A Heretical Pope?

Claims have been made that one or more of the "conciliar popes", that is to say Pope John XXIII and his successors, were heretics and therefore forfeited the papacy. Those who include Pope John Paul II in this category claim that we have no pope and that therefore the Holy See is vacant, sedes vacante, which is why such people are referred to as "sedevacantists". They claim that this poses no theological problem as the Holy See is vacant during the interregnum between pontificates. Some of these interregna have been very long, the longest being a vacancy of two years nine months between the death of Clement IV in 1268 and the election of Gregory X in 1271. In such cases the visibility of the Church is not impaired in any way as the Holy See is administered by the Cardinal Camerlengo until a new pope is elected. The Camerlengo, or Chamberlain of the papal court, administers the properties and revenues of the Holy See, and during a vacancy those of the entire Church. Among his responsibilities during a vacancy are those of verifying the death of the Pope and organizing and directing the conclave.

Thus, even when the Chair of Peter is not occupied, the visible, hierarchical nature of the Church is maintained.(1) Thus the situation during such an interregnum cannot be compared to the situation that the Church would be in if Pope John Paul II is not the legitinmately reigning pontiff as there would be no visible source of authority capable of convoking a conclave to elect a new pope.

The theological weakness of sedevacantism is an inadequate concept of the nature of the Church. Without realizing it, they believe in a Church which can fail -- and such a Church is not the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church that He founded cannot fail, for it is indefectible (i.e. it cannot fail). It will continue to exist until the Second Coming as a visible, hierarchically governed body, teaching the truth and sanctifying its members with indubitably valid sacraments. To state that we have no pope is to claim that the Church is no longer visible and hierarchically governed, which, in effect, means that it has ceased to exist. Catholic theologians accept that a pope could lose his office through heresy, but it would have to be such notorious heresy that no doubt concerning the matter could exist in the minds of the faithful, and a statement that the Pope had deposed himself would need to come from a high level in the Church, most probably a general Council. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre warned in 1979:

"The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. . . And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."

The question of whether the Holy See is vacant must be considered from three aspects, that is whether a pope could become an heretic and forfeit his office; what constitutes heresy; and whether any of the conciliar popes can be considered to be heretics within the context of this definition.

The problem which would face the Church if a legitimately reigning pope became an heretic has been discussed in numerous standard works of reference. The solution is provided in the 1913 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(2) Many theologians have discussed the possibility of a pope falling into heresy, and the consensus of their opinion concurs with that of The Catholic Encyclopedia. The Pope must evidently be a Catholic, and if he ceased to be a Catholic he could hardly remain the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Mystical Body. St. Robert Bellarmine taught: "The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers."(3) Saint Robert was, of course, discussing a theoretical possibility, and believed that a pope could not become an heretic and thus could not be deposed, but he also acknowledged that the more common opinion was that the pope could become an heretic, and he was thus willing to discuss what would need to be done if, per impossibile, this should happen: "This opinion (that the Pope could not become an heretic) is probable and easily defended . . . Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic."(4)

The great Jesuit theologian, Francisco de Suarez (1548-1617) was also sure that God’s "sweet providence" would never allow the one who could not teach error to fall into error, and that this was guaranteed by the promise Ego autem rogavi pro te . . . (Luke 22: 32). But, like Bellarmine, Suarez was willing to consider the possibility of an heretical pope as an hypothesis, particularly in view of the fact, he claimed, that several "general councils had admitted the hypothesis in question".(5) Saint Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) did not believe that God would ever permit a Roman Pontiff to become a public or an occult heretic, even as a private person: "We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic."(6)

If, per impossible, a pope became a formal heretic through pertinaciously denying a de fide doctrine, how would the faithful know that he had forfeited his office as he had ceased to be a Catholic? It must be remembered that no one in the Church, including a General Council, has the authority to judge the Popes. Reputable authorities teach that if a pope did pertinaciously deny a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith, after this had been brought to his attention by responsible members of the hierarchy (just as St. Paul reproved St. Peter to his face), a General Council could announce to the Church that the Pope, as a notorious heretic, had ceased to be a Catholic and hence had ceased to be Pope. It is important to note that the Council would neither be judging nor deposing the Pope, since it would not possess the authority for such an act. It would simply be making a declaratory sentence, i.e. declaring to the Church what had already become manifest from the Pope’s own actions. This is the view taken in the classic manual on Canon Law by Father F.X. Wernz, Rector of the Gregorian University and Jesuit General from 1906 to 1914. This work was revised by Father P. Vidal and was last republished in 1952. It states clearly that an heretical Pope is not deposed in virtue of the sentence of the Council, but "the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity."(7) Other authorities believe that such a declaration could come from the College of Cardinals or from a representative group of bishop, while others maintain that such a declaration would not be necessary. What all those who accept the hypothesis of an heretical pope are agreed upon is that for such a pope to forfeit the papacy his heresy would have to be "manifest", as Saint Robert Bellarmine expressed it, that is notorious and public (notorium et palam divulgata).(8) A notorious offence can be defined as one for which the evidence is so certain that it can in no way be either hidden or excused.(9) A pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors, and condemned as was the case with Honorius I.

There has never been a case of a pope who was undoubtedly a formal heretic, and it is unlikely in the extreme that there ever will be one. This will become evident if some consideration is given to examining precisely what constitutes formal heresy. The Code of Canon Law defines an heretic as one who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Catholic, pertinaciously doubts or denies one of the truths which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.(10) It teaches us that by divine and Catholic faith must be believed all that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, that is, the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its Ordinary Universal Magisterium.(11) No teaching is to be considered as dogmatically defined unless this is evidently proved.(12)

A doctrine is de fide divina et catholica only when it has been infallibly declared by the Church to be revealed by God. Hence this term does not apply to doctrines which one knows to have been revealed by God, but which have not been declared by the Church to have been so revealed (de fide divina); nor to those which the Church has infallibly declared, but which she does not present formally as having been revealed (de fide ecclesiastica); nor to those which the Church teaches without exercising her infallible authority upon them. If a doctrine is not de fide divina et catholica, a person is not an heretic for denying or doubting it, though such a denial or doubt may be grave sin.(13)

It should now be apparent that there is no case whatsoever for claiming that any of the conciliar popes have lost their office as a result of heresy. Anyone wishing to dispute this assertion would need to state the doctrines de fide divina et catholica which any of these popes are alleged to have rejected pertinaciously. There is not one instance which comes remotely within this category. The nearest one can come to a formal contradiction between preconciliar and post-conciliar teaching is the subject of religious liberty. It has yet to be shown how they can be reconciled.(14) It is possible that the Magisterium will eventually have to present either a correction or at least a clarification of the teaching of Vatican II on this subject. Neither the pre-conciliar teaching nor that of the Council on religious liberty comes within the category of de fide divina et catholica, and so the question of formal heresy does not arise.

1. Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1917), vol. III, p. 217. 2. CE, vol. VII, p. 261. 3. Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice (Milan, 1857), vol. II, chap. 30, p. 420. 4. Ibid., p. 418. 5. F. Suarez, De legibus (Paris, 1856), vol. IV, chap. 7, no. 10, p. 361. 6. Dogmatic Works of St. Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri (Turin, 1848), vol. VIII, p. 720. 7. Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum (Rome, 1942), vol II, p. 518. 8. Ibid., p. 433. 9. Op. cit., note 92, Wernz-Vidal, (Rome, 1937), vol VII, pp. 46-47. 10. Code of Canon Law: Old Code, Canon 1325; New Code, Canon 751. 11. Denzinger, 1792; CCL: Old Code, Canon 1323; New Code, Canon 750. 12. CCL, Old Code, 1323, §3; New Code, 749, §3. 13. T. Bouscaren & A. Ellis, Canon Law, A Text & Commentary (Milwaukee, 1958), p. 724. 14. M. Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty (The Neumann Press, Minnesota, 1992).

Oh please. Don't you read New Advent?

What, am I supposed to fall down in worship before the almighty 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, that utterly authoritative and divinely inspired source ... or something?

Can I quote the Zondervan Illustrated Dictionary of the Bible and expect you to agree with every word in it?

In any case, you yourself published the citations where it clearly says that Pope Leo didn't agree with the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic. But in case you want another authority:

Pope Honorius seemed not to fully grasp the maneuverings of Sergius. Hence, in 634 he wrote two letters to Sergius that were not heretical, but were ambiguous. Not long after, Pope John IV, in 641, wrote a letter to Emperor Constantius II defending Honorius from a charge of heresy. He said Honorius just meant that Jesus "never had two contrary wills".

But the Council of Constantinople in 681 A.D. wanted to go further. It voted to call Pope Honorius a heretic. However ... a council acting without the Pope has no doctrinal force. ... Pope Leo II followed the guidance of Divine Providence and stated the matter precisely: "Pope Honorius ... failed to add luster to the Apostolic Church by teaching the Apostolic tradition, but on the contrary, permitted the spotless faith to be defiled.

So Pope Honorius was not charged with heresy -- he was not guilty of that. He was charged, rightly, with carelessness by letting true doctrine become ambiguous.

[Citation from Most, Fr. William G., Catholic Apologetics Today (TAN Books, 1986), p. 214.]

Please note the Catholic Church's position

I get tired of going over and over this with you. It seems so simple and obvious to me.

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia is not an authoritative teaching document of the Church. Neither is Fr. Most's book I quote above, though he is -- or rather was (he's gone to his reward) -- a well-respected and orthodox theologian.

If you want the "Catholic Church's position" on a question, you'll find it -- if there is one at all -- at www.vatican.va, or in the catechism, or in the decrees and canons of Ecumenical Councils, or in solemn Papal teaching documents.

You refer to this as "like nailing jello to a tree". As I say, I see it as simple and obvious. I wouldn't attempt to pick some book or another off a bookshelf at a Christian bookstore and try to claim it was the "Southern Baptist Church's position", if it wasn't actually published by the SBC. That to me is common sense, no jello required.

St. Hippolytus is an anti-pope who became a saint.

Feast Day - August 13

St. Hippolytus (Pontian - pope and Hippolytus, anti-pope)

(d. 235)

Two men died for the faith after harsh treatment and exhaustion in the mines of Sardinia. One had been pope for five years, the other an antipope for 18. They died reconciled.

Pontian.

Pontian was a Roman who served as pope from 230 to 235. During his reign he held a synod which confirmed the excommunication of the great theologian Origen in Alexandria. Pontian was banished to exile by the Roman emperor in 235, and resigned so that a successor could be elected in Rome. He was sent to the “unhealthy” island of Sardinia, where he died of harsh treatment in 235. With him was Hippolytus (see below) with whom he was reconciled. The bodies of both martyrs were brought back to Rome and buried with solemn rites as martyrs.

Hippolytus.

As a presbyter in Rome, Hippolytus (the name means “a horse turned loose”) was at first “holier than the Church.” He censured the pope for not coming down hard enough on a certain heresy—calling him a tool in the hands of one Callistus, a deacon—and coming close to advocating the opposite heresy himself. When Callistus was elected pope, Hippolytus accused him of being too lenient with penitents, and had himself elected antipope by a group of followers. He felt that the Church must be composed of pure souls uncompromisingly separated from the world, and evidently thought that his group fitted the description. He remained in schism through the reigns of three popes. In 235 he was also banished to the island of Sardinia. Shortly before or after this event, he was reconciled to the Church, and died with Pope Pontian in exile.

Hippolytus was a rigorist, a vehement and intransigent man for whom even orthodox doctrine and practice were not purified enough. He is, nevertheless, the most important theologian and prolific religious writer before the age of Constantine. His writings are the fullest source of our knowledge of the Roman liturgy and the structure of the Church in the second and third centuries. His works include many Scripture commentaries, polemics against heresies and a history of the world. A marble statue, dating from the third century, representing the saint sitting in a chair, was found in 1551. On one side is inscribed his table for computing the date of Easter, on the other a list of how the system works out until the year 224. Pope John XXIII installed the statue in the Vatican library.

Comment:

Hippolytus was a strong defender of orthodoxy, and admitted his excesses by his humble reconciliation. He was not a formal heretic, but an overzealous disciplinarian. What he could not learn in his prime as a reformer and purist, he learned in the pain and desolation of imprisonment. It was a fitting symbolic event that Pope Pontian shared his martyrdom.

Quote:

“Christ, like a skillful physician, understands the weakness of men. He loves to teach the ignorant and the erring he turns again to his own true way. He is easily found by those who live by faith; and to those of pure eye and holy heart, who desire to knock at the door, he opens immediately. He does not disdain the barbarian, nor does he set the eunuch aside as no man. He does not hate the female on account of the woman’s act of disobedience in the beginning, nor does he reject the male on account of the man’s transgression. But he seeks all, and desires to save all, wishing to make all the children of God, and calling all the saints unto one perfect man” (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist).

Origen reconciled too.

Actually, I had only seen that italicized name (indicating an anti-pope) was prefaced by "St." in the World Almanac. Apon further investigation, it's amusingly appropriate for this thread, stirring issues of sedevacantism, substitutional popes, Honorius, Liberius, and so on...

Hippolytus vigorously combatted heresies which denied the seperate personages of the Father and the Son, considering them, instead, to be merely alternate modes of the same person. But he went too far in the alternate direction, almost making Jesus into a second God, subordinate to the Father. Pope Zephyrinus refused to condemn the heresy (one of many, many pre-Nicene demonstrations of papal authority), which Hippolytus falsely presumed to be the mechanations of a deacon. When that deacon eventually became Pope Callistus, Hippolytus presumed him to be heretical, and therefore that the election could not be legitimate.

Hippolytus convened a group of bishops he suaded to his opinion, and they conferred a papacy upon him. He regarded himself heir to St. Peter, and referred to the rest of the Church as the Callistine school.

In 235, an emporer bannished him and the legitimate Pope to the island of Sardinia, where they both contracted illness. At this time, or slightly before this, he was convinced that the Roman bishop (the Pope) was not a heretic, and accepted his authority.

Both Hippolytus and the Pope he reconciled with were considered martyrs (indicating, I would think, a presumption that he reunited with Rome before arriving in Sardinia). Hippolytus is afforded much credit for his (rhetorical, not military) defeat of modalism.

In any case, you yourself published the citations where it clearly says that Pope Leo didn't agree with the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic. But in case you want another authority...

Just for reference's sake, the primary sources are online: the documents of the Third Council of Constantinople. Scanning through, I find that the Council explicitly definitely anathematized Honorius as a heretic. Now, the letter of Pope St. Agatho is not at all as blunt; in fact, I can't see anywhere where it explicitly says that Honorius was guilty of heresy.

Also, Agatho mentions in a few places the Church of Rome being "free from all error". One particular excerpt in his letter is particularly interesting. After Agatho sets forth to orthodox doctrine of the two wills, he says as follows:

And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things;

Later on he gets even more explicit:

For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself,

And then right afterward:

Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter's faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.

Now, whatever be said against Honorius (and let's remember this case was uppermost in his mind), Agatho apparently doesn't think it affected the doctrinal purity of the Roman See. But his next thought, while not mentioning Honorius by name, seems to have been composed with him in mind:

For woe is me, if I neglect to preach the truth of my Lord, which they have sincerely preached. Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which I am bidden to give to the exchangers,...
Since, therefore, such an extremity of punishment overhangs the corruptors, or suppressors of truth by silence, would not any one flee from an attempt at curtailing the truth of the Lord's faith? Wherefore the predecessors of Apostolic memory of my littleness, learned in the doctrine of the Lord, ever since the prelates of the Church of Constantinople have been trying to introduce into the immaculate Church of Christ an heretical innovation, have never ceased to exhort and warn them with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma, lest from this they make the beginning of a split in the unity of the Church...

At least by silence--seems to be a reference to our Honorius. Combining this letter with the previous excerpts I posted from Leo II (post #35), which also defends the purity of the Roman See but adds that it had been "tarnished" and "polluted" by Honorius's actions.

To me at least, it looks like while the Council anathematized Honorius as a heretic, the Popes did not go so far, and in fact stated that the purity of Roman orthodoxy had never been forfeited. However, they also seem to have approved the Council, so where that gets us I dunno. :)

Now, the letter of Pope St. Agatho...

With all due respect Claud, Pope Agatho died during the council. Pope Leo took over and it states HE is the one who took over and judged Honorius. The "keys" passed to him. Newadvent states that it is Leo who agreed with the council and called Honorius a heretic. It would be his writings we would need to find.

Honorius reigned for 13 years so it is unlikely he didn't have SOME proclamations. Whether any of those proclamations were heretical we'll never know because the council had everything burned. Most likely (as is stated) they felt everything from him was tainted. Whether any of this was from the "chair of Peter" remains a historical mystery. They were glad that they stood up to the Pope.

If Honorius wasn't a heretic was the council wrong? Did the council make an error? Whose right? 1) Pope Agatho who didn't think Honorius was quite a heretic. 2) The council who though that Honorius was a heretic? or 3) Pope Leo whose "official" opinion we're still looking for? Why burn his writings?

I will say it is disingenuous of some to suggest the Catholic encyclopedia is inaccurate simply to support their claims. People are saying I wrong when I quote from the Catholic encyclopedia yet can't point me to an "official" source that support their views. www.vatican.va has nothing there that I can see. How does any Catholic know if any doctrine is RIGHT. I'm glad I didn't spend my $29.95 for the CD from newadvent. And, yes, understanding Catholic doctrine is like nailing JELLO to a tree-especially when some claim an encyclopedia that discusses THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH is OUT OF DATE. Does this make sense?

BTW-You're reading into what Pope Agatho and others stated about the "infallibility". He only states that:

this Apostolic Church of his

from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end

et. alt.

There is nothing here that states the Pope is infallible. Only that the "church" (I would agree with a small "c") is guided by God. Less I be accused of being bias and a Catholic basher, it was about 300 years later the Eastern Orthodox broke with Roman for making such a claim so they must not have interpreted these past writings the way you are.

Where it gets us is this:

What does "anathema" really mean, and is it a doctrinal statement?

Had Honorius been living when he was anathematized, he would have been excommunicated, and thus no longer part of the Catholic Church. He also would have the opportunity to have repented and been restored to the Catholic Church. But what are the effects of anathematizing a dead person? Is the issue not moot? Or did by anathemization the church pereceive itself as capable of judging a mortal soul as condemned? If so, it's odd that such authority is never brought up in subsequent theological discussions of the content of Hell.

It would seem to me that the council was merely making a governmental decision, and it's placement early in the documents is no more significant than an artifact of chronology of having addressed the underlying heretical doctrine quickly. In many instances, the councils not only declared someone anathema, but also stated that the faithful must concur. Also, such declarations occurred within canons. Neither such condition exists here. Thus, the declaration would seem to be neither an issue of morality or doctrine, the conditions under which infallibility exists. As such, the Pope could affirm the council (an issue of infallibility), while not implicitly affirming the anathematizations.

Incredibly, then, rather than undermining the infallibility of the Pope, I would think this proves the case. First, the council was not convened as an ecumenical council. As such, the authority of the council was not imparted by the nature of an ecumenical council, as the Orthodox would assert, but purely on the basis of the Pope's affirmation. How could a council be an infallible, ecumenical council without being aware of it, unless that determination is made elsewhere? Second, it demonstrates that the First Vatican Council did not simply tailor the conditions of infallibility to fit historical actions , but rather the conditions themselves are historical, at least as far back as the 6th century. For we see here that by affirming a council as ecumenical, the Pope accepts the moral judgments and doctrines of the council without implicitly accepting other statements. [OK, since I wrote this, Harley brought up the issue of which Pope approved the council, and I can't address this, but I figure the issues brought up still are relevant to the broader questions.]

>> I will say it is disingenuous of some to suggest the Catholic encyclopedia is inaccurate simply to support their claims. People are saying I wrong when I quote from the Catholic encyclopedia yet can't point me to an "official" source that support their views. www.vatican.va has nothing there that I can see. How does any Catholic know if any doctrine is RIGHT. I'm glad I didn't spend my $29.95 for the CD from newadvent. And, yes, understanding Catholic doctrine is like nailing JELLO to a tree-especially when some claim an encyclopedia that discusses THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH is OUT OF DATE. Does this make sense? <<

What I said about New Advent, and the opinions are mine alone, was not about trying to establish what doctrine is corrcet. The doctrine is quite objectively known, and unlike any other denomination, authoritative. So it's the only thing that ISN'T like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall. On doctrines, New Advent still isn't exactly a papal encyclical, but since the doctrines are so objectively knowable, it is a credible reference. Further, the Catholic Encyclopedia's 1914 Nihil Obstat means that a church expert (a bishop) failed to find any doctrinal errors. (Of course, an error that may have been insignificant in 1914 may be much more noticeable now, so that doesn't make it perfect, but it's still good enough for our uses.)

I was referring strictly to issues which have absolutely nothing to do with doctrine whatsoever. We're not debating doctrine. The church's position on infallibility is quite clear. What is at issue immediately is whether historical *events* undermine the church's *arguments* in favor of its doctrine. On such issues, there are no authoritative Catholic documents for the Catholic Encyclopedia to look to, and the encyclopedia explicitly denies the existence of any Catholic expertise. Thus, although the Catholic Encyclopedia is a useful starting point for research, it is not singularly authoritative on all issues.

You wouldn't expect to use the Encyclopedia Brittanica to solve all arguments, would you? All I am saying is that the Catholic Encyclopedia is merely an encyclopedia of topics relevant to the Catholic faith. And, being 90 years out of date, not exectly the best one for addressing every issue. For instance, the Essene texts weren't found yet, so it just might accept the argument (made by St. Augustine) that the Septuagint was not a terribly literal translation of the Hebrew scriptures.

Yes, Pope Agatho died during the council. But his writings are illustrative as to what a future Pope thought of the Honorius incident.

Whether any of those proclamations were heretical we'll never know because the council had everything burned. Most likely (as is stated) they felt everything from him was tainted

But we do know indirectly, in the sense that Popes like Agatho and Leo knew very well what he wrote, and (as far as I can see) refrained from calling him an outright heretic and maintained the purity of the Apostolic See.

BTW-You're reading into what Pope Agatho and others stated about the "infallibility".

"Apostolic Church" does not necessarily mean the whole Church. It can be a particular church which is Apostolic, and that's exactly what I think Agatho is saying here. But in the English anyway, these letters don't seem knock-down-drag-out clear that he's talking about Rome rather than the whole Church, although if the latter--why all the references to Peter? So a bit of skeptical wiggle room perhaps, but I don't find it especially convincing.

Oh, and yes, I agree that Leo's writings are important here--shame I can't find them online anywhere.

And, while we're at it, you think it's any easier trying to pin down/understand Protestant doctrines? Nothing I can point to is held as definitive except the Bible itself. :)

Well, I can certainly understand the Catholics confusion. People spout out all sorts of weird things not having the foggiest idea of where some of these doctrines come from and the history behind it. Protestantism today is a muddled mess unless one stay close to Reformed doctrine as laid out by Calvin. I have to keep reminding myself God predestined all of this so it must be good. Calvin's not perfect but IMHO (as a born again Calvinist) it is one of the most comprehensive view of what Protestantism is really about.

I should add that I did not reach this conclusion through Calvin but through Augustine whose writings I started with. Augustine developed the thought and took it far along. In my personal opinion Calvin just expanded and refined Augustine's ideas. I could articulate Calvin's position never having read Calvin simply by understanding Augustine. Like you I believe in going back to the original teachings.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.