July 31, 2017 (Steven O’Reilly) – I recently came across an article by Scott Eric Alt on the subject of Pope Honorius dating back to March 2017. This will be my second response to one of his blogs, the first being on the topic of St. Paul’s correction of St. Peter and its relation to a potential “correction” of Pope Francis.
The notoriety of Pope Honorius stems from the fact the bishops of the Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned him as a “heretic” and that Pope Leo II wrote of him: “[Pope Honorius] did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching” (see here). I will not provide all the background on the case here to save on space, but the reader should read Mr. Alt’s article, and Mr. Spencer’s article (cited in Mr. Alt’s). While there are some particulars I would disagree with in regard to Mr. Alt’s treatment of the case of Pope Honorius, I essentially agree with Mr. Alt. My own position and treatment of the case of Pope Honorius can be read in my articles on the topic which include (1) a rebuttal to Mr. William Webster’s treatment of Pope Honorius from his book The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (my rebuttal originally found in This Rock/Catholic Answer may be foundhere: Guilty Only of a Failure to Teach) and (2) my direct rebuttal to Dr. James White’s attempt to come to Mr. Webster’s defense and reply to my article (see my rebuttal of Dr. White entitled White is Wrong also originally found in This Rock/Catholic Answers). (NB: As an aside, separately, I rebutted Mr. Webster’s attempt in his book to use the False Decretals against the doctrine of papal infallibility. This rebuttal may be found here).
While I might on any other occasion recommend Mr. Alt’s fine article in so far as it specifically and only addresses the case of Pope Honorius, I do disagree with the first paragraph of his article where he attempts to deflect even the possibility of potential similarities between the cases of Pope Honorius and of Pope Francis. Mr. Alt writes (emphasis added):
“Pope Honorius I (625-638) is a favorite example among anti-Catholic Protestants who wish to dispute the doctrine of papal infallibility. (See here for an example, from our old friend Dr.* James White.) Of late, some Catholics have picked up on this, seemingly in an effort to lay groundwork for the claim that Pope Francis teaches heresy. “Why, popes have taught heresy before!” they will say. “The Third Council of Constantinople condemned Pope Honorius I. Don’t you know that? He accepted the Monothelite error.” Thus do Catholics, in a zeal of Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome, begin to sound like Protestants who reject the papacy, and the Church, altogether.”
Mr. Alt does not say above who the “some Catholics” are he has in mind, i.e., those who he believes use the case of Honorius “seemingly in an effort to lay ground for the claims that Pope Francis teaches heresy.” His article is dated March 30 of this year, and I did happen to write a couple articles in February 2017 that do mention Pope Honorius (here and here and here) – so I do not know if I am one of these “some” he had in mind. But, then again, this wee blog (www.RomaLocutaEst.com) could have easily and understandably escaped his notice – as it has the world’s. But, my view for the record has been and remains: (1) Francis is Pope; (2) Honorius was not a monothelite and (3) a pope cannot be a formal heretic.
Yet, the problem with the first paragraph of Mr. Alt’s article – quoted above – is that it is something of an unintentional red herring, if there can be such a thing. Mr.Alt’s argument fails because it is incomplete, as it reduces the question of the potential relevance of Pope Honorius to Pope Francis to whether or not Honorius taught heresy. Mr. Alt’s error is that this single focus – exculpating Honorius from the charge of heresy (i.e., monothelitism) – neglects Honorius was nonetheless guilty of something which other popes, current or future, might also fall into. Therefore, Mr. Alt’s implicit argument is a non sequitur: Pope Honorius was not a heretic and did not teach heresy, therefore there is no possible relevance, even hypothetically, to Pope Francis.
Now, while I agree with Mr. Alt that Pope Honorius was not a monothelite; it must be remembered what Pope Honorius did do something he should not have done and did not do something he should have. Pope Honorius did put orthodox and heretical expressions under the same rule of silence and thus on equal footing, and he did not teach the apostolic faith with the voice of Peter when he should have. Both this policy and failure contributed to the spread of confusion and heresy and it was in this sense, as a favorer of heresy, Honorius was condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and by Pope Leo II who said of him: “[Pope Honorius] did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching” (see here). Pope Agatho (678-681) obliquely refers to Honorius and his silence (and its gravity) in his letter to the Emperor and the Sixth Ecumenical Council:
“For woe is me, if I neglect to preach the truth of my Lord, which they (i.e., the Roman pontiffs) have sincerely preached. Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which I am bidden to give to the exchangers, i.e., to teach to the Christian people and imbue it therewith. What shall I say in the future examination by Christ himself, if I blush (which God forbid!) to preach here the truth of his words? What satisfaction shall I be able to give for myself, what for the souls committed to me, when he demands a strict account of the office I have received?”[Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 333]
In the current crisis in the wake of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia 305 (n. 351), there are two interpretations:
(1) Communion for manifest adulterers living in a marital way, in at least certain cases, is permissible
(2) Communion for manifest adulterers living in a marital way in no circumstance is permissible
The two positions above are mutually exclusive and contradictory. Both cannot be true. The principle of non-contradiction excludes the possibility. Yet, as time marches on, Catholics are being inexorably led to affirm one or the other. If the second position is correct and if it is based on received teaching, the first position is heretical. Anyone who allows the existence of the first practice would in fact be favoring heresy. Some might counter by arguing that the practice of either allowing or forbidding communion for manifest adulterers is simply a discipline that is changeable. I don’t know if Mr. Alt believes communion for adulterers is a changeable discipline. In an article from last November, Mr. Alt to his credit admits some honest struggles with Amoris Laetitia (see here). Folks should read Mr. Alt for his opinion.
For me at least, my respect for the teaching authority of the See of St. Peter, past and present, leads me to conclude that the prohibition against communion for adulterers is not a changeable practice and that this has been the constant teaching of the popes. In my humble and fallible opinion, the strength of the argument against communion for manifest adulterers far surpasses the novel argument which would allow it. While some disciplines and practices are changeable, not all are. In some cases an infallible teaching is also expressed by a “doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church:”
“It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church’s faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. (Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, June 29 1998. (n. 17). Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [emphasis added])
With the above in mind – that infallible teaching can be expressed by “doctrines implicitly contained in a practice of the Church, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition” – let us consider the words of Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortia (FC) (emphasis added):
“However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.” (Familiaris Consortio, 84)
We see in Pope John Paul II’s teaching a clear statement that the practice of withholding communion in such cases is based on Revelation (Sacred Scripture) and is implicitly connected to the doctrines of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. This same teaching was re-affirmed by John Paul II in 1984 in Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (34), and through that pope’s approval of the Catholic Catechism (1650) in 1992, and again through his approval of guidance issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in 1994, and in Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (34). This was also taught by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007 in Sacramentum Caritatis (29). With regard to the aforementioned CDF guidance, responding to queries whether there could be additional exceptions to allow communion for the divorced and remarried, the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger, with the approval of the Pope John Paul II, issued a response (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful. September 14, 1994). In it, the Cardinal Prefect says in part (emphasis added):
“At the same time it (i.e., Familiaris Consortio 84) confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, “founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion”. The structure of the Exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.”[ Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful. September 14, 1994.]
The CDF’s letter above, confirmed by the pope, clearly says the teaching of FC 84 confirms a constant and universal practice founded on scripture. And note the CDF’s comment about the tenor of the words, which “give clearly to understand that this practice, which as presented cannot be modified because of different situations” (emphasis added). Certainly, a common sense reading of John Paul II’s words, along with the papal-approved guidance from the CDF, and all the other teachings referenced above, gives a Catholic reasonable grounds to conclude, believe and hold that this practice cannot be modified for whatever situation. It should not be surprising then that “dubia” were submitted to Pope Francis on this and other questions once thought settled, and that many of the faithful want the Pope to clear up the confusion – entirely of his own making.
Yet, it is surprising Pope Francis has refused to answer the “dubia” and speak with the voice of St. Peter on the question. I am fallible and so are the dubia cardinals. The one individual who can settle the question is Pope Francis, yet he is the only one who is keeping his mouth shut. Even Mr. Alt recognizes this problem in his November article. Pope Francis has not spoken clearly to the Church on the question. Indeed, in Amoris Laetitia (2, 3 and 4) Pope Francis disclaims the need for an “intervention of the magisterium.” Curiously, Honorius had said something similar in a letter to Sergius. Amoris Laetitia 305 (n.351) is also ambiguous as to which “cases” can receive communion and which cannot. A dubia on this specific question has been posed to Pope Francis. He refuses to answer. Different bishops and bishops’ conferences have opposing positions on the contradictory interpretations – each citing Amoris Laetitia.
Given the similarities to the case of Honorius are so striking, it is surprising Mr. Alt has not yet connected the dots between his own concerns voiced in his November 2016 article on Amoris Laetitia and his research for his March 2017 article on Honorius. Unfortunately, he dismisses the potential relevance of Honorius with a facile argument and a smug, derisive label (“Pope Francis derangement syndrome“) which get him no closer to presenting an effective rebuttal than when he first started. Consider that Mr. Alt in his own Honorius article is somewhat forced to grudgingly admit in passing the truth of the following accusations against Pope Honorius:
“As for Leo II, he condemned Honorius, instead, because he “permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” That is to say (as the New Catholic Encyclopedia says), Honorius was negligent in combatting the heresy.”
“Some also point to the condemnation of Honorius was included in an oath that every new pope had to swear until the eleventh century. (The oath is in the Liber diurnus.) However, the oath scorns Honorius only in that he “added fuel” to the “wicked assertions” of the Monothelites.”
Mr. Alt – by quoting Leo II and Liber Diurnus – concedes Honorius “permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted” and that Honorius by negligence “added fuel” to the “wicked assertions” of the monothelites! Surely, these charges are something – even if Mr. Alt cannot see it! Yet, the frustrating thing is that Mr. Alt seem to get so close to connecting the dots in his November article when he says of the dubia (emphasis added):
“These strike me as fair questions. The cardinals are seeking a definitive,Magisterial answer to some people’s doubts—not answers in interviews, not private lectures, not “go listen to so-and-so.” The reason the Church needs a definitive answer is to prevent bishops in some places from running wild and doing whatever they want to the potential harm of souls. If someone in a state of mortal sin, not disposed to receive the Eucharist, receives the Eucharist anyway, that compounds the problem. It is a harm to both the individual who receives and the priest who knowingly distributes. A definitive clarification would, potentially, forestall this.”
Since we know from above that Mr. Alt had the silence of Pope Francis on his mind, it is surprising his research for the Honorius article did not lead him to a true eureka moment, i.e., recognizing the potential similarities between Honorius and Francis. The old Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent provides additional quotes that might have helped him. This excellent article states:
“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 Honoriusdisgraced 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 thecouncil, 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.” (Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent)
The question Mr. Alt needs ask himself: given the case of Pope Honorius, and what Pope Leo II said of him, what is so impossible to imagine, if only as a hypothetical, for a future pope (or a current one) to be guilty of the following?
(1) a Pope did not attempt to sanctify the Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.
(2) a Pope allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which the Pope received from his predecessors, to be tarnished.
(3) a Pope who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence
(4) a Pope ‘added wicked fuel to the wick assertions’ of others who are heretics
The charges above are based on the words of Pope Leo II and/or the papal oath in the Liber Diurnus about Honorius. Therefore, it is clear no living or future pope is absolutely immune from the possibility of being guilty of them. Mr. Alt is an honest gentleman. He must admit it is possible for a pope to be guilty of these things because we already have had one (i.e., Honorius). Thus, having had one such pope, perhaps Mr. Alt will understand (in light of his own Amoris Laetitia article) that the potential relevance of Honorius to the current crisis is not whether Honorius was a monothelite heretic, but whether it is possible – and just as damaging – for a pope to favor heresy through negligence and silence – and to even “add fuel” to the “wicked assertions” of heretics.
The current crisis as seen by “some Catholics” – i.e., the ones Mr. Alt smugly derides (but who I think he is closer to than even he might realize) – is that we have a pope whose seeming policy and silence (e.g., on the dubia) are allowing two incompatible interpretations to coexist on the question of communion for manifest adulterers. This current crisis bears striking similarities to the case of Honorius, the pope condemned for being silent. A pope need not be a heretic to foster heresy through “negligence,” “silence” and “profane treachery.” If Mr. Alt can understand that demonstrated principle from Church history, he might – just might – quit the facile arguments against “some Catholics” and begin to understand (1) why the silence of Pope Francis on the dubia is potentially similar to the silence of Pope Honorius and (2) why this should be of grave concern to all Catholics.
Let us pray for Pope Francis that he – unlike his predecessor Honorius – speak with the voice of Peter, answer the dubia and bring an end to the mounting confusion in the Church.
Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. He lives near Atlanta with family. He has written apologetic articles and is working on a historical-adventure trilogy, set during the time of the Arian crisis. He asks for your prayers for his intentions. He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA).
19 thoughts on “Why the Case of Pope Honorius Matters, Mr. Alt”
Sorry, PF is has not just “favor heresy through negligence and silence.” He HAS spoken on various things not just Amoris Laetitia. He has repeatedly appointed people to important positions and public spokesmen who HAVE spoken in favor of heresy in Amoris Laetitia (and others) and he has even said that they were to be looked to for the correct interpretations.
BTW, before Familiars Consortia (1981) and a Synod the year before (1980) when did the “Church” or any Pope teach that “living as a brother and sister” is acceptable Adultery? That position clearly contradicts the words of Christ.
Mark 10:11–12, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Luke 16:18, “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
I don’t see anything about “brother and sister” in Christ’s words OR in ANY teaching before 1980. Fr. Hunwicke’s wrote about it here. http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2016/12/brother-and-sister.html I’ve been asking this question for years and have not found an acceptable answer (as much as I liked JPII).
The point is many people keep pointing to those statements in Familiars Consortia stating that “living as a brother and sister” was acceptable when it appears to be NEW teaching, contradicting previous teachings and the words of Christ.
I’ve also read that it was this VERY novel, nuancing teaching on Adultery that was the wedge used to justify the “change in practice” of Amoris Laetitia.
John, thanks for reading the blog and for your comments. Regarding the comments in your first paragraph – I do not dispute your point that many of Pope’s appointments qualify as “negligent “(at least as far as my own prudential judgment considers the matter, indeed many are frightening). However, the intent of the article was not to consider *ALL* of PF’s actions or inactions (or to a draw up a bill of indictment against him), but to address Mr. Alt’s issue regarding Honorius and Mr. Alt’s *own* comments on Amoris Laetitia. If I had broadened the scope, certainly….a pope’s personnel policies, in my opinion, would be grounds for an Honorius-like condemnation by a future pope and/or council if the pope knew, should have known, or did know (but did nothing) about their heresies, scandalous views and behaviors. Just read the quotes of Pope Leo II regarding Honorius. Many actions, inactions and statements and silences might fall within them.
Regarding your points about FC 84 and no words of “brother and sister” in scripture on the question, you are correct. I am no moral theologian or canon lawyer – so for your soundest response, I would point you to them. However, my take is, we need to first look at what remained consistent. Those engaged in adulterous relationships cannot receive communion. If you want to receive communion, they *must* live *as* brother and sister, and not *as if* man and wife in their intimacies with one another. If they do the former, they are not engaging in acts proper to a married couple, and therefore are not engaged in adulterous acts. The Lord’s words were addressed to those who fall into adultery, and not how to handle the issues of kids, etc., when it ends. Couples who live as brother and sister and receive communion had to have confessed and had a purpose of amendment, which I presume would include no more sex or any thoughts or intimacies outside of being a “brother or sister.” IF this is done, all that remains is the external formal *appearance* of adultery to the outside world, but not the reality. That is not the issue with lax and ambiguous interpretations of AL where no purpose of amendment is required at all.
So, lets say you are correct and PF is ONLY favoring heresy through negligence and silence. What do you think is OUR duty to do about it? When we stand in front of the throne of God, what shall we tell Lord? How we defended him? How we were in doubt as to the”true” intention of a heretical teaching? What will we personally held responsible for? For our own faith? Of our family? Our Parish?
The thought terrifies me.
John, thanks for the comments. As I wrote, I think that if PF remains silent that the threat and reality of spreading confusion and error continues and will grow worse. If he passes the remainder of his pontificate without resolving this issue, then in my prudential opinion, he falls into the “Honorius zone.”
As to our duties before God. Great question. The “million dollar” question. My advice would be, first and foremost…find a good priest. He is a pastor of souls….not me.
For me…things I consider…go with what we know. I do not have the authority to de-pope a pope, or declare one an anti-pope; thus God would not expect that of me. But, we can know our catechism. The Church has had good popes, it has had bad popes. It has had popes like Honorius, and John XXII. So…keep perspective. Pray for oneself and for loved ones, to be faithful to the true faith. Pray the rosary. Pray for the pope – that he speak with the voice of Peter on disputed questions – and if or when he does: accept it. We are expected to remain faithful to the true teachings of the Church as taught by God’s representatives on earth. I also remind myself….be patient. It took decades for the Arian crisis, the Monothelite crisis, etc., to be resolved. So….be patient.
You said, “If you want to receive communion, they *must* live *as* brother and sister, and not *as if* man and wife in their intimacies with one another. If they do the former, they are not engaging in acts proper to a married couple, and therefore are not engaged in adulterous acts.”
The Lord did not include sexual acts in his definition of Adultery. Mary and Joseph did not engage in sexual relations but were married. Using your definition above as a requirement for Communion, you ARE including those who are in Adultery according to the Lord and are saying those IN a state of Adultery, a mortal sin, can receive Communion. I would think they would need to publicly renounce their “second marriage” and confession before being eligible for Communion. The reason for publicly renouncing their “second marriage” is that it was a public act.
John, thanks for the comment. As far as the public act, yes it was. I think the conditions for reception of communion – beyond living as brother and sister – is to receive only in a place where their history is not known in this respect, or to do so secretly where it is.
John, I am not defending adultery in any sense. It is in the catechism, John…approved by the pope – an act of is ordinary magisterium, proposing to you and me what is to be believed. We might have a hard time accepting something, but at some point one needs to let it go and accept it when it makes it into the catechism! If someone stops having sex with their adulterous partner, and stops looking at them with lust – and looks upon her or him now as a “sister” or “brother”; then *all* that remains an outward shell – a legal fiction – of what had been an invalid marriage in the eyes of God and His Church.
If there had been true repentance, and sincere purpose of amendment on the part of both parties to the adultery, I can see where a good confessor might agree – given they continue as brother and sister – that the best interests of the situation is served by the two remaining in the same house.
I don’t know…maybe a priest could chime in here. I suspect a priest in confession might not always require restitution of something if he thought the harm from doing so outweighed the good of doing so. My guess is a similar principle applies here in allowing the two to continue living together (i.e., for the good of the kids).
Contrary to popular thought, I never agree to the proposition that two people living in adultery or any other mortal sin is best for any children by said couple. I thought the Church taught that moral sin could not be justified by any supposed good? If not, we could justify many sins. A thief could continue to steal if he needs to support his family. A priest could participate in a non Christian (pagan) religious worship ceremony in the name of ecumenism. I could go on.
The point of my earlier post concerning JP2’S FC “living as a brother and sister” was that it was a NEW teaching. It was NOT what was always taught, everywhere. It is flawed. The best intention is not enough. It has caused these even greater distortions in AL.
John, not sure I can say more than I have. I would simply reiterate that the lax interpretation of AL does something that FC comes nowhere near approaching. It is different in kind. One requires a firm purpose of amendment and a change of lifestyle (if not geography), while the other requires no such things. One arguably goes to the edge of what one might conceivably allow, the other jumps off the edge. Beyond that, we will have to agree to disagree as to whether one led to the other, either in fact or in logic. Thanks for reading the blog.
‘Domestic partnerships’, or even Civil marriages, have no sacramental value, it is just a legal or state contract, so for the purpose of this discussion, marriage outside the Church should not be construed as being divinely binding (with respect to adultery vs. fornication). In fact, most of our Western States are completely void of any notion of Christianity, the EU is the perfect example.
Unfortunately, there are many good Catholics who want to save their religious marriage but end up civilly divorced or separated against their will due to abuse, violence, or simply because one of the spouses walked away, etc. In this case, for reasons such as the security of person, housing, health, or other vital needs, those Catholics who are abandoned by their spouses may enter into a ‘legal contract’ (aka paperwork, red-tape, etc.) with another person for practical reasons, but still decide to honor their religious marriage (the one and only valid marriage approved by God) by living like ‘brothers and sisters’, which in this case makes perfect sense.
In the end, it’s about the real intention of the person to commit adultery, which is the sexual act committed with someone other than your true spouse: the Mosaic law was very clear about the definition of ‘adultery’ (Deut 22:22-24), and the case of the ‘adulterous’ woman in the Gospel of John comes to mind (John 8:3-11). BTW, I have no doubt that the Holy Family is a great example for all Catholics to follow, but for all practical purposes if married couples were to abstain from sexual intercourse and wait for the Holy Spirit to conceive, there would be no more Catholics on this planet, just saying. I would even say that it is the Holy Family that serves as a heroic example for those who, caught by circumstances beyond their will, decide to live as ‘brothers and sisters’ as a bold example for the local community.
Santiago, thanks for the comments
If you read more of Mr. Alt’s opinions, you’ll see that he could never bring himself to make the comparison between Honorius and Pope Francis. There is a blind spot which cannot be overcome.
Sunny, thanks for the comments. The premise for the comparison is in Mr. Alt’s articles, as I read them. These are confusing times, so it is not surprising that good people end up on both sides as they try to sort through the mess and understand what the heck is going on in the Church. But, that is why we have the pope – to prevent such divisions of opinion on important issues. It is for Pope Francis to confirm the brethren, and this he has yet to do as you well know.
Why is it that a Pope cannot be a formal heretic? I see nothing standing in the way, preventing a Pope from falling into formal heresy. He can walk out into the balcony of St. Peters tommorow and deny the divinity of Christ if he so chose.
Asbury, thanks for the comment. I have expressed my opinion, which I believe Bellarmine shared. However, like Bellarmine, I admit it is only that – an *opinion*. I know theologians have thought it possible a pope could become a formal heretic. Yet, I don’t think theorizing itself is a demonstration it is actually possible – while it is a proof it had never happened, historically speaking. My perspective is, very briefly, it seems to me the Lord’s prayer that Peter’s faith not fail, applies to his successors. If a pope could be a formal heretic, it would “fail.” The Lord warned Satan desired to sift Peter (and, thus his successors) like wheat. We’ve seen that in history! Yet, the Lord’s prayer defeats Satan and protects Peter’s faith, and that of his successors, will not fail. This prayer is for the Church’s benefit.
Further, the Formula of Hormisdas and Pope Agatho’s letter to the Emperor and Sixth Ecumenical Council seem to me to at least imply the perpetual orthodoxy of the See of Rome. Even the theories which wonder if a pope might become a formal heretic are just that – theories; there never having been actual instance. The likes of Ireneaus and Augustine looked to the orthodoxy of the Roman bishops in succession from St. Peter as a guarantee of the faith. Now, if the popes could fall, they could not be that sign. Many bishops and Patriarchs of Constantinople have been heretics and schismatics, yet its not as if someone says…”well, ok, excluding all the heretical bishops of Constantinople who were outside of the Church we can look to the orthodox bishops of that See as a sign of the apostolic faith of Constantinople!” It would seem only fair to extend this analogy to the Apostolic See of Rome to which it is necessary for salvation to be in communion. How could the succession of bishops be looked to as a sign of the orthodoxy of the See of Rome IF a bishop of Rome could become a formal heretic, like a Nestorius? It seems improbable this could be the case. Now, the Church hasn’t defined this opinion, so I cannot exclude the possibility a pope *could* become a formal heretic; but I sincerely doubt it. Could a pope be a material heretic or hold erroneous opinions? Yes, I think that is possible, it’s happened (e.g., John XXII).
I have a question. You note that Pope Honorius was not a heretic even though he was condemned for failure to act properly. In New Advent encyclopedia treatment of Honorius I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm) it states that, “It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact.” In Roberto de Mattei’s December 15, 2015 article published in Rorate Caeli (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-heretic-pope.html) seems to be saying the same thing. At the same time, they don’t seem to be in disagreement with the tenor of your argument.
Could you explain why they can use (infer) that it was heresy or are you saying they are wrong. In both they agree that the acts, regardless, do not touch infallibility. This is not a “gotcha” question, I’m trying to find precision in the discussion. Kind regards,
Steve, thanks for the question. I said he was not a monothelite or a formal heretic. However, also considered “heretic” is someone who “favors” heresy, e.g.., someone who does something or nothing, which has the effect of helping the spread of heresy. In the case of Honorius, he put heretical and orthodox terms on equal footing, under the same rule of silence…plus he failed to correct Sergius and teach the truth. Thus, Pope Leo II speaks of a failure to teach, not that Honorius was himself actually a monothelite (and a formal heretic). I recognize there are various readings of the case. Some suggest his words only did not qualify as ex cathedra. However, I do not think Honorius’ letters are necessarily heretical. Clearly, some monothelites appealed to them – but heretics also appeal to scripture. This fact, obviously, does not make them heretical. Honorius’ successor (Pope John) defended the orthodoxy of the letter. Other commentators have suggested Leo II corrected the Council Fathers, confirming only a charge of negligence…but I do not think that it is necessary to see one in opposition to the other. The fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council said they agreed with Pope Agatho’s letter to the Emperor and Council fully. In that letter, Agatho stated ALL his predecessors were orthodox (thus, this must include Honorius) and spoke of the perpetual orthodoxy of the Apostolic See. Yet, Agatho ALSO spoke of how he (Agatho) could be condemned if he failed in his responsibility to teach (thus, implicitly, the same is true of Honorius or any pope too). So, it seems to me that Agatho understood this was the fault of Honorius, and this is also the sense in which the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned Honorius (in conformity to Agatho’s letter), i.e., Honorius is guilty of of remaining silent when he should have spoken and thus aided the heresy. I included the quote in my blog post, Also, see the articles I wrote for This Rock/Catholic Answers…the links are in the article. I go into more detail in them. Hope that helps.