I didn't say or intend to imply that the Catholic Encyclopedia said that Honorius was acting as a private theologian. I was pointing out that in the words of the Council Honorius was specifically anathematized in his official capacity as pope. The Catholic Encylopedia acknowledges that the letter was an official reply.
...the Encyclopedia gave reasons why the letter did not meet the test of ex cathedra. Which of these reasons do you dispute?
The issue is not what the Catholic Encyclopedia says, but what the Sixth Ecumenical Council said. Nevertheless, I first dispute its whole premise of ex post facto application of criterion that did not exist at the time. The official 1870 definition of ex cathedra that I posted earlier is:
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."
"The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation." - The Pope was acting in his official capacity. Check.
"It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical." - Irrelevant. I don't see the word, "publicity" in the formal definition.
"As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance." - This is a multi-part sentence so I will take one at a time:
"As the letter does not define or condemn.." - The word, "condemn" does not appear in the official 1870 definition. (The word, "anathema" does, but it apparently applies in the context to anyone who does not accept the definition being enunciated in 1870) The word, "define" does appear in 1870. "...and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching," The word "bind" does not appear in the 1870 definition. The word, "doctrine" does appear there. The word "Church" does appear as well as the phrase, "universal Church." - Read the words of the Council and tell me with a straight face that Honorius did not "define a doctrine of faith" "to be held by the universal Church."
Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!... Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris "
And as far as the Catholic Encyclopedia's assertion that ".. it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance", goes, it is a statement based on entirely on years ex post facto dogma in the face of the facts of history.
The facts of history are that Honorius, a supposedly "infallible" pope, in his official capacity, was condemned for heresy by a supposedly "infallible" Ecumenical Council for heresy. No amount of re-definition of the terms can rewind and then alter those facts of history.
In the words of one of your (formerly) own preeminent historians of the 19th century, which are forbidden for you read:
This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church.
(Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).
Cordially,
WELL DONE. Particularly:
The facts of history are that Honorius, a supposedly “infallible” pope, in his official capacity, was condemned for heresy by a supposedly “infallible” Ecumenical Council for heresy. No amount of re-definition of the terms can rewind and then alter those facts of history.
In the words of one of your (formerly) own preeminent historians of the 19th century, which are forbidden for you read:
This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church.
(Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).
You are like a reprobate liberal who still insists Palin said she sees Russia from her house. I already wrote you in a previous post that Church doctrines are operational long before they are explicitly defined:
"Just about all Catholic doctrine is implicit in her sacraments, such as the mass, baptism, confession, marriage, and consecration of priests, or in the Church hierarchical structure. The sacraments and hierarchy was set by the Apostles. Other than by Scripture, the Church does not define doctrine explicitly unless it is necessary to counter an heresy. Explicitly defined teachings are always based upon implicit teachings that have existed for many years or since the beginning of the Church. Petrine infallibility has been operational since it was established by Christ and exercised by Peter's early successors."
You never disputed this point. I can understand that you do not accept the doctrine of infallibility, but it makes no sense for you to mindlessly repeat the falsehood that Catholics themselves did not believe this doctrine prior to 1870.
The words of the Council are a secondary source, only infallible to the extent they define doctrine ex cathedra. Accusing that Honorius "confirmed" false doctrine does not fall into that category. The accusation is not a doctrine. Without reading the letter, and going just by the Cathlolic Encyclopedia, it would appear that Honorius "confirmed" false doctrine by his silence or ambiguity, not by explicit definition.
Why hinge all your argument upon noninfallible language of a secondary source. Why not find the actual letter from Honorius to prove the alleged heresy? Here is an example of an ex cathedra statement:
"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."
Does the letter from Honorius contain any definitions like this propounding heresy?