Author Topic: St. Jerome  (Read 3958 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
St. Jerome
« on: Wed May 18, 2011 - 14:43:31 »
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but Your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the Rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane.

ST. JEROME (c. 374 - 379 AD) Letter to Bishop of Rome, Pope Damasus


How does the East take this piece of St. Jerome's letter? When I read it I thought that it was enough to stand against any schism that the primacy of Peter would cause but I would like to know how you guys take this quote.

Thanks in advance.

 ::reading::

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #1 on: Wed May 25, 2011 - 21:40:49 »
We take it as St Jerome meant it: he was standing in communion with the bishop of Rome.  So long as Rome remained orthodox.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #2 on: Wed May 25, 2011 - 22:25:35 »
Thanks CDHealy.

::tippinghat::

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #3 on: Wed May 25, 2011 - 22:57:57 »
We take it as St Jerome meant it: he was standing in communion with the bishop of Rome.  So long as Rome remained orthodox.

Not to be small here, but how can the chair of Peter become unorthodox?

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #4 on: Thu May 26, 2011 - 08:18:35 »
Easy: by departing from the orthodox Faith of the Church.

Pope Honorius I, condemned as a heretic by III Constantinople.

Of course "chair of Peter" is a metonym, since a chair is neither orthodox nor unorthodox.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #5 on: Thu May 26, 2011 - 08:34:38 »
Easy: by departing from the orthodox Faith of the Church.

Pope Honorius I, condemned as a heretic by III Constantinople.

Of course "chair of Peter" is a metonym, since a chair is neither orthodox nor unorthodox.

Pope Honorius never taught heresey as pope.

How can someone who abandons the Church and the chair of Peter be Orthodox?

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #6 on: Thu May 26, 2011 - 08:45:57 »

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #7 on: Thu May 26, 2011 - 09:11:27 »
He did.  See here:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/honorius-heresy.htm


I didn't read the link, but I've read the story before.  His heretical statement was not in a doctrinal statement.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #8 on: Thu May 26, 2011 - 09:27:20 »
Ah, yes, the refuge of juridicalism.

So, let's see . . . He "actively maintained the heresy in official papal letters written to Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople in reply to a formal consultation and to several other individuals"--but this was not in a doctrinal statement.

Well, an Ecumenical Council determined Honorius was a heretic.  In fact, another Pope, Leo II, in adding his approval to III Constantinople also condemned Honorius, stating "he 'endeavoured by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate faith of the Roman Church', not because of mere negligence (as some also lie)."

Further: "Two succeeding ecumenical councils ratified the sentence, Council II Nicea (787) and IV Constantinople (869-70). Popes approved both.  From the eighth to the eleventh century all new popes had to swear in their Papal Oath before assuming the office that they accepted that III Constantinople had authoritatively anathematised Honorius. This is found in the Liber Pontificalis and in the Liber Diurnus."

So, um, yeah, apparently THREE Ecumenical Councils didn't think the "his heretical statement was not in a doctrinal statement" a good enough defense.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #9 on: Thu May 26, 2011 - 09:33:58 »
Ah, yes, the refuge of juridicalism.

So, let's see . . . He "actively maintained the heresy in official papal letters written to Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople in reply to a formal consultation and to several other individuals"--but this was not in a doctrinal statement.

Well, an Ecumenical Council determined Honorius was a heretic.  In fact, another Pope, Leo II, in adding his approval to III Constantinople also condemned Honorius, stating "he 'endeavoured by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate faith of the Roman Church', not because of mere negligence (as some also lie)."

Further: "Two succeeding ecumenical councils ratified the sentence, Council II Nicea (787) and IV Constantinople (869-70). Popes approved both.  From the eighth to the eleventh century all new popes had to swear in their Papal Oath before assuming the office that they accepted that III Constantinople had authoritatively anathematised Honorius. This is found in the Liber Pontificalis and in the Liber Diurnus."

So, um, yeah, apparently THREE Ecumenical Councils didn't think the "his heretical statement was not in a doctrinal statement" a good enough defense.



You need a more comprehensive reading of the events:


The Pope, with no idea of Sergius' between-the-lines message, answered the Patriarch on the unthinkable subject of Christ's "opposition" to the Father. "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our (human) nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall." [Quoted in Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 5 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896; AMS Reprint, 1972), 29]. Since Christ's human will is "faultless," there can be no talk of opposing wills. (Christ hardly would have been faultless if he opposed his Father's will.)

Monothelites, as they grew in numbers and influence over the ensuing years, seized upon Honorius' confession of "one will of our Lord Jesus Christ" as confirmation that the Pope believed with them that Christ had no human will. Newman and other commentators have noted that Honorius' letters to Sergius are not doctrinal definitions ex cathedra; thus they are outside the scope of infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council.

That is true, but, even more to the point, a look at Honorius' exact 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.

This was picked up as early as 640 by Pope 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." Pope 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. Thus Honorius's speaking of Christ's assumption of a "faultless" human nature shows that he really did believe in the orthodox formula of two wills in Christ: one divine, one human, in perfect agreement.

The Third Council of Constantinople was thus in error when it condemned Honorius for heresy. But a Council, of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope. The reigning Pontiff, 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." [Carroll, 254]

This is a crucial distinction. Honorius probably should have known the implications of using the "one will" formula; he could have found out by writing a letter to Sophronius of Jerusalem. But he was no heretic.

The anti-papists got the wrong guy. It seems incredible that so many readers of Honorius's letters, from Patriarch Sergius to Hans Kng, see only what they want to see in Honorius's "one will" formula. We should thank God that this poor old pope saw fit to explain himself. Rarely outside of the homoousios/homoiousios controversy at the First Council of Nicaea has so much hinged on so few words.

Since this case seemed to be the best one the anti-infallibilists could turn to, I became an infallibilist, a Catholic with faith in the pope as the Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter. The Church will live beyond the trials of these days as it did those of Honorius's day. That bare fact may seem abstract and impenetrable in the convulsions of our age, yet it is our unshakable guarantee.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #10 on: Thu May 26, 2011 - 09:37:32 »
That's not what Leo said.

And you still have to account for TWO MORE Ecumenical Councils--both "ratified by popes."  And you have to account for the Papal Oath subsequent popes had to swear.

It just gets worse and worse for you.  Either admit that ONE pope was a heretic, or that scores more AND two Ecumenical Councils were in error.

Sorry, either way you cut it, you lose.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #11 on: Thu May 26, 2011 - 22:12:50 »
That's not what Leo said.

And you still have to account for TWO MORE Ecumenical Councils--both "ratified by popes."  And you have to account for the Papal Oath subsequent popes had to swear.

It just gets worse and worse for you.  Either admit that ONE pope was a heretic, or that scores more AND two Ecumenical Councils were in error.

Sorry, either way you cut it, you lose.


Inaccurate comments about a pope are not heresy.

You are grasping at straws here.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #12 on: Fri May 27, 2011 - 07:02:04 »
That's the best answer you can provide?  THREE Ecumenical Councils (and their respective "ratifying" Popes) and scores of Popes (by way of oath) have pronounced Honorius a heretic, and the best you can do is: "he was misquoted"?

Your problems run deep, my friend.  As I pointed out above, even if we somehow stipulate fuzziness about what Honorius said, the problem is many, many more popes and three Ecumenical Councils said he was a heretic.  You can't dig out of this hole.  If Honorius is a heretic due to his official comments in a dogmatic discussion, he cannot be infallible.  If Honorius isn't a heretic, then three Ecumenical Councils and scores of Popes cannot be infallible.  Or again, even if we stipulate that Honorius wasn't "speaking dogmatically" three Ecumenical Councils were, and on the basis of those anathemas, scores of popes took oaths stating that he was.  That's *very* official.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6264
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #13 on: Mon May 30, 2011 - 07:33:38 »
Is a proclamation of excommunication an infallible statement of a council?  I thought that councils infallibly defined ideas as heresy, not people as heretics.  After all, people can repent, ideas never change.

I can see how multiple councils could have infallibly declared the false doctrine of Christ only having one will as heresy, but unless the pope actually taught that, then he wasn't truly a heretic and he was wrongly excommunicated.  People have been wrongly excommunicated before, don't you agree?

Isn't the real question whether or not the pope was really proclaiming a heresy?  It seems that, in post-analysis he was not, and that his excommunication was really a mistake that would not violate the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium (because they make infallible declarations of matters of faith and morals, not on matters of excommunications).

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #14 on: Fri Jun 03, 2011 - 10:57:16 »
Since I Nicea, heretics have been anathematized by name (Arius, Nestorius, etc.).  While the possibility of repentance exists for any person, three Councils and a succession of Popes who took the oath, did not think Honorius had repented.

The problem with trying to insert the possibility that a Council made an error (from the viewpoint of preserving papal infallibility against the problems Honorius' heresy brings to the issue), is that you had three Popes ratifying the three Councils that condemned (or ratified the condemnation) of Honorius as a heretic.  This simply multiplies the error and does great damage to the notion of papal infallibility.

Yes, the issue is: was Honorius espousing heresy?  Three Councils, with their three ratifying popes, and the succession of popes who took an oath before God condemning one of their own for heresy have answered definitively that he did.

If in post-analysis it appears that Honorius didn't, you would have to begin that post-analysis in roughly the late nineteenth century when the dogma of papal infallibility was promulgated.  Prior to the late nineteenth century all the post-analysis of authoritative sources had Honorius as a heretic.

Further, the matter of Honorius' anathematization is precisely the subject of faith and morals, so attempting to parse out what does and doesn't count under the rubric of infallibility doesn't help here.  No matter how you slice it, all the authoritative voices with all the authoritative channels at their disposal concluded that Honorius taught heresy and needed to be anathematized.

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
Re: St. Jerome
« Reply #15 on: Thu Jul 28, 2011 - 15:32:51 »
Quote
Is a proclamation of excommunication an infallible statement of a council?  I thought that councils infallibly defined ideas as heresy, not people as heretics.  After all, people can repent, ideas never change.

Catholica,

I have seen you and other Catholics call other catholics as "heretics." Remember we argued about this and you defended your opinion over and over that Gary Wills was a heretic, relying on the opinion of others and not doing your own research.  You seem to think you can do it for whatever reasons you have but you say a council cannot? This makes no sense to me. What puts you above a council? Peace, JohnR