The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
The papacy 1,000 years ago
by Richard McBrien on Jun. 22, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionHistory is the great debunker of pre-conceived ideas that are rooted in ideology and false piety rather than in reality.
Without a grasp of history, and of the history of the papacy in particular, many Catholics are led to believe that the papacy must always have been as they have known it, and most popes have been just like the popes of the 20th and 21st centuries: Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.
The pontificates of a thousand years ago, however, were very different from any that we have experienced in our lifetimes.
First of all, we do not even know how the pontificate of John XVIII ended in 1009. Did the pope abdicate before his death and, if so, was it under duress?
If he did abdicate, what did he do after he left the papacy? No living Catholic has ever seen that happen. Indeed, for those who tend to look upon popes as quasi-divine figures, papal resignation is simply unthinkable. Once a pope, always a pope -- until death. No?
According to some historical sources, Pope John XVIII most likely did abdicate, or resign, the papacy shortly before his death, and then became a monk at the basilica of St. Paul's Outside the Walls in Rome, where he is buried.
Otherwise, little is known of his pontificate. We do know that during this period of church history, from 1003 to 1012, one of the powerful Roman families, the Crescentiis, ruled the city and dominated the papacy itself.
From 999 to 1003 the first French pope, Sylvester II, was seated on the Chair of Peter. A dedicated reformer, he denounced simony (the buying and selling of spiritual goods and church offices), nepotism (favoring members of one's own family for appointment to church offices), and violations of clerical celibacy. He also insisted on the free election of abbots by monks.
But in February of 1001 the Roman citizenry revolted against foreign domination. The French pope and his German friend and ally, Emperor Otto III, were forced to leave the city.
Otto died the following year, before he could reestablish his authority in Rome. The new head of the Crescentii family, John Crescentius II, allowed the French pope to return, but only on condition that he limit himself to spiritual functions. The pope died less than a year later.
A relative of the dominant Crescentii family succeeded Sylvester II in an election that was undoubtedly engineered by the family's leader. What was also remarkable, besides the decisive influence of a layman on a papal election, is the fact that the new pope, John XVII, had been married before ordination to the priesthood and was the father of three sons.
The pope's only notable recorded papal act was his authorizing of Polish missionaries to work among the Slavs. It is not even known how he died or how old he was at the time of death.
Although John XVII was pope for less than six months, his pontificate was not among the shortest in history. For purposes of comparison, Pope John Paul I was in office for just 33 days in 1978, yet his was only the 11th briefest pontificate in history.
John XVIII was cardinal-priest of St. Peter's Basilica when elected to the papacy on Christmas Day 1003 (the Vatican's official list begins his pontificate in January 1004). None of his accomplishments as pope have had any lasting historical significance beyond certain locales.
Thus, he restored the diocese of Merseburg in Germany, which Pope Benedict VII had sup-pressed and divided at the request of Emperor Otto II, and John XVIII also approved the establishment of the diocese of Bamberg in Bavaria.
He summoned the bishops of Sens and Orleans to Rome under pain of excommunication because of their threats to the papal privileges granted to the abbey of Fleury.
There is some evidence that relations between Rome and Constantinople improved during John XVIII's pontificate, probably because of the pro-Byzantine sympathies of the Crescentii family. The pope's name was restored to the list of those to be prayed for at Mass in Constantinople.
However, the thaw was relatively brief. Less than 50 years later, the formal schism between East and West began, and remains in effect to this day.
John XVIII was probably forced to resign in late June or early July, 1009 -- almost exactly one thousand years ago.
His successor was Sergius IV who, because his baptismal name was Peter, changed it upon election. Taking a new papal name was still not the custom.
Alas, Sergius IV was murdered.
© 2009 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
father mcbrien is correct,
father mcbrien is correct, the papacy thought history is a truly facinating subject. there have been some colorfull, and some very scandelous, pages in that history book. who can forget the "cadaver synod"
as far as resigning, we almost saw that during wwii. pius xii had plans setup should the nazis kidnap him and force him to berlin. basically, if i remember correctly, the instructions he gave detailed that should he be siezed and carried off, his resignation would be in effect at once, and the election could take place for a new pontiff. i think the instructions even specified that the election should take place in portugal as well in order to prevent the nazis from trying to stop them.
Refunds Please. Then perhaps
Refunds Please.
Then perhaps the students and families of Notre Dame ought to ask for refunds.
Those who do not know history
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it...or worse.
The most interesting
The most interesting theological specialty isn't moral, or dogma, or even Scrpiture. It's church history. Because only church history is able to show that the absolutism much of the contemporary church finds so comfortable is, in fact, a man-made creation of rather recent vintage.
If by absolutism you are
If by absolutism you are referring to the more recent Popes call for holy obedience to Church teaching this is neither new nor man made but Christ's promise fulfilled 'the gates of heel will not prevail against her"
Our Jesuit educated father and one of my dedicated enthusiatic history teaching nuns gave me ample insight into the human frailty and quirky history of the encumbants of the chair of Peter. My father said knowledge of the lives of the pontiffs helped confirm his belief in the magisterium because any other institution would have disappeared thanks to the weakness and abuses that have bedevilled the Church at different times!
No what has kept the Church alive is the Holy Spirit guiding Her all we need do is keep our eyes on Christ and trust Holy Mother Church.
Father McBrien Thanks for the
Father McBrien
Thanks for the excellent review of 1000 years ago. Rome does what it has to do to survive. Women priests, married priests, gay priests (open)--they'll come along if Rome looks to its chances. Nothing is beyond Rome--even murder.
Where can I secure a
Where can I secure a well-written, truthful history of the papacy?
The finest source and
The finest source and reference regarding our Papacy and her history comes from this same and Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien in his Lives of the Popes. No reference work can surpass Father McBrien's major scholarly production and you will discover it both delightfully well-written and historically truthful without unnecessary flourishes of hagiography nor unacademic condemnations.
I highly recommend the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien's work on the Popes, and encourage you to find a copy soon!
your poorest servant
Frère Charles du Désert OSB Oblat (Subiaco Congregation)
THE EARLY PAPACY TO THE SYNOD
THE EARLY PAPACY TO THE SYNOD OF CHALCEDON IN 451
Written by Fr. Adrian Fortescue. Fr. Forescue;POPE FICTION
by Patrick Madrid; THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE PAPACY
Author, lawyer, and noted Catholic apologist John Salza and THE POPE CHART
This is a chart of the 265 popes, with small cameo pictures of each Pope and a short biography.
So, as fascinating as this
So, as fascinating as this may be, what is the point Fr. McBrien is trying to make? Is it that a pope is always elected for life -- "once a pope, always a pope"? If that is the point, it is one conceded and understood by anyone who is a student of the papacy. Although, it is telling that, of 264 successors of St. Peter, it seems only seven (Pontian, Marcellinus, Silverius, John XVIII, Benedict IX, Celestine V, and Gregory XII, and not counting popes who have been deposed and those who were antipopes) have resigned or abdicated.
The current Code of Canon Law, canon 322.2, allows for the resignation or abdication of the pope. It stipulates only that such a resignation be "freely made and properly witnessed". Of course, questions arise, such as who would accept a papal resignation (after all, the pope answers only to God Himself); to whom should such a resignation be addressed; what would a former pope do, would he retire to a monastery, or, in the case of Benedict XVI, retire to the life he had so often begged John Paul to allow him, a quiet house in Bavaria with his brother Georg? What of the authority of the Pope, does it belong to the office or to the man elected to hold that office? (Obviously, the authority belongs to the office, but it is not hard to imagine individuals on either the far right or far left using a retired pope's name or comments to undermine his successor.)
It was clear that John Paul II believed that he was a spiritual father to the faithful, and, just as the father of a family cannot resign his duties and responsibilities as the father of his children, neither should spiritual fatherhood be resigned (which seems to argue against mandatory retirement for bishops, but that is another story {though John Paul often did not accept resignations for a while after they were delivered, preferring to allow bishops in good health and who desired it, to remain in their dioceses for a while longer}). John Paul also believed, as he himself said on occasion, that God had chosen him as pope, and it was up to God to decide when his job was done.
The resignation and/or abdication of a pope raises serious questions about the nature of papal authority and the role of the pope. Certainly, canon law provides for the possibility that a pontiff would, for whatever reason, desire or need to abdicate, but the idea that this should be a common circumstance presents the Church with profound problems, problems, that, thanks be to God, the Church has to face only VERY rarely.
my dear brother Clint, Do you
my dear brother Clint,
Do you recall at all some forty years ago or less any discussion of a mandatory retirement age for bishops, and the discussion by extension of a retirement age for Popes, and some Faithful waiting to see what the seated Pope might do?
As an aside kindly permit me to request you use the proper canonical titles. Although it might seem cute to you to presume to say "John Paul" one wonders what about Ringo, and even poor George, when you speak thusly. You deign to describe John Paul as the II upon one occasion, which certainly clears up the confusion to a slight degree. One also must wonder whether such disrespect implies an infraction of Canon Law. I only write this to advise.
your poorest servant
Frère Charles du Désert OSB Oblat (Subiaco Congregation)
Frere Charles...you are
Frere Charles...you are terrific! I so look forward to your comments here!
Your devoted fan (and fan of the Beatles, naturally!)
Lena
As always, I apprecitate your
As always, I apprecitate your comments. Yet, I have to say that, generally, I do not use titles. For me it is not the issue of disrespect as it is for you. I just see life, my faith and my brothers and sisters on a more horizontal axis and this is my way of expressing that. Just another view.
I don't think your John &
I don't think your John & Mary Catholic know how engineered many (or all?) papal elections are. We would be on par with what's going on in Iran. So before people ascribe characteristics such as "holy" on a man b/c of his position (pope), remember that politics is involved in getting said man elected.
What is even more distubing
What is even more distubing is that politics are involved in cannonization. Sometimes it is a struggle to love a church with so many weaknessess, but if God can love me with all of mine then I guess I will continue to love my flawed church.
There is one lobbyist present
There is one lobbyist present you fail to mention and that is the Holy Spirit
What are you saying, Richard?
What are you saying, Richard? That Rowan Williams should be pope?
I had difficulty discovering
I had difficulty discovering to whom you refer as Richard, until reading fully the name of our Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien?
You also suggest the equally untitled Rowan Williams as Pope of the ROMan Catholic Church? I suppose it might be better than Roawn Atkinson, although watching Mr. Bean walk in those robes would be a liturgy to remember . . .
your poorest servant
Frère Charles du Désert OSB Oblat (Subiaco Congregation)
Fascinating. Fr. McBrien
Fascinating. Fr. McBrien puts the papacy into historical perspective. I wish we parishioners would get this information from our pastors. However, they are too busy sucking up to the wealthy members. Hm.... just like back in those years...
If you think THIS information
If you think THIS information was interesting, get the full "splendid" picture by reading "Saints and Sinnder: a Hitory of the Papacy" by Eamon Duffy.
If anyone really thinks that the Holy Spirit actually guides the selection of the popes, this book will disabuse you of that nonsense by the time you are finished reading it.
Dear Jim, Along with reading
Dear Jim,
Along with reading your recommended work, entitled, as you put it:'"Saints and Sinnder: a Hitory of the Papacy" by Eamon Duffy' I highly ercommend those wanting a truly academic and objective and comprehensive (as far as the verifiable historical record allows) reference work by our same and Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien: The Lives of the Popes.
your poorest servant on Sinnder's list . . .
Frère Charles du Désert OSB Oblat (Subiaco Congregation)
THE EARLY PAPACY TO THE SYNOD
THE EARLY PAPACY TO THE SYNOD OF CHALCEDON IN 451
Written by Fr. Adrian Fortescue;
POPE FICTION by Patrick Madrid;
THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE PAPACY by author, lawyer, and noted Catholic apologist John Salza and
the POPE CHART
This is a chart of the 265 popes, with small cameo pictures of each Pope and a short biography.
That truly was a golden age,
That truly was a golden age, when, as you have argued for in this column previously, the laity was in charge of the Church. If only we could go back to simony and the subordination of the papacy to the interests of the wealthy. At least then the Church would allow condoms.
i find it sad that a simple
i find it sad that a simple look at history can cause so much anger and resentment of the office of the pope to bubble to the surface here.
i think there's a lot of profound misunderstanding, unhappiness and hatred out there.
what you all seem to miss is that even in the worst of times, error was never taught in the church by the holy father, which itself is AMAZING and for that we owe all our thanks to the holy spirit. think of that! for 2000 years, false doctrine was never taught as truth by the holy fathers.
Richard McBrien, in addition
Richard McBrien, in addition to Eamon Duffy, has an excellent history of the papacy, LIVES OF THE POPES.
One, recent, pope who surely
One, recent, pope who surely should have abdicated is Karol Wojtila, aka Pope John Paul II, whose immense vanity and sense of indispensability led him to hang on miserably to the papacy to the point of sheer incompentency and total incapability.
Pete the greek, I may not
Pete the greek, I may not know much, but I know the Catholic Church at it's highest levels promoted slavery even after the faithful had accepted that it was sinful. So how is that AMAZING?
here are some good sources
here are some good sources for the issue of the church and slavery for you:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0007.html
Advice to Pete the
Advice to Pete the greek:
C'mon! We know Pope Honorius I was declared heretical by a Council of the Church for his teaching on the nature of the Christ, a very significant matter.
Of course Holy Fathers have made mistakes, or councils have, probably both. That's why the coonditions for infallibility are so carefully circumscribed.
I know the Honorius business can be explained by a careful reading of the context, and that his declared heresy was known to the Council Fathers at the time of Vatican I when they established the doctrine of papal infallibility.
I also know that the old Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledged the Honorius problem. There is no official deceit in play.
But trumpeting nonsense does not help anybody's cause, nor enlighten others. So let's not make history less complex, our beliefs more simple-minded, or the knee jerk appeals to authority more absolutist than the facts and prudence will bear.
And let's stay cheerful and non accusatory even--yea, even especially-- when we may ourselves be in the dark.
ah, but you see, history IS
ah, but you see, history IS complex. the issue of honorius and sergius the monothelite and the 'one will' statement is a little different than you are putting forward.
a look at honorius exct words shows that while he did use a formula, 'one will', that was later declared heretical, he used it in a sense that implied the orthodox belief.
as early as 640 john iv, honorius successor, who pointed out that sergius had asked only about the presence of two opposing wills. honorius had answered accordingly, speaking, says pope john, 'only of the human and not also of the divine nature.' john was right. honorius assumed the existence of a human will in christ by saying that his nature is like humanity's before the fall. no one would claim that before the fall adam had no will. so honorius talking of christ's assumption of a 'faultless' human nature shows that he really did believe in the orthodxo formula of two wills in christ: one divine, one human, in perfect union.
the third council of constantinople (which you are refering to) was in error when it condemned honorius for heresy. but a council, of course, has no authority except as its decrees are confirmed by the pope. the reigning pope, leo ii, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said honorius should be condemned because 'he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.'
that is a HUGE distinction. honorius really should have known the implications of using the 'one will' formula in his letter to sergius. he could have found out by writing a letter to sophronius of jerusalem. honorius was not heretic.
As for your other statements:
"Holy Fathers have made mistakes"
of COURSE they have. no one can claim that the holy father is incapable of committing sin. he, afterall, has his own confessor!!
"or councils have"
see my above paragraphs
"I know the Honorius business can be explained by a careful reading of the context"
no, the honorius business can be explained by a careful reading of the facts.
thanks for offering advice, but i think ill take my advice from people a little more well read on the issues.
Popes have made serious
Popes have made serious errors over the years.
The popes who introduced and maintained Limbo and no consecrated burials for unbaptised babies were wrong, in error as Benedict XVI has recently ended that vile mistreatment of the most innocent of all, Many millstones around their necks as Jesus says they have harmed the children.
Slavery was upheld even in 1800's by one of the popes will Pius in his name, long past the world keeping slaves he was still writing it was okay for priests, bishops, popes to have slaves.
Simony and other corruptions, instigated by popes,
Banning women and nuns from attending universities from 1200 onwards was an evil act instigated by popes. Mistreatment of Galileo, instigated by pope, and his scientific errors about the solar system are the pope's error.
Inquisition torture, execution, trials instigated and carried out by popes including on the ST. Joan of Arc. Big error by pope, she was later vindicated and made a saint. St. Francis of Assisi and numerous other saints were abused by popes, and later made saints, many errors by popes.
paulette, that there have
paulette,
that there have been terrible sinners that have sat on the throne of peter is a terrible truth. you've touched on some things in your post, but there are many more: a pope or two having a practical harem of women, starting unjust wars, etc...
you are mistaken on a few things:
limbo: this was speculation. it isn't and was never part of church doctrine.
i also recommend you read more about slavery. i posted some links in another post, but here is another that might help you: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0050.html
galileo: this was, in the end, a matter of politics. was the pope wrong to do what he did? yes, nobody denies that. considering that galileo was at first paid by the church to teach the heliocentric theory in church schools, i think the issue is a little more complicated than you think. I recommend you read more on it.
regarding st. joan, you're history is false. the pope never condemed her. here is her history: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm
it is long, but it is well worth the read.
btw, none of what you bring up touches on papal infallibility, although im not sure thats what you were trying to do.
It's fine to SAY that limbo
It's fine to SAY that limbo was never a part of church doctrine - i.e. "defined" doctrine - but nonetheless it positively WAS TAUGHT AS church doctrine for generations from the pulpit and in Catholic schools and classes on Catholic doctrine. It does nothing to console parents who were taught to believe that their little one would never be able to be with God, and themselves, in heaven to tell them now that that never was a part of church doctrine.
Dear FR. McBrien, The
Dear FR. McBrien, The papacies of 1000 years ago have no bearing on the present Church and thus should not be re-iterated. What value to talk about many men's weaknesses?? We all know that mankind is prone to evil and sin will continue because SATAN roams the earth spreading his errors!! Let us speak of all that good men and women do and have done. This spreading of the good news is far more positive then rehashing lives of the evil!!
Margot Wasson has a totally
Margot Wasson has a totally valid point. I observed exactly what she mentioned about 3 years ago.
I was getting actual shock-waves from it. I was saying to myself, "Oh my gosh, this is really favoritism. I just can't believe it. I see a Catholic Pastor favoring a wealthy parishioner over a poor, defenseless DV victim wife; who really needs pastoral advocacy, right now! And who is being snubbed, no SHUNNED right in front of my eyes!"
To give relief to faithful American priests reading this: The priest was trained in Mexico, but serving in the United States. I had already observed in discussions with him, that he had ZERO knowledge of Alcoholic Family Systems, and domestic violence. And that as devout as Hispanics have a reputation for being; this priest was not well trained for real ministry needs. He was courting favor from the wealthiest woman in the parish, because he was funding a new parish building (bit of an ego trip, before his trip to Rome). Meanwhile I witnessed other defenseless poor in his parish, falling through the cracks while he was Pastor.
I would have gone in to argue with him. But he truly was a male chauvinist. He never would have listened to a nonwealthy woman. My assessment was right-on because later he begged to be transferred over a serious issue that he could not handle. (And the problem was not young inexperience either, he was 40-something.) Why was he not screened and in depth trained in the seminary in Mexico? What is going on in Catholic seminaries anyway?
All these inadequacies have repercussions that move right up to the next levels: Bishop, Archbishop, and all the way to the top.
Education, education, education, and less breezy-easy ancient philosophy; more honest, painful, and practical--do your issues with your alcoholic Dad, Padre, 12 Step. (Al-Anon, Recovery's best kept secret.)
Wonderful discussion folks about weighty matters.
All these lurid details and
All these lurid details and still the Spirit renewed and renews the face of the earth
Peter, Why are you so angry
Peter,
Why are you so angry and condemning?
Ordinarily when we talk about context we have facts in mind. When I said that the Honorius problem could be understood in context, I was not suggesting that the facts of that context were somehow irrelevant or to be avoided. Why would you think such a thing? You and I do not disagree about Honorius--but he did speak a mistakenly on a fundamental matter of faith and morals. The question of whether he was also a sinner is a red herring. He did teach heresy. That's ok, Honorius is in good company: Augustine occasionally did too.
My further reading of Honorius' case is that his statements on this matter were not addressed to the whole church and in delivering them he made no claim to be delivering infallibly a de fide pronouncement underpinned by his authority as successor to St Peter as Bishop of Rome. So the doctrine of infallibility does not apply. A pope can express his opinion on a question without it immediately becoming part of the deposit of faith. And a Holy Father can answer a question with an opinion that in the course of discussion others, or n the course of his own ruminations, he can come to recognize he made a mistake and issued a faulty statement. Honorius apparently did not live so long. All this was argued out at the time of Vatican I.
My point is not to condemn Honorius, poor fellow. He received enough of that when they disinterred his remains and carried them contemptuously through Rome. My point is that exaggerating the spotless history of Roman Pontiffs, even on fundamental matters of faith, does not serve anyone's interests who wishes to inform rather than browbeat. And because it leads to claims that cannot be sustained it gives scandal and undermines the faith of those who may be wavering. That is why i was urging restraint about the claime you make. I agree that the freedom from error in definitive statements over the centuries can only be credited to the Holy Spirit. And the survivla of the Church despite the corruption of some of its leaders over time is also little short of miraculous. But we will not enjoy the wonder if we do not accept and exxamine the problems. Again. you and I are in agreement: history is complex and had best be understood in its complexity not reduced to slogans.
To say that Honrius did use unorthodox language but really used in in a way that implies orthodox belief is ineffable twaddle. Honorius was wrong. It's okay to accept that.
I have not claimed he was sinful nor can I demonstrate that he was not. What I know is that he was mistaken, and that the doctrine of Papal infallibility is stronger because the Council Fathers took care to define the issue in a way that would not be undercut by the history of Honorius. The church's position is the stronger for their having done so.
And, it must be noted,the church's position is seriously undermined by her friends who wish make larger claims on her behalf than she has made or would make for herself.
And I find it difficult to carry on discussions on such important matters when one's interlocuters misreport what has been said and try to poison the wellsprings of discussion with attributions of ignorance or worse.
So, finally, I must note that it is difficult for me to separate you from the anger etc. that you rightly condemn. Let me end where I began:
C'mon,Pete, relax. Remember Paul went to Rome to confront Peter to his face on Petrine doctrine. And converted him to a Pauline one. Such conversation was a strength of the early church, not a fault. And Peter was convinced by a man who was suspect both as a persecutor of the Church and one distressed about Petrine doctrine. The Spirit in that case presumably worked through them both. They and the church were stronger for it.
I do not mind if you find better informed sources of information than mine. But however we proceed, let's keep to real issues as did Peter and Paul and work our way honestly and without rancor through the complexities we find.
All the best,
Jim
jim angry? hardly. i simply
jim
angry? hardly. i simply laid out the facts of the honorius case. i dont see how anything i said could be considered to be in anger... but perhaps thats part of the problem with posting on the internet: theres really no way to determine for sure the attitude of the poster.
"My point is that exaggerating the spotless history of Roman Pontiffs"
i was not exagerating history. my point was that it was amazing that over the 2000 year history of the church, the pontifs did not teach false doctrine as truth for the church, in spite of macrabe acts like the 'cadaver synod' and yes, even honorius, and how we must always thank the holy spirit for that wonderful gift.
"So the doctrine of infallibility does not apply. A pope can express his opinion on a question without it immediately becoming part of the deposit of faith."
you are correct. in fact the entire issue exploded further than it normally would have because the monophysites siezed upon honorius' statement as a validation for their teachings, which it was not intended to be.
"Honorius was wrong. It's okay to accept that."
that he was in the wrong is not open to debate. you are correct on that. my point is what he was wrong about. pope leo, his successor, makes the point, as do reading of the facts later.
leo ii was in agreement with the condemnation of honorius on the grounds of neglect, as i said, and therefore did not count his predecesssor among the inventors/pusher of the hersy. he wrote that 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 'leonis ii ad. constantinum. imp). basically, honorius had failed to teach and so had permitted, not caused, not joined in causing, the profane teaching of sergius and the rest to spread. leo viewed honorius's fault as one of neglect and inaction that was not befiting his apostolic office.
as quoted in the catholic encyclopedia, leo stated that honorius didn't "as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence". clearly, he didnt consider him to be heretical.
since honorius had 'aided' in the spread of heresy by not using his office to push against it, he could be considered a 'heretic' in the secondary sense of the word. a good rundown of this can be seen in the book "Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and History". my point is that honorius was not a monophysite, nor did he intend to preach the monophysite 'doctrine', as some (not saying you) claim.
i was not raising sin as a red herring. i was agreeing with what i thought was your statement that the pope can make a mistake, ie sin. i debate this issue with a lot of protestants and many times they still confuse infallibility with impeccibility, which i was (by reflex perhaps, since this is really the only 'catholic' forum i post in) trying to make clear.
about paul confronting peter, are you refering to the incident at antioch as described in galatians?
The refusal by popes to bury
The refusal by popes to bury babies in the church ground and to give them Catholic funerals CERTAINLY was Papal policy and Papal error.
Pete the Greek You do anything to try to keep up the pretense of infallibility of popes and pretend no doctrinal errors are made, yet Popes made plenty of grave (not trying for a pun here) and severe errors. Many errors. Either that is intellectual blindness on your part or direct deceit.
No I do not agree either with that new idea, started in 1800's of papal infallibility. Jesus corrected his mistakes too and never claimed to be infallible . He started out saying he would never minister to Gentiles, yet due to Cananite woman pleading for her child, he changed this from just the children of Israel to gentiles too and then entered Samaria later though at first he told the apostles he never would.
No one but God is infallible and Jesus is fully divine too. He is humble, he called himself a humble servant of us and God. It is not humble to declare oneself infallible like popes recently do. And it is not tradition, it is new, started in 1800's. Please do not distort reality and truth to prop up your wish that the church and popes """"never"" err.
I was always under the
I was always under the impression that infallibility referred to matters of faith and morals not to mistakes or errors in judgment. How many centuries went by before it was defined and for what reason?
Here's an interesting
Here's an interesting question: why bother with an institution run by a bunch of old queens in long robes? You pay for someone to tell you to do something and then you decide, on the basis of reason, what the best thing to do is.
Why not save your money, time and self-respect and have nothing to do with these people? Why run twice as fast to get to the same place?
Brad If you have the time
Brad
If you have the time money and courage visit a town in France called Lourdes, go to the baths there and ask God to tell you why.
You have nothing to lose.Be adventurous.
History certainly is
History certainly is revealing. What strikes me the most is that the pope did not even show up for some of the great ecumenical councils, such as Nicea. Biggest shindig in 2,000 years and he doesn't show. I think that speaks volumes for the perceived importance of the pope at that time in history. To think that the office of pope holds any kind of notion of infallability is a bit silly when you consider these sorts of things.
Post new comment