Question about Orthodox Understanding of Councils

[MilesVitae]

It's irrelevant how the modern day papacy views Honorius conduct.

I think it is relevant, actually. If we're going to examine counter-cases against the dogma of papal infallibility, then we need to face that dogma on it's own terms (literally) - that is to say, we need to consider the actual criteria of ex cathedra statements as established by Vatican I, and see if the opposing cases actually amount to ex cathedra statements.

It was the council itself that declared it to be an official statement which indeed promoted monotheletism. This is why he was anathematized. The papal epistle was used by the monotheletes as evidence for the correctness of their opinion.

Merely being official does not make it an ex cathedra statement (and it was not the council that made it official - it either was or was not from the beginning). But that is still insufficient to crush papal infallibility. The question remains, did he use his office to teach a binding doctrine to the universal Church?
I haven't had the time over the last few days to look into this case as deeply as I'd like. What little I did read claimed that Honorius did not explicitly espouse the heresy, but said rather that we should remain silent on the matter, and for this negligence was condemned, being distinguished from those who explicitly espouses the heresy. Again, I haven't researched enough yet - if you think these claims to be false, I'll gladly read any contrary evidence.

But Honorius wasnt the only one. Pope Vigilius made an "ex cathedra" statement at the 5 th ecumenical council. The pope "declared" and "decreed" that the three chapters were Orthodox writings and that no one could condemn them. Well both the three writings and the pope were condemned. When Pope Vigilius changed his mind soon after, the bishops of Aquilea broke relations with Rome for capitulating. Aquilea was the last place for the 5th council to be accepted. Not that it mattered.i

I will look into this more.

 

[MilesVitae]

if he makes an ex cathedra statement, with the knowledge that it is the Holy Spirit speaking through him, and the whole Church knows this as well, it makes no sense to seek any counsel anywhere. just let the Spirit speak.

Again, I don't think it's meant to "work" this way. Papal infallibility is not the same as guaranteed inspiration - it is not, as far as I understand it, the Holy Spirit speaking through him. The Pope cannot simply begin writing a definition, and watch as the Holy Spirit pours out His own words upon the paper (or on the screen, as I'm guessing is the more likely case now). I usually think of the charism as preventative - the Holy Spirit will never allow it to come to pass that the Pope defines an error - although, Bishop Gasser in the Relatio speaks of an assistance which the Pope receives. This is not the same as an inspiration or revelation, for which reason, he says, the Pope must use whatever means suitable to discern the truth.
That being said, I believe I understand the argument you're making - I'm not sure it's quite so mechanical and "automatic" as you make it out to be, though.

they say it was an opinion, but you don't become anathematized for heresy for saying a wrong opinion. latter ecumenical councils say it was a heresy, and the Liber Diurnus, which is like a papal oath of office that Popes took when they became Pope, names Honorius as a heretic.

See my above response to buzuxi. In any case, I was not opposing "opinion" to "heresy." Rather, I had in mind a distinction between "opinion" and "teaching."
I was just reading an article called "Guilt Only Failure to Teach" on catholicculture which claimed his fault was essentially negligence, not explicit heresy. I cannot post links on my messages yet, but if you are interested in reading it for yourself, it should be easy enough to find.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Again, I don't think it's meant to "work" this way. Papal infallibility is not the same as guaranteed inspiration - it is not, as far as I understand it, the Holy Spirit speaking through him. The Pope cannot simply begin writing a definition, and watch as the Holy Spirit pours out His own words upon the paper (or on the screen, as I'm guessing is the more likely case now). I usually think of the charism as preventative - the Holy Spirit will never allow it to come to pass that the Pope defines an error - although, Bishop Gasser in the Relatio speaks of an assistance which the Pope receives. This is not the same as an inspiration or revelation, for which reason, he says, the Pope must use whatever means suitable to discern the truth.
That being said, I believe I understand the argument you're making - I'm not sure it's quite so mechanical and "automatic" as you make it out to be, though.

well, yeah, that is why it is an ex cathedra statement concerning doctrine and morals from the throne of St Peter. so I know the Pope cannot just be walking down the street, say that Mohammed is a prophet, and have all Catholics following that. y'all have antipopes I know.

See my above response to buzuxi. In any case, I was not opposing "opinion" to "heresy." Rather, I had in mind a distinction between "opinion" and "teaching."
I was just reading an article called "Guilt Only Failure to Teach" on catholicculture which claimed his fault was essentially negligence, not explicit heresy. I cannot post links on my messages yet, but if you are interested in reading it for yourself, it should be easy enough to find.

if that was the case, he would not have been anathematized. you don't get anathematized for negligence either. unless, the Pope that agreed to the ecumenical council that named him a heretic was in error, which would still be a problem to papal infallibility.

 

[MilesVitae]

well, yeah, that is why it is an ex cathedra statement concerning doctrine and morals from the throne of St Peter.
so I know the Pope cannot just be walking down the street, say that Mohammed is a prophet, and have all Catholics following that. y'all have antipopes I know.

I feel like I'm missing something...or you are...or we both are (because, that's not the sort of scenario I was suggesting you believed could happen under the dogma of p.i.)....So, let me ask you, what exactly do think supposedly happens when the Pope teaches an ex cathedra statement?

if that was the case, he would not have been anathematized. you don't get anathematized for negligence either. unless, the Pope that agreed to the ecumenical council that named him a heretic was in error, which would still be a problem to papal infallibility.

Hmmm, - well, I'll consider that for now - at this point I can't offer anymore regarding the Honorius case. Honestly, I'm not trying to be evasive - I just have much studying to do yet. Say a prayer for me, please, if it occurs to you.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I feel like I'm missing something...or you are...or we both are (because, that's not the sort of scenario I was suggesting you believed could happen under the dogma of p.i.)....So, let me ask you, what exactly do think supposedly happens when the Pope teaches an ex cathedra statement?

well, in my understanding from talking to RC and reading what I have read, it is that he cannot err because the Holy Spirit speaks through him. that is why they have so many guidelines for how it is done. I know that he does not just walk around and whatever he says is infallible, that is why it must be from the throne concerning doctrine and morals. at least that is what I gather.

Hmmm, - well, I'll consider that for now - at this point I can't offer anymore regarding the Honorius case. Honestly, I'm not trying to be evasive - I just have much studying to do yet. Say a prayer for me, please, if it occurs to you.

no worries, and consider it done

 

[MilesVitae]

well, in my understanding from talking to RC and reading what I have read, it is that he cannot err because the Holy Spirit speaks through him. that is why they have so many guidelines for how it is done. I know that he does not just walk around and whatever he says is infallible, that is why it must be from the throne concerning doctrine and morals. at least that is what I gather.

Well, as I've indicated a few times, I find the phrase "the Holy Spirit speaks through him" faulty. Can you point to any of the sources from which you have gotten this idea? The Holy Spirit does not "speak through" the Pope when he makes an ex cathedra statement. As the Relatio from Vatican I quoted before explains, "And thereby we do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance." Some apologists speaks of infallibility as purely negative, in the sense that it merely means the Holy Spirit ultimately prevents error from being taught. The dogma means this at the very least, although perhaps this is not quite the whole story. In any case, the Holy Spirit (in the case of papal infallibility as taught in Catholic dogma) works in a more synergetic fashion (if I understand that term properly) than many Catholics seem to think. Infallibility is not an automatic mechanism, whereby the Pope merely speaks under the proper formal conditions, and the Holy Spirit will speak through Him. That is why, to quote the Relatio again "the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth. These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, et cetera."

Also, when you say "From the throne" you don't mean literally, right?

no worries, and consider it done

Thank you. I recently purchased Popes and Patriarchs (which I have not yet started) and His Broken Body (which I have been reading) in my attempt to strengthen my understanding of these matters.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, as I've indicated a few times, I find the phrase "the Holy Spirit speaks through him" faulty. Can you point to any of the sources from which you have gotten this idea? The Holy Spirit does not "speak through" the Pope when he makes an ex cathedra statement. As the Relatio from Vatican I quoted before explains, "And thereby we do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance." Some apologists speaks of infallibility as purely negative, in the sense that it merely means the Holy Spirit ultimately prevents error from being taught. The dogma means this at the very least, although perhaps this is not quite the whole story. In any case, the Holy Spirit (in the case of papal infallibility as taught in Catholic dogma) works in a more synergetic fashion (if I understand that term properly) than many Catholics seem to think. Infallibility is not an automatic mechanism, whereby the Pope merely speaks under the proper formal conditions, and the Holy Spirit will speak through Him. That is why, to quote the Relatio again "the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth. These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, et cetera."

Also, when you say "From the throne" you don't mean literally, right?

yeah, it's what I gathered from talking to Catholics. it's one of their defenses against the faulty Protestant reasoning that Catholics believe that whatever a Pope says they must follow. twas what I heard a lot from debates and discussions on the College scene, and what I would gather from watching EWTN. I know I could very well be wrong, but I also know that Rome has done a lot of backtracking in recent years, in terms of some of their more modern dogmas like Papal infallibility and such.