www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Papacy

Just to clarify, Maximos has excellent information from the Honorious' very scribe in fact. His reading of the situation was that Honorious' comments were orthodox, albiet not so carefully worded: they were susceptible to misinterpretation.

Being long dead.

Indeed, that is where I started on this issue, spurred by the call for the lifting anathemas of Chalcedon in recent dialogues with Oriental Orthodox.

Dear djs,

Yes, I would lift anathemas all around, if I could!

O.K., let's put it another way, shall we?

Who erred at Rome then? Was it Honorios in whatever way? Or was it his papal successors until the 12th century who repeated his anathematization on assuming the papal throne to ensure the condemnation, once and for all, of Monothelitism?

Both Honorius AND his papal successors who anathematized him cannot be BOTH right!

If you defend Honorius, then you most certainly pronounce that those popes who anathematized him for heresy, tendency toward heresy, a nervous writing hand, whatever - were wrong.

And being wrong about an anathema is a serious business. But either way, someone on the papal throne was wrong, either Pope Honorius, or a series of popes after him.

In fact, the Sixth Ecumenical Council emphatically condemned Pope Honorius, along with Sergius the Patriarch, and a number of others for Monothelism.

This council was IN NO WAY "anti-Roman" but in fact received Pope St Agatho's letter very favourably and praised the Pope highly.

Agatho's successor, Pope Leo II referred to Honorius' "profane treachery that polluted the Church" etc.

Our friend, John McAlpine, said that Monothelism came from the East and was contained in the letter of Sergius - and that is true enough.

Pope Honorius did not disagree with Sergius, and actually DID say that there was but "One Will" in our Lord Jesus Christ. If one can rehabilitate pope Honorius on this score (regarding two operations versus one operation of the Divine-Human Will of Christ), then one MUST needs rehabilitate Sergius whom Honorius followed in the same way.

In other words, if Sergius was to be condemned, it was impossible to spare Honorius.

And both Ecumenical Council AND Pope Leo II and his successors DID condemn Honorius in language that was quite definite.

You and John McAlpine may believe as you wish . . .

Alex

Alex,

Of course I have no problem with the idea that a Pope can fall into heresy and otherwise show their lack of impeccability. I am not disputing that point here and have no interest whatsoever in doing so. I simply dispute your assertion that St. Maximos opposed Pope Honorius - it is inconsistent with known writings of St, Maximos. I am, of course, open to other facts.

On the basis of facts in circulation in the web, IalsoSTM, that Honorius has gotten a bum rap. (I am again happy to submit to the idea that there is more to his case than what is typically presented across the apologetic spectrum - and I have already stipulated that unquestionably Honorius has been ruled a heretic.)

Does this present a problem? Perhaps. It is, moreover, a very interesting and timely problem. It is essentially the same problem that faces both the Catholic Church and the EO Church in the ongoing efforts to achieve a reconciliation with the OO Church: will the judgements and anathema's of Chalcedon be withdrawn? how will rulings of an ecumenical council be overturned? would such a ruling require an ecumenical council? Could either the Catholics or the EO's have such a council without the presence of each other? ...

Dear djs,

Well, now I see where you are coming from and I agree.

Honorius went along with Patriarch Sergius and was condemned by both Council and later Popes for so doing.

Latin latitude toward him is justified, but from the perspective you are arguing.

I don't think we can rehabilitate on the grounds "Hey, THIS is what he really MEANT to say, people!"

If he meant to say that Christ had one Human Will, why didn't he?

And to criticize Honorius is not to say this is a crack in the papal infallibility doctrine - certainly the 6th Council didn't think so when it acclaimed Pope St Agatho's letter as from the "chiefest of the Apostles" etc.

But, the point you raise with respect to the OO is critically important.

What it shows is that unity in the Church wasn't achieved by a "faulty" agreement - it was also achieved because the Churches were only too ready to agree to having Rome as the ultimate arbiter once again - other models of church unity were just not workable.

And if today the OO agree with the EO that "One Will in Christ" means one "Divine-Human Will," then this means that "Monophysitism" is really "Miaphysitism" and the latter is no heresy at all.

AND if this is true, then "Monothelism" was not "Monothelism" at all.

I think that the formal condemnation of Pope Honorius and Patriarch Sergius should be lifted - perhaps they should even be considered as Fathers and Saints as some local OO Churches venerate them as such.

And, you are perfectly correct, this is all part and parcel of the ecumenical talks between the OO and the EO and also the RC Churches.

HOW this is to be done is another matter. For the RC it is simpler than for the EO, for obvious reaons.

And to our friend, John McAlpine - relax brother!

Alex

Hello Alex:

Ok, I apologize if I have wrongly ascribed any denial of the Roman primacy to you. And yes, I agree that in those far-off imperial times the "monarchical bishops", especially the super-bishops, tended to adopt an imperial style. At the same time I observe that, nevertheless, there was a basis for this with regard to Rome that differed from those of the other patriarchal sees, viz., Rome's authority over other bishops had a divine foundation.

I agree that papal triumphalism, a pejorative term, must be taken to refer to a bad situation. Where we disagree is that I maintain that, on the whole, both the fact of Rome's authority and its exercise did not make for a "bad situation". I say that, on the whole, they were in the service of the Church, very often of the Eastern Church, and on the whole, I say that the opposition to the fact of that authority and its exercise was much more damaging to the Church than the Roman authority and its exercise were. I do not deny that individual popes a few times might have overstepped or even may have been insensitive or arrogant, but even here I think that Rome's basic motives, if not her means, were praiseworthy. I also think the East commonly misconstrues these today because it sees through a distorted lens, which lens is really an incorrect view of the history of the first millenium. One easy illustration of this is the East's constant setting up of oppositions between East and West, and its consequent assigning of Rome to the West, effectively making Rome seem alien to the East's own self-image. This is wrong on many counts. It reflects jealousies that were not apostolic, but grew up with the estrangement of the East and West that resulted from the long descent of the once-united Greco-Roman world into tribalism.

I like the present pope as much as you, and I like collegiality as a style of government. I think Rome also virtually always has, especially in the East, where I think the record shows it "interfered" very little on the whole, really only when questions of faith arose. In the West you'll find lots of papal interventions at times, but the East itself explains this by referring to the West as the Roman "patriarchate". I think that Rome's interventions virtually always occur simply because local bishops or councils of bishops (collegiality) have not been able to solve a problem, usually a doctrinal one. Rome's interventions outside the West are thus not the normal state of affairs.

So, sure, let's have collegiality and local control as the rule. But, in a crunch, Rome's primatial authority means that she has the right always to intervene, with ot without the request or consent of the local churches. I say that the record bears out that well-known bon mot of Cardianl Ottaviani at the Vatican Council: it is said that when they began pushing for a statement of collegiality, he snorted that the only biblical basis he could find for this doctrine was (probably)Acts 19:16, "...and they all fled...." Tongue-in-cheek, of course, and you won't like it, but it does make me smile.

Thanks for your kind words on my treatment of Honorius! He was certainly not an ideal pope, but strangely enough, he was one that kept his hands off the East, and the thanks he got--from the East, no less -- was to be anathematized by an Eastern council.

And I agree absolutely with you on all the "heresiarchs" you mentioned. I have heard all of them (except Dioscurus, who after 449 had no constituency outside Egypt+) rehabilitated to some degree or another. Nestorius, I have heard, died as a Catholic, and from his exile even sent felicitations to the Council of Chalcedon, and Eutyches may have been constitutionally incapable of grappling with the theology that got him in trouble.

The truth is that in regard to the heresies and also to more recent troubles in the Church, it is not the mind that first errs, it is the heart.
There is first a lack of love, a loss of communion, the sin of schism. Christians resent one another, it's factionalism or chauvinism along tribal lines, nationalism or ethnocentrism. This resentment then seizes on doctrine, and --presto!--we have a heresy. But the will was first. This reminds me of the Irish saying about Luther, perhaps: "Every heresy begins below the belt." I have often thought that if Luther had had some Prozac or Thorazine or lithium and a good therapist we might have avoided the "Reformation". And why can't I say this? Luther was the spark, even if evil-living bishops and popes, pluralism of benefices and simony, lay investiture,etc. were some of the tinder, and it is a commonplace to opine that without these evils we might have avoided the "Reformation".

Sure, Jan Hus had to be eliminated by the powers of the time. His heresy, though doubtless heretical, was really Czech nationalism in drag, and the Hapsburgs and others had to get rid of him, lest the tinder-box that was tired Europe of the time go up in flames. And whenever the faith and morals of the average Christian citizen decline authority has to becomes more repressive. So, ditto Savonarola. I agree with your report. I only say, how does any of this relate to the Roman primacy or papal infallibility? In bringing it up you are breaking down an open door, as they say. I agree, no need to discuss it.

My comment did not show any "Latin readiness" to blame all heresy on the East. The reason for the remark was that because the furor over the heresy was in the East, not the West, there is no reason to think Honorius was involved with the heresy, and my understanding is that he in fact first heard of the matter from Sergius' deceptive letter. Even though the East, I would say, did have more heresies, this is merely a testimony to the East's being more populous, more educated, and more philosophical, and . . . more riven by ethnic discord (between three powerful cultures within the Empire, viz., the Greeks, the West Syrians, and the Egyptians, not to speak of other cultures outside the Empire) than the backward West of the time was, which in the wake of the barbarian incursions had slipped even further behind what it had earlier been. My statement was not meant to be any kind of a slap at the East.

As to your claim that "nothing happened" in Rome at the time, I can admit that at one time in the ninth or tenth century its population had probably sunk to a few thousand souls. I have no difficulty with your statement that the theological schools were in the East, but so what? Catholics have never claimed any human basis for the primacy. Ultimately the only relevant criterion is that Jesus prayed that Peter's faith (which was to become, and always remained, the Roman faith) might not fail, so that he could strengthen his brothers the other bishops of the Church.

Thanks for your insightful response.

Regards,

John

Wow. You take a break from the internet over the weekend so you can spend time with friends at Saint Vlad's and attend the full cycle of services there, and look at what you miss. I've got a lot of catching up to do, and I'll start that here by offering a few random comments.

First, as a general observation with regard to many of the posts in the past few days, I think it's important to note the difference in the meaning of the term "primacy" as used by Catholics and Orthodox. Catholics can often be heard saying that the Orthodox do not recognise papal primacy, and I think this is false. I've read in several places that Orthodoxy as a whole recognises the primacy of Rome. The difference comes in the meaning; when Orthodox speak of primacy, they mean primacy, but when Catholics speak of primacy, they mean something that would be better expressed as supremacy, as that term is closer to the substance of the teaching. Orthodox can readily concede primacy, but supremacy? It is useless, then, to talk back and forth about primacy, when the issue is not primacy, but what that primacy means, and the West clearly thinks of it in terms that the East has not.

As a representative quote with which I base my next point, I offer the following:

These objections are very easily anwered. Honorius and Vigilius and this John were not heretics. Not one of them even erred under the conditions required for the exercise of the charism of infallibility. Therefore they have no relevance to the Catholic doctrines of papal primacy or papal infallibility.

The conditions required for the exercise of the charism of infallibility were only definitively laid down in the 1800's. Were they as clear and present back then as they were at the First Vatican Council? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. Hence, it seems rather silly to bind someone's exercise of a charism by rules only laid down hundreds of years after his death. Is this a sort of "ex post facto law", but in reverse?

If you are looking for an early witness you can find no better than the Greek-born Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons. In his book Adversus Haereses (Against the Heresies) St. Irenaeus about the year 150 is reviewing the way that anyone can tell true doctrine from heretical innovations. His advice is that one can ask the apostolic sees, where the apostles "poured out their whole doctrine". But it would take too long, he says, to canvass them all. It is enough to be in conformity with the belief of the church of Rome: "For with this church, on account of her greater headship, every church must agree, I mean, the clergy and faithful of the whole world." Bear in mind that St. Irenaeus is a witness to the faith of both East and West, having been raised in Galatia and then having served for years as a missionary bishop in France. As he had been born at the very end of the apostolic age he also well knew the faith of the first generation after the apostles. St. Irenaeus' witness fits very well with the full-blown doctrine of the Roman primacy, but the denial of that primacy by the non-Catholic East has a big problem in explaining why he would make such a flat statement of Rome's primacy.

Of course, Saint Irenaeus is a saint in the East too, and so his works are important to us as well. But this quote is easily challenged. At the time, Rome definitely held the Orthodox Catholic faith. But is Rome teaching that same faith now? That is the question that must be dealt with; it is not a question of doctrinal orthodoxy based on geography.

Sometimes, I believe, people forget that the Catholic hierarchy at Vatican I who solemnly defined and declared Papal Infallibility weren't idiots. The arguments against P.I. were presented to them beforehand in an attempt to dissuade the definition. They reviewed these arguments and opinions, and it did not sway them. These men were some of the most accomplished theologians in all of Christianity at that time. If they thought the arguments convincing, they wouldn't have defined the dogma.

Of course, since in RC theology, it is the approval of a Pope that makes or breaks an "Ecumenical Council", if the Fathers of Vatican I heard the arguments against papal infallibility and reviewed them, and, being some of the most accomplished theologians in all of Christianity at the time, thought that the arguments were convincing, who cares if they as a council would deny papal infallibility? The Pope, if that wasn't the result he sought, could simply refuse to recognise the council's findings and grant the council ecumenical status, and it would all quickly become reduced to a waste of time, and the debate could be left open until another bunch of bishops, more favourable to the doctrine, could be assembled to approve of it. In essence, under the current RC view, ecumenical councils are meaningless. The Pope is still the one calling the shots, so to speak.

As I'm sure everyone here already knows, whether a Pope is a heretic or not doesn't really matter when regarding infallibility.

You are right. That's because the Pope, if he endorses heresy, ceases to be the Pope. So taught Saint Robert Bellarmine, if I'm not mistaken. But then, why the need for this teaching of Saint Robert, if papal infallibility has been the constant teaching of the Church? Papal infallibility seems to effectively guarantee that a Pope will never endorse heresy, because heresy regards matters of faith, and it is precisely in matters of faith that the Pope is protected by that charism. So then why the need to assert that if a Pope endorsed heresy, he'd cease to be Pope? Such a thing would never happen under the dogma of papal infallibility. In addition, if the Pope is answerable only to God and not to the rest of the Church (a la Unam Sanctam's "No man may judge the Roman Pontiff" and the canons which do not provide for the removal of a Pope other than his personal resignation or death), how would one ever be able to remove a Pope for endorsing heresy? The whole issue seems fraught with confusion.

Of course I have no problem with the idea that a Pope can fall into heresy and otherwise show their lack of impeccability.

But djs, there's a problem with this. Heresy is not primarily a matter of sin. I'm not a heretic if I rob a local bank. Heresy is a false teaching on a matter of faith. And it is precisely in matters of faith that the Pope is protected by the charism of infallibility, per RC teaching. This has nothing to do with impeccability.

Finally, a question for John McAlpine, since he seems eminently knowledgeable about this topic. This is a question I've asked here before, but I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to it.

I have heard (on websites, message boards, books, tapes, etc.) that, from the RC perspective, before something is infallibly defined by a Pope or a council, one can deny it and still be a faithful Catholic. This obviously would not be the case with regard to the Resurrection, for example, but would've held for something like the Immaculate Conception. And we see that in the Middle Ages, it was the Dominicans who were against this teaching, but the Franciscans who were promoting it. Before it was defined officially, one could deny this teaching, and still remain a Catholic in good standing, but after its definition, if one did not believe it, one could not consider himself a Catholic.

We know that Pope Pius IX infallibly defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854. Prior to this, one could deny the Immaculate Conception; after it, one could not. We also know that papal infallibility was defined only at the First Vatican Council in 1870 or thereabouts.

This presents a dilemma. A Catholic living at the time could deny these teachings before the dates of their proclamations and be a faithful Catholic, but not afterwards. So, by 1854, he would have to conform himself and believe in the Immaculate Conception, since it was infallibly defined by the Pope. But if he didn't accept papal infallibility at the time, then what strength does the proclamation have? It seems that, if you're gonna define something infallibly, the first thing you should define is that you have the right to define things infallibly. If in 1860 there was a guy who didn't accept papal infallibility (and since the Church hadn't defined it yet, he would be OK), would he have to believe in the IC? I do not understand how this works...the math involved isn't correct, leaving aside for the moment whether or not the doctrines are.

You are absolutely wrong on this point. If we assume the premise made earlier in the thread that the delegates of Vatican I were not idiots and also were fully aware of the anathemas against Honorious, we can quickly conclude that either your definition of heresey is wrong, your concept of the charism of infallibility is wrong, or both are wrong.

On the first point I am not certain. I really don't know how strictly or broadly the word has been applied. ( But I suspect that it is much broader than you suggest - including, e.g., adherence without teaching.)

As to the second: I'm not sure I understand you at all correctly. But it is certainly true that not every utterance of the Pope even on matters with faith and moral content are considered to fall within the charism of infallibility. The very text of the proclamation makes adds greater restrictions of the manner of declaration (e.g., is it presented as a final ruling, promulgated to and binding upon the universal church). Suppose then that a not infallible utterance on faith and morals subject matter were made and found to be in error. Such an occasion would have nothing to do with infallibility, but would be a manifestation of an an error and imperfection. Taking "impeccability" as not being restricted to moral error (sinfulness), but more broadly related to error in general, then this is about impeccability. Or if you insist on the more restrictive definition, it is about imperfection. It is not about infallibility.

Here again make an exagerrated claim about Catholic doctrine and then make an argument against the claim to try to vitiate the doctrine. In fact, you only show that your claim is wrong.

Dear djs,

Thanks. I think I understand what you are getting at, and agree with you, although I'm not exactly too keen on the way you express yourself.

I don't claim to know everything, and am open to learning. What I do know is what I have understood from reading, talking to people who know more about these things than I, etc. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and am glad to learn from you where I am wrong, as I've done now. But there is no need to be nasty about it.

Dear Mor,

Sorry for the tone. I just got out of a review session and had not come out of direct, didactic mode. Very sorry to come off "nasty".

djs

It's alright, djs. Perhaps turning a new (cyber)leaf is in order.

Dear John McAlpine,

Sorry for using your surname so much - but I just like the sound of it!

If I were from the British Isles, I would insist on "McAlpine" as a surname!

Yes, I re-read your post a couple of times and still don't see where we disagree . . .

One point is about the 6th Council which, although held in the East, is a truly Catholic and universal Council, as it was ratified by Pope St Leo II.

It was St Leo who ratified the condemnation of Honorius and so did others after him.

In fact, the 6th Council has sometimes been villified by RC apologists defending Honorius as "Anti-Roman" - and nothing could be further from the truth.

That Council was even overly enthusiastic about the letter from Pope St Agatho and if I were trying to write an essay today on papal primacy, I would use quotes from the minutes of that Council to show the overwhelming enthusiasm of the Eastern Fathers for the Roman Pope - especially how they kept reiterating the Pope's direct Apostolic connection.

For the East and, obviously for the Popes at that time, to have one Pope condemned for whatever doesn't mean that the Roman Primacy or the role of the Pope is somehow in question.

Again, the Church has always acknowledged this, given Cardinal Bellarmine's list of conditions under which a Pope can be and even should be opposed. Certainly, those RC traditionalists who reject Vatican II and the current Pope do so on those very same grounds!

As I said, the East has been friendlier to Popes than even the Roman Church itself - a case in point is Pope St Liberius, a saint with us, but not with you.

But I think that, as djs said, within the context of the ecumenical talks with the Oriental Orthodox, the terms of reference that got Honorius into trouble then can be revisited and I believe it can be shown that he was no heretic, or that he did not subscribe to heresy at any point.

It is no use putting the blame on Patriarch Sergius - let's remember that he referred the matter and his own private opinion to Rome for judgement and that he was quite ready to submit to whatever Honorius decreed on the matter.

Even though Sergius could be said to be in error -that error is mitigated by the fact of his submission to the judgement of Rome.

It is the same with Bl. Joachim of Fiore who submitted his theological tracts to the Roman Church and said, before he died, that he submits to whatever judgment of Rome of his works that would be handed down. Rome did indeed find heretical teachings in his works, but that is fine since he was open to correction.

And even though the East disagrees with Augustine on a number of points, the fact is that Augustine himself said he is open to correction by the teaching of the Fathers before him and by the Church.

So the whole painful episode has to do with a reexamination of "Monothelism" within a reconsideration of St Cyril's "One Divine Nature of God the Word Incarnate."

The talks have been fruitful and we know that language was the main culprit that led to much of the difficulty. There is no reason that Pope Honorius and Sergius cannot have the anathemas pronounced against them lifted - there is no reason why they shouldn't be in the calendar of saints as they are already locally venerated among the Oriental Orthodox - I have seen Pope Honorius' name in the diptychs of at least one OO Liturgy I've come across.

As for Jan Hus - the Pope himself is most enthusiastic about having the excommunication against him lifted and he is very much in favour of his rehabilitation.

As Archbishop of Cracow, the Pope was well acquainted with the centuries' old issues with the Hussites in Poland. Hus has always been held in high esteem by many Slavic peoples as a hero of Pan-Slavic revival and nationalism.

There is not one iota of heresy in Jan Hus's writings. Even when he borrowed from John Wycliffe, Catholic exegetes noticed how he "Catholicized" those points he borrowed.

Add to this that his cult as a saint and martyr is quite imbedded in the history and culture of the lands of Bohemia and elsewhere - every second village had a statue of him with many churches displaying his image as well.

There is no doubt that Hus was attempting to revive the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition of his country to address the terrible spiritual state that his people had fallen to.

He believed that having the scriptures and the preaching in the vernacular would help in the spiritual development of his people, as did Sts. Cyril and Methodius when they were among the Slavs.

Russian Orthodox theologians saw much Byzantine theology in his writings and many claimed him for their own.

Orthodox missionaries were and are successful in getting Hussites to join their Church by showing how Hus's work was consonant with the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition - especially as connected to Orthodoxy.

The Pope has a deep sense of understanding of all this and that is why he made a public apology on behalf of the Church for the burning of Hus.

That he led the Slavs against German domination - that was quite incidental to the spiritual goal of his preaching. But he certainly became a symbol of Slavic independence and pride.

The Calixtine Hussites, who later rejoined the Catholic Church, were allowed, by Rome, to maintain Communion under Both Species, scriptures and services in the vernacular (if so desired) etc.

I believe the Catholic Church will restore the memory of Hus to its proper place and I also believe Hus is destined to become a saint of the Catholic Church.

The wheels are already set in motion - it is something Hus himself, being led to the stake, predicted as well.

Hus died reciting the Creed, forgiving his enemies and invoking the Name of Jesus.

Alex

Hello Alex:

Yes, no question that the 6th ecumenical was a real council. I wasn't attacking it or calling it anti-Roman. I just said that it, like all 8 ancient councils, was held in the East and was composed of almost entirely Eastern bishops. This statement made my point that Honorius, though he "kept his hands off" the East, was anathematized by the East for not having intervened. Yes, Pope Leo ratified the council, but he changed the grounds of its anathema of his predecessor Pope Honorius. Thanks for the additional information that that council was complimentary of Rome.

Certainly Bellarmine's listing of reasons to oppose a pope is a valid effort, but it is also a dated one. The idea of opposing a pope for "heresy" suffers from one big defect: if a pope were to espouse a heresy, how would we necessarily know it was heresy? Who would decide for the Church against the pope? This idea is really a can of worms. I would say that this is a case that would not happen. And this is what I say to those "traditionalists" who attack the Novus Ordo. In fact, they are Protestants, since they are applying what is functionally the fundamental Protestant principle, private interpretation.

I hadn't known that the East thought well of Liberius. Interesting. Two thoughts come to mind: the West even suffered a schism over Liberius's behavior, and canonization was very loose in olden times, and still is looser in the non-Catholic East than it is in the Catholic Church..

My aim was not particularly to blame Sergius, but to exonerate Honorius. I don't know whether Sergius was in favor of the heresy or only a temporizer doing the Emperor's will. Maybe you can tell us. But his letter was deceptive, so I don't know that Sergius really "submitted to Rome". Honorius apparently trusted him. He shouldn't have, because bishops often did the Emperor's will. Caesaropapism and ethnic chauvinism, you know, and yes, these vices also often appeared in the West too. I only say that we all must be aware of these threats to the Church.

On Joachim, yes if one is open to correction then a wrong statement means one is wrong, but not heretical. I just did a translation of Pius X's letter "Tuum illud opusculum" to the Bishop of Limerick thanking him for a book he had written in defense of Cardinal Newman's writings. The Pope says regarding Newman: "For, if in what he had written before his Catholic profession, one may perhaps observe something which may have a certain similarity to the undoubted formulas of the Modernists, you rightly deny that it favors them, as the opinion put into words is one thing, but the intention of the writer quite another; and the author himself, in his approach to the Catholic Church, handed over all his writings to the authority of that same Church, to be corrected, of course, if they seemed to need it."

I don't know much about Hus or his writings: when I referred to his heresy, I meant Utraquism, but this may have been less his than his followers'? Certainly also we should distinguish between obedience in a question of sacramental discipline and a denial of Church doctrine. Although Rome insisted that the Utraquist doctrine was heretical the pope was quite willing to concede communion under both kinds to the Hussites. I think I am right that the real motive all along was Czech restiveness under Hapsburg German rule. Though Hussitism was put down militarily the Church in Bohemia and Moravia has never really recovered from it. Your comments about Eastern Orthodoxy profiting from Hussitism are doubly ironic, in that Cyril and Methodius were Catholic, as you know. Though they were Byzantine and began their work at the very time of the Photian schism, they made a point of visiting Rome to seek papal approbation, doubtless because the territory was considered in the Roman patriarchate. They translated the Roman Canon into Slavonic for use in Moravia. Cyril died in Rome and was first venerated as "Cyril" there, and the pope and people even insisted he be buried there, though Methodius had intended to take his body home or to his mission, I think. Then Methodius was consecrated and created Archbishop of Pannonia and papal legate by the pope before he returned to Great Moravia. Although papal legate he nevertheless ran afoul of the Germans and the pope could only get him out of jail by threatening to excommunicate the German bishops there. Yet you say the separated East was able to use memory of Cyril's and Methodius' mission against Rome. See how much things changed then in 500 years in what had been Great Moravia!

Regards,

John McAlpine

Dear John,

Well, actually it's not that the Orthodox use Cyril and Methodius "against Rome," but only to get converts to Orthodoxy. They make the Cyrillo-Methodian argument to Protestant Hussites using Jan Hus etc.

Rome really doesn't enter into it, and especially since Rome and Hus are getting closer - Matthew Spinka, the Czech scholar who has written so much on Hus, has argued that Vatican II even adopted a number of ideas from Hus's writing.

Certainly, the Taborite Hussites were Protestant and Hus would not recognize in them his own Catholic faith and practice. Indeed, he especially venerated the Mother of God and Her Assumption!

The Czech Inquisitors gave him a clean bill of theological health, but the German Inquisitors had other ideas . . .

At his trial, Hus repeatedly said he would recant any errors in his teaching if he could be shown in what his errors consisted.

His followers broke into a number of groups, but the Calixtine group was most faithful both to Hus' teaching and to Catholicism.

The Utraquist issue was NOT about whether Communion in both Kinds was legitimate or not - but whether it was legitimate to give Communion in one Kind alone or not. The Utraquists taught, as you know, that Communion in one Kind was "invalid."

The Calixtine Hussites did not even ask of Rome to have an "imposed" Communion in both Kinds, but to simply allow their priests the latitude to provide it, but not necessarily always, although the Hussite symbol did become the Chalice emblem.

Hus's initially quite Protestant protege, Jerome of Prague, travelled to Russia where, in Latvia, he became an Orthodox Christian. When he was burned at Prage a year after Hus, he died as an Orthodox and there are those in the Czech Orthodox Church who seek his canonization - the Hussites venerated as national saints both Hus and Jerome.

Cyril and Methodios were Catholics indeed, but in the pre-1054 sense .

It was actually St Photios of Constantinople himself who sent Cyril and Methodios to the Slavic lands, initially in response to a request by Blessed Nicholas Askold and Dir, Princes of Rus' whose fleet was decimated miraculously at the gates of Constantinople as they stood against them.

(If you've quite recovered from seeing me refer to Photios as a saint, I'll continue . . .)

You mentioned canonization, East and West, and suggested that the East was always more "loose" about it than the West.

In fact, at the time when Honorius and Sergius were around, the East was quite nasty about those found to be espousing heresy or to be seen to be implicated with heresy.

St Liberius the Pope did what he did under duress and the East understood this well enough. It did not see that as a reason to exclude him from the calendar of saints. Liberius was and is locally venerated a saint in some parts of Italy, notably the south where the Greeks were.

Sergius gave Honorius his opinion only, but it is clear that he left it to the Pope to make his decision. Sergius only proceeded ahead when Honorius gave the "go ahead."

But, as we've said before, it is not incumbent upon us to see who is to be blamed. Rather, a fresh consideration of the issues and terminology involved can help us see things in clearer perspective.

The 6th Council did not show ingratitude to Honorius. At worst, what it did was to include Honorius' name in a list presented first to it by Pope St Agatho as worthy of condemnation for Monothelism. The fact that St Leo II and his successors ratified the decision (I think Leo was more nasty in his reference to Honorius than the Council) showed that everyone was singing from the same hymn-book.

It was natural for Pope St Agatho to want to keep his predecessor's name from the list of the condemned. It was a nice try, but if Sergius fell, so too would Honorius by association, if by nought else.

There is no question but that the Emperor saw the Monothelite "resolution" as a way to bring unity to the Churches and greater political stability to his empire. That was only natural and predictable.

Following the Schism of 1054, Byzantine Emperors would use the same influence over their Church leaders to force union with Rome to obtain military help against the Turks . . .

Regarding canonization,I would call in question what I would still see as your Latin bias against the East (I've heard it before and it isn't the worst crime - I have a bias against the West myself ).

But I'll begin by ripping to shreds your contention that somehow the early Roman Church was "looser" with respect to canonization than the later Roman Church.

That is simply not true.

Early Roman calendars are very exact and precise in giving details about martyrdom etc. Some are so precise that they even give street-names where the martyrs were done to death!

As you know, the early Church tended to emphasize the cult of the martyrs over and above any other category of saint simply because there were so many of them then and because their example was so vitally crucial in helping the Church maintain its faith etc.

To this day, the fact of martyrdom, once it can be shown to have truly occurred, is already grounds for beatification or, as we would say, local canonization.

It is also true that the modern Roman Church emphasizes a longer and more involved canonization process involving scientific evidence of medical miracles etc.

His Holiness the Pope has addressed some of the scandal involved here where large sums of money are spent on such Causes, leading to the promotion of Causes of those whose religious Orders can "afford" it etc.

His Holiness has returned canonization and beatification to the local Church as no one else before Pope Urban VIII.

My own personal view is that the crown of this jewel would be a return to the right of beatification by bishops and bishops councils, as was obtained up to the pontificate of Urban VIII - and also afterwards, since a number of Roman Catholic bishops continued to beatify their own local saints e.g. Bl. John Duns Scotus was beatified by a local bishop in Italy, even though he was only recently beatified by the Pope.

Blessed Peter Lombard is another example of a local Italian saint and there are others. Savonarola has long been venerated as a saint within the Dominican Order (one of his friars left the Order after Savonarola's death and became Orthodox in Russia, spending the rest of his life writing against the "corrupt West" and he is now "St Maximos the Greek" canonized in 1988 by Moscow).

The Orthodox Churches glorify their own Martyrs killed by the Turks and in 2000, Orthodoxy glorified over one thousand Martyrs tortured and killed under the Soviets.

Venerable Fathers of the desert and Elders have been canonized for their holy lives and great miracles.

On Mt. Athos, a monk is buried under three inches of earth and after three years his body is brought out for inspection . . .

If his body has turned dark etc., then this is an indication that the monk needs additional prayer as he was a sinner . . .

If his body is incorruptible, monks pray before his relics and if miracles should occur, these are investigated with the view to locally canonizing the monk, whose skull is then removed from the body etc.

Many miracles are reported from the incorrupt and sweet-smelling relics of the holy Orthodox saints.

Often, medical doctors are brought in to comment on them, but the benefactors are interviewed by a bishop's canonization commission, researched reports are prepared etc.

So a process is undertaken, but without the scandal of hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on "irrefutable proof" which the scientific method would, in any event, deny can be maintained anyway.

The Orthodox peoples of the East live with their Saints who prayed incessantly and perform all sorts of miracles that are recognized by them in their daily lives, as well as in special circumstances.

Relics are venerated and prized etc.

"Looser?" No, just a tad more devout I'd say.

Alex

Hello Mor Ephrem:

Thanks for your kind words. I found that to answer your question is difficult in the details, though not so difficult in principle: this has warned me that I also am not as clear on it as I should be. But I'll wade in anyway! Help me if I stumble.

The first thing I'd say is that the "RC prospective" you have heard is entirely wrong: an average Catholic in the case you mention, viz., a Catholic before or after the definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by a pope whose infallibility would not be defined as a dogma until 1870, would not have been free to question either the dogma of the Immaculate Conception or that of the infallibility of the pope. It is a very great error these and many Catholics make, to assume that merely because a teaching appears not to have been infallibly defined it remains in the area of free opinion. It is an associated error to assume that the definition of a dogma marks the appearance of the teaching. This naive claim is often made by Fundamentalist controversialists against Catholic teaching.

These Catholics or others may be confusing the censure inflicted against heretics with toleration of the teaching. You may know that a heretic is someone who obstinately denies a defined dogma, a dogma being a truth revealed by God to the Church, one known either on the testimony of Scripture or Tradition ("de fide divina") or on the authority of the Church ("de fide catholica" or "de fide definita"). Such a denial incurs automatic ("latae sententiae") excommunication. I'm referring here, by the way, to a good book, Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, IL, pages 5-10).

But even before a doctrine/teaching is proclaimed a dogma (in which case it is technically "infallible", I think) it may still be certain and irreformable. Below the category of dogma there are "Catholic truths" or "ecclesiastical teachings" which may some day be made dogmas. Even though not yet dogmas these are still known to be certainly true, since at least one of their premises is a revealed dogma and the other at least a naturally known truth. There are also "dogmatic facts" guaranteed by their connection with dogmas, and finally, there are theological opinions not guaranteed by obvious connection with dogmas or ecclesiastical teachings, but whose value depends on their basis. My argument would be that a Catholic before 1870 or 1854, or one who on evaluating the definition of 1854 could not accept it as infallibly taught because he was confused as to the as-yet-undefined dogma of papal infallibility, would still be morally obligated to assent to both of the doctrines, which though not dogmas would still be in the category of Catholic truths, i.e., doctrines believed and taught by the Church. Although before the definition of these as dogmas he would not be formally called a heretic for denying them, and would not thereby incur latae sententiae excommunication, he would still sin seriously, and would even merit inflicted (ferendae sententiae) excommunication and theological or ecclesiastical censure, such as deposition, loss of benefice, etc. When people say a given Church teaching is "not infallible" I think they mean merely that it is not a defined dogma. They are woefully wrong when they then assume that they can doubt that teaching.

We have a perfect case of this with the issue of birth control. It is a fact that all Christians until 1930 held artificial birth control to be immoral and forbidden by God. Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference in 1930 broke with the tradition, when they allowed it in marriage in hard cases, though they had declined to allow it twice before in 1910 and 1920. Protestants screamed at the Anglicans, but nevertheless in the ensuing decades virtually all of them approved it. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox opposition continued to be resolute, however.

In 1931 Pope Pius XI issued Casti Conubii, in which he said after referring to the mess resulting largely from the then-recent Anglican capitulation, "The Catholic Church, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin that surrounds her, raises her voice and proclaims anew . . ", and then went on to repeat the age-old condemnation. You may not like the glorious prose, but I quote it to show that this was a solemn teaching. Most do not say that this was an infallible teaching, i.e., a dogma, a truth revealed by God, but even if they are correct it does not follow that it could be wrong. Why? Because the evil of birth control is still a truth known certainly because of the constant teaching of the Church. For centuries, as far back as we have records, we could trace the prohibition of birth control. There is no contrary teaching. No one of any note allows it, and any defense of it meets with condemnation from Rome, from the bishops, from the clergy and laypeople. Confessors are trained that it is a grave sin; their manuals and textbooks used to train priests say so. There are censures for it, those who engage in it are suspect of heresy, etc. If the Church could then be wrong in such a grave matter, she has taught error to be truth, and the gates of hell have prevailed. Thus at least by the teaching of the ordinary magisterium, of which also Christ said, "He who hears you hears Me, " the evil of artificial contraception is certainly known. The extraordinary magisterium (magisterium = "teaching authority"), by the way, is the solemn teaching of councils and popes for the whole Church.

Now, I think that Casti Conubii may in itself have been an infallible teaching, though this is a minority view. Certainly the pope spoke solemnly as pastor and teacher of all Christians in a matter of morals, and he proclaimed a teaching as true for all mankind. My only doubt that Casti Conubii in itself was infallible, ironically, is in the pope's use of the word "anew", since it implies that his intent was to repeat the ordinary teaching. All this points to a need, perhaps, to some day clarify the conditions laid down by Vatican I for papal infallibility. But Pope Paul VI in his Humanae Vitae repeats Pius' prohibition in 1968, though in less solemn language. It is a commonplace to say that, it being the popes' manifest intent that invokes the charism of papal infallibility, his intent can be signified not only by the tenor of the language, but also by repetition of the teaching. Well, that's enough for now on birth control. You can fill in any pieces missing.

So, there you have my opinion. I hope it may be helpful

Regards,
John McAlpine

Dear "Scotus" McAlpine,

Ah, although Latin Catholics may not have been free to question the Immaculate Conception before its proclamation, they were not required to believe it with "Divine Faith" as an article of Catholic Truth.

And St Thomas Aquinas himself appeared to have denied it.

The Eastern Church, however, not having to contend with Augustinian notions of Original Sin for starters, has ALWAYS believed in the total holiness of the Mother of God - as evidenced, first of all, by its celebration of the "Conception of St Anne."

As you know, only a Saint may be honoured liturgically.

And only two Saints in the Eastern Calendar ever had their "Conception" celebrated liturgically - the Theotokos and St John the Baptist.

This means that at the moment of their Conception, they were overshadowed by the Spirit and sanctified completely - as the prayers for these feasts bear out.

I know that the Catholic Church of the Spanish Empire decreed that the Immaculate Conception was to be believed in with "Divine Faith" throughout the length and breadth of the Empire and so did the French Empire and perhaps the Italian Kingdoms (?).

But when it comes to honouring the MOther of God, you Latins have some things to learn from the likes of us!

Alex