be used against the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
Comment