Honorius, de Mattei, "Magisterial Heresy" and the Rule of Faith

[christusimperat]

Latest instalment of this series:

Infallibility is often discussed as if it were a tool whose owner can choose when to use it, provided he fulfils certain ritualised conditions. This idea can be pushed too far by a lack of understanding of final causes, or purposefulness. This can reduce infallibility to a sort of magical power.

According to this view, the "owner's" will and these ritualised conditions determine whether a teaching is infallibly true, or whether it can lead to spiritual shipwreck and damnation. It is incumbent on the individual Catholic to work out whether the infallibility tool has been used, and give or withhold his assent accordingly. This view is presently common in popular commentary as a way of explaining the crisis.

https://wmreview.co.uk/2021/09/17/honorius-de-mattei-iiia-rule-of-faith/

[Prayerful]

Fr Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma also demonstrated the impossibility of holding that Honorius was a heretic. This is a good series, but we must be careful not to over extend the bounds of infallibility in service of showing that Conciliarism is wholly wrong. There were instances of crusades proclaimed in Italy, usually in alliance with the Angevins against political enemies of the Pope. The idea would be to depose a Ghibelline lord in favour of a Guelf or maybe install a new king in Naples. This and similar political manoeuvring cannot be seen as serving any interests like upholding the Republic of St Peter, the Papal States, but instead personal concerns of Italian nobleman. If a Pope does something not in support of the Faith, it cannot be protected in any way. I'll continue to read it.

[Maximilian]

Fr Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma also demonstrated the impossibility of holding that Honorius was a heretic.

Honorius was a heretic. This is a defined Catholic dogma, and a fact of history. If Honorius was not a heretic, then neither was Arius or Nestorius or Pelagius.

[Prayerful]

Fr Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma also demonstrated the impossibility of holding that Honorius was a heretic.

Honorius was a heretic. This is a defined Catholic dogma, and a fact of history. If Honorius was not a heretic, then neither was Arius or Nestorius or Pelagius.

Ott and St Leo II says otherwise. Likening him to Arius, Nestorius or Pelagius is wildly exaggerated. Honorius failed to support truth clearly, expressed him himself unclearly in letter, but never sought to bind anyone to error or preach it like that terrible three. Supporting ambiguity in aid of peace is not the same as denying the divinity of Christ or diminishing the role of grace. It's absurd to say liken them. Please.

[Michael Wilson]

The key question:

Is it true that the magisterium can contain errors dangerous to faith and morals?

If so, then there should be evidence to support this affirmation from the teaching of the Dogmatic Manuals, Catechisms, Papal statements themselves; so what do these show us? According to the posted article together with the authorities that are cited, the response is in the negative. That is, the magisterium cannot contain errors that are harmful to the faith or lead to sin and perdition.
Here is Msgr. Van Noort cited in the article:
[47] Mgr G. Van Noort, 'Christ's Church', Dogmatic Theology II, Newman Press, Maryland 1957

Van Noort says: "[w]hat could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching?"[53] It is safe, because it "is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine," and it is living, by which it is always possible "to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies."[54]
Van Noort summarises elsewhere:
    The Church's preaching is the proximate rule of faith because all the faithful as such, be they uneducated or learned, can safely and directly determine the material object of their belief on the basis of that preaching and indeed they must. For precisely as believers, i.e., as far as regulating their belief is concerned, they can never be obliged to do research in Scripture and Tradition. For by granting the Church the gift of infallibility, God has seen to it that its preaching will never waver from the data of Scripture and Tradition in even the slightest detail.[55] (my emphasis)

[Stubborn]

The key question:

Is it true that the magisterium can contain errors dangerous to faith and morals?

If so, then there should be evidence to support this affirmation from the teaching of the Dogmatic Manuals, Catechisms, Papal statements themselves; so what do these show us? According to the posted article together with the authorities that are cited, the response is in the negative. That is, the magisterium cannot contain errors that are harmful to the faith or lead to sin and perdition.
Here is Msgr. Van Noort cited in the article:
[47] Mgr G. Van Noort, 'Christ's Church', Dogmatic Theology II, Newman Press, Maryland 1957

Van Noort says: "[w]hat could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching?"[53] It is safe, because it "is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine," and it is living, by which it is always possible "to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies."[54]
Van Noort summarises elsewhere:
    The Church's preaching is the proximate rule of faith because all the faithful as such, be they uneducated or learned, can safely and directly determine the material object of their belief on the basis of that preaching and indeed they must. For precisely as believers, i.e., as far as regulating their belief is concerned, they can never be obliged to do research in Scripture and Tradition. For by granting the Church the gift of infallibility, God has seen to it that its preaching will never waver from the data of Scripture and Tradition in even the slightest detail.[55] (my emphasis)

Van Noort beautifully explains it Michael, thanks for that quote.

Blessed Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter, explains what the Magisterium is, which, because of what it is, explains why it can never contain any error:

"...Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to [the Church's Magisterium, i.e.] all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith..."

[Prayerful]

Fr Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma also demonstrated the impossibility of holding that Honorius was a heretic.

Honorius was a heretic. This is a defined Catholic dogma, and a fact of history. If Honorius was not a heretic, then neither was Arius or Nestorius or Pelagius.

Ott and St Leo II says otherwise. Likening him to Arius, Nestorius or Pelagius is wildly exaggerated. Honorius failed to support truth clearly, expressed him himself unclearly in letter, but never sought to bind anyone to error or preach it like that terrible three. Supporting ambiguity in aid of peace is not the same as denying the divinity of Christ or diminishing the role of grace. It's absurd to say liken them. Please.

Fr Ott says: 'There is no doubt that Pope Honorius I (625-638) was personally orthodox. However, through his prohibition against speaking of two modes of operation he unwittingly favour the Monothelite error. The Sixth Council wrongly condemned him as a heretic. Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed his anathemisation but not for the reasons given by the Council. He did not reproach him with heresy, but with negligence in the suppression of the error. CF DH 563.'

I cannot any other position that can be reasonably taken by a Catholic informed on the matter.

I have my own copy, but Fundamentals is available online.

[Maximilian]

I cannot any other position that can be reasonably taken by a Catholic informed on the matter.

The only reasonable position that can be taken by an informed Catholic on the question of Honorius is the position that was:

1. Defined by an Ecumenical Council
2. Confirmed by numerous popes and Emperors
3. Repeated by subsequent councils
4. Included in the daily liturgical office for 1,000 years.

"Honorius, the heretic, one-time pope of Old Rome, anathema sit."

[Michael Wilson]

Max,
if the case was as you stated it, then Catholic Theologians in their manuals such as Ott and Catholic historians would not be able to argue the way they do.

[King Wenceslas]

"Honorius, the heretic, one-time pope of Old Rome, anathema sit."

Has a nice ring to it.

Sometime in the future we will see and hear (if things continue as they are):

"Francis, the heretic, one-time pope of Rome, anathema sit."

[christusimperat]

Max,
if the case was as you stated it, then Catholic Theologians in their manuals such as Ott and Catholic historians would not be able to argue the way they do.

Indeed Michael. And even more: what sort of Church would allow all these theologians to argue in that way and even praise and approve their works if they were so fundamentally wrong? Isn't that fundamentally negligent?

One saves one's view of the Honorius case at the expense of the Church. And all this to save Francis!

[Maximilian]

Catholic Theologians in their manuals such as Ott would not be able to argue the way they do.

Yes, good point. They cannot both be correct:

a. The facts of history
b. What is said by the manualists like Ott

If one is true, then the other must be false. It appears, therefore, that one is forced to choose which you prefer.

Personally, I choose "a" -- Reality.
Others, I realize, prefer to choose "b" -- Virtual Reality.

[Michael Wilson]

Max,
the facts of history and the Manualists are not contradicting each other; that is precisely the issue; you are the one who is insisting that they do. Catholic manualists and historians are there to help us understand exactly what the Church's position is on any given subject.

[Maximilian]

the facts of history and the Manualists are not contradicting each other; that is precisely the issue; you are the one who is insisting that they do.

You've seen the words of the Third Council of Constantinople dozens of times, since I've posted them here at least that many times. You're willing to look reality right in the face and spit in its eye.

Catholic manualists and historians are there to help us understand exactly what the Church's position is on any given subject.

Your sentence sounds so much like "1984." Manualists are here to explain away the uncomfortable truths of reality.

[nmoerbeek]

The key question:

Is it true that the magisterium can contain errors dangerous to faith and morals?

If so, then there should be evidence to support this affirmation from the teaching of the Dogmatic Manuals, Catechisms, Papal statements themselves; so what do these show us? According to the posted article together with the authorities that are cited, the response is in the negative. That is, the magisterium cannot contain errors that are harmful to the faith or lead to sin and perdition.
Here is Msgr. Van Noort cited in the article:
[47] Mgr G. Van Noort, 'Christ's Church', Dogmatic Theology II, Newman Press, Maryland 1957

Van Noort says: "[w]hat could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching?"[53] It is safe, because it "is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine," and it is living, by which it is always possible "to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies."[54]
Van Noort summarises elsewhere:
    The Church's preaching is the proximate rule of faith because all the faithful as such, be they uneducated or learned, can safely and directly determine the material object of their belief on the basis of that preaching and indeed they must. For precisely as believers, i.e., as far as regulating their belief is concerned, they can never be obliged to do research in Scripture and Tradition. For by granting the Church the gift of infallibility, God has seen to it that its preaching will never waver from the data of Scripture and Tradition in even the slightest detail.[55] (my emphasis)

Van Noort beautifully explains it Michael, thanks for that quote.

Blessed Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter, explains what the Magisterium is, which, because of what it is, explains why it can never contain any error:

"...Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to [the Church's Magisterium, i.e.] all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith..."

Tuas Libenter is a letter, not even an encyclical. While it holds greater weight coming from a Pope there are not very many weighty declarations from Councils or vehicles for Magistral teaching that repeat this idea of the universal consent of the Theologians.  In part it is an almost impossible claim to investigate.  Even if you could determine that Major Theological Schools had agreement in a certain place over a certain time, how are you going to investigate what Theologians where teaching in Lebanon, Poland or other places that also had major theological schools and are divided by language?

There was also never universal and constant consent among the theologians to the idea that the whole Church accepted Honorius as not a heretic. In another thread I pointed out that St. Frances de Sales, a Bishop and a Doctor of the Church, thought of him as a heretic.