The Anathematization of Honorius, Bishop of Rome

[stray bullet]

Isn't it true that in the early history of the popes, that each had an opponent, called an antipope- and no one was really sure which was the TRUE pope and which was the antipope until time had run its course. And of course popular opionion between the two would sway back and forth, depending on circumstances.

It's pretty convenient to see the situation in retrospect and decide-"ok, that guy was the pope, and that guy wasn't." It just doesn't make any sense to me.

No. That was a problem that came much later one, there were only a few antipopes, men that were claiming to be Pope that weren't.

It should be noted that none of them used ex-cathedra at the time, so it is really not that important.

 

[dignitized]

Precisely, that is why God founded the Church, so that we would have an infallible guide in matters of Faith and Morals.

We already have that in Christ and in Scriptures.

 

[stray bullet]

We already have that in Christ and in Scriptures.

Which doesn't do any good because you can only get fallible teachings from infallible scripture due to our fallible nature.

 

[dignitized]

Which doesn't do any good because you can only get fallible teachings from infallible scripture due to our fallible nature.

ONLY when you start taking things out of context or when you set yourself above them or when you think yourself an island and making private interpretation . . . .

Guess what - I agree that we need "the church" and tradition to help us interpret Scripture properly. But I do not agree that Rome **IS** the church nor do I accept the teaching of papal infallibility especially since it cannot stand the tests of reason - tradition - scripture - or history.

It is unREASONable to believe that a man is magically in capable of error based on being elected to a position.

It is contrary to the traditions of the early church which vested authority for deciding questions of the faith in General Councils NOT in a single man.

It is contrary to Scripture in that Scripture confesses and teaches that there must be 2 agreeing witnesses to establish truth - NOT a single man. Moreover, Scripture does not ever seem to imply that Peter or any of his successors will be or even could be "infallible."

Finally, infallibility cannot stand in light of History where we see not only the general councils of the church deciding and discerning issues in the early church, but we also see Unam Sanctam's declaration that we need the pope to be saved - and of course the example of Honorious being declared an heretic. There are of course other examples but lets stick to the basics.

 

[stray bullet]

ONLY when you start taking things out of context or when you set yourself above them or when you think yourself an island and making private interpretation . . . .

Right, so who is above this?
What man can interpret scripture infallibly?

Guess what - I agree that we need "the church" and tradition to help us interpret Scripture properly. But I do not agree that Rome **IS** the church nor do I accept the teaching of papal infallibility especially since it cannot stand the tests of reason - tradition - scripture - or history.

In your opinion. Faith, reason, scripture and history all confirm it to me.

It is unREASONable to believe that a man is magically in capable of error based on being elected to a position.

No man is incapable of error, but rather has the ability to speak on matters of faith without error in times of need, like the apostles.

It is contrary to the traditions of the early church which vested authority for deciding questions of the faith in General Councils NOT in a single man.

It is contrary to Scripture in that Scripture confesses and teaches that there must be 2 agreeing witnesses to establish truth -

No, it does not.

NOT a single man.

I think Paul may want to have a talk with you.

Moreover, Scripture does not ever seem to imply that Peter or any of his successors will be or even could be "infallible."

Minus Matthew 16 and our understanding of the apostles. It is rather absurd to think that this charism would be absent from them.

Finally, infallibility cannot stand in light of History where we see not only the general councils of the church deciding and discerning issues in the early church, but we also see Unam Sanctam's declaration that we need the pope to be saved - and of course the example of Honorious being declared an heretic. There are of course other examples but lets stick to the basics.

Need the Pope to be saved? Heck, why not interpret everything else incorrectly about the Church.

Papal infallibility is a Tradition of the Church and can be found in the early centuries and in the east before the great schism.
It just became too much of a bother for some who want their own interprets to trump the truth.

 

[VickiY]

Papal infallibility is most definitely NOT of the early Church, nor of the east. The early Church was and remains, concilliar.

 

[dignitized]

Deu 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

 

[dignitized]

Matthew 16? Are you referring to the passage where Christ in front of ALL the apostles calls Peter SATAN?

Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

 

[dignitized]

Need the Pope to be saved? Heck, why not interpret everything else incorrectly about the Church.

How is there any misinterpretation?

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

it's the last line of the Bull.

 

[stray bullet]

Matthew 16? Are you referring to the passage where Christ in front of ALL the apostles calls Peter SATAN?

No, the stuff before it. Surely, you aren't knocking the authority of Peter? Even though Jesus said "Satan", Peter's letters, which are included in the bible, are infallible, right?

It's rather amazing that people try to knock Matthew 16 by that passage, as if they were suggesting Peter couldn't be infallible.

 

[stray bullet]

Papal infallibility is most definitely NOT of the early Church, nor of the east. The early Church was and remains, concilliar.

Then why was it mentioned at the Council of Chalcedon?

 

[stray bullet]

Deu 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

You are quoting a passage in the Old Testament about the requirements for witnesses in a discussion about apostolic authority?

Paul spoke without needing anyone to tell him what to believe, by God Himself was his authority, his witness.

 

[stray bullet]

How is there any misinterpretation? it's the last line of the Bull.

You are suggesting that we need the Pope to be saved. Now, either you don't have an understanding of the statement or are suggesting that Catholics believe no one was saved before the Pope.

We know that salvation comes from the Church by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Church is centered around Peter the Apostle. I'll say this bluntly- Rebelling against the Church, against the Bishop of Rome is spiritual jeopardy. It is rebellion against the Gospel, against the words of the bible and against the authority of Jesus Christ.

To rebel against the Pope is to rebel against the foundation of the Church, where Christ's salvation comes to us from.
Yes, it is necessary to submit to the authority of the Pope because it comes from Christ. To suggest otherwise is to suggest rebellion against the foundation the Church, which salvation is poured from, is not spiritual jeopardy. It should not, however, be taken legalistically.

 

[stray bullet]

"Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage (251 AD)

Thus, one deserts the chair of Peter may no longer be part of the Church, from which salvation by Christ pours from.

 

[sallystrothers]

under the Catholic Encyclopedia's scriptural proof of Papal infallibility there is no direct wording in the New Testament regarding infallibility of: the church, Peter, or any of Peter's successors:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

you can look at Matthew 16:18 from one certain angle, make several over stepped assumptions and denote that the Pope is infallible.

Christ is the head of the church. Many people interpret this as a single physical creature with a literal head of Christ. However if you follow the original analogy Christ uses you see the church differently. Christ says the church is the bride and that He is the bridegroom. If you follow this scriptural image you now have 2 separate entities, one is Christ and the other is the man-ran establishment.

You can follow both the Old Testament and New Testament and get your own feel for the role the bridegroom (man) plays in the marriage. Then reevaluate if anything outside of Christ is infallible.

There is much greater pull in the New Testament away from Papal and church infallibility. You can clearly ascert this without building your foundation upon poorly constructed scriptural assumptions.

 

[prodromos]

Then why was it mentioned at the Council of Chalcedon?

It is? Where?

 

[dignitized]

No, the stuff before it. Surely, you aren't knocking the authority of Peter? Even though Jesus said "Satan", Peter's letters, which are included in the bible, are infallible, right?

It's rather amazing that people try to knock Matthew 16 by that passage, as if they were suggesting Peter couldn't be infallible.

So wait - Peter says - YOU ARE THE CHRIST.

Jesus says - FLESH AND BLOOD HAVE NOT REVEALED THIS TO YOU BUT MY FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN. (notice that it is the confession he is talking about here.) He continues - I SAY ALSO UNTO YOU THAT YOU ARE A SMALL ROCK. UPON THIS ROCK(refering back to the confession Peter made) I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH.

Peter is not greater than Christ. It is sheer foolishness to think that Christ who is the cornerstone of the church is laid upon the foundation of jelly-knees Peter. Yet another aspect of unREASONableness in what Rome teaches. GOD does not rest upon Peter.

NOW assuming that Christ has just confessed that He is setting up Peter to be the SUPREME authority among men - how does him rebuking Peter before the other apostles serve that aim? How does it benefit His church for Him to call Peter SATAN? UnREASONable.

 

[dignitized]

You are quoting a passage in the Old Testament about the requirements for witnesses in a discussion about apostolic authority?

Paul spoke without needing anyone to tell him what to believe, by God Himself was his authority, his witness.

Paul was a prophet. Further - What God spoke to Paul was confirmed in the Word. The word and the Holy Spirit - 1 . . . . 2 . . . . Now it's been a long time since I learned to count but I think that makes 2 witnesses.

 

[dignitized]

You are suggesting that we need the Pope to be saved. Now, either you don't have an understanding of the statement or are suggesting that Catholics believe no one was saved before the Pope.

It was taught with AUTHORITY defining faith and morals. It is therefore an INFALLIBLE teaching of Pope Urban. He said it infallibly so it MUST be true . . . . either that or infallibility is bunk. . . . .

We know that salvation comes from the Church by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Church is centered around Peter the Apostle.

Salvation comes from GOD and if your church is CENTERED on Peter and the Apostles - you have a problem. Christ is the center of the church - of the faith - of my life.

I'll say this bluntly- Rebelling against the Church, against the Bishop of Rome is spiritual jeopardy. It is rebellion against the Gospel, against the words of the bible and against the authority of Jesus Christ.

I do not live in ROME so the bishop of ROME has no authority over me. And I am not rebelling against the church or the Gospel. I am merely REJECTING WHOLESALE the false teaching that I NEED the pope to be saved and that I NEED to be under roman authority to be a member of the church.

To rebel against the Pope is to rebel against the foundation of the Church, where Christ's salvation comes to us from.
Yes, it is necessary to submit to the authority of the Pope because it comes from Christ. To suggest otherwise is to suggest rebellion against the foundation the Church, which salvation is poured from, is not spiritual jeopardy. It should not, however, be taken legalistically.

How is rejecting the supremacy of Peter rejecting the confession he made? I do not deny that He is the Christ - the Son of the Living God - the Messiah.

 

[lismore]

Same goes for your dogmas

Why does a historical discussion over one of the ahem less than bench mark popes always degenerate into a slanging match. Does no catholic have evidence of their assertions