Mike, I truly admire and appreciate your committment to the Papacy. That authority always trumps everything is what bothers me; what if someone is wrong? And how will we know, given that so many are de facto in communion with the Bishop of Rome, who nonetheless openly and continuously reject the teachings of the Magisterium? (take women priests, for example?)
Your position places no faith on the organic linkage between the sense of the faithful and the Magisterium - perhaps because in modern Catholicism, you can't because of the many contradictions between the formal teachings of the Magisterium, and so many of the bishops, priests and laity in communion with each other, and the Bishop of Rome???
Bravo Michael! I was going to say something very similar in the combox to what you have written here, but I know I couldn't have written it as eloquently and clearly as you have.
Just thought I'd add a few points. In his list of heresies and heretics, St. Vincent does list Nestorius. This would seem to indicate that he was probably aware of the decrees of the Council of Ephesus. Given this, it seems to me a good possibility that when he refers to a small part of the Church cutting itself off from the communion of the universal Faith, he may have the followers of Nestorius in mind. Nevertheless, the question of whether or not Nestorian belief is in accord with what was believed "always, everywhere, and by all" is not even considered by him. This is further evidence that St. Vincent never intended his rules for discerning the Catholic faith as a means of determining the locus of the true Church. This was already assumed.
If one is looking for a writer in the first millenium who was interested in the question of discerning the true Church among the various Christian factions and diverse religions, I would recommend reading the works of Theodore Abu Qurrah, 9th century Bishop of the city of Haran (located in modern-day Turkey). In his view, the ecumenical character of a council is guaranteed by the confirmation of the successors of St. Peter, whom he identifies with the bishops of Rome.
Good post, professor.
Ever since your blog entry on Fr. Behr I've been exploring the issue of development on my blog. Today seems to be a day for important finds in discernment. First I was referred to Chadwick's work, From Bousset to Newman, which, as you probably already know, deals with the rise of the concept of development in Christian thinking. And now you have given me this very relevant post on the Vincentian Canon.
I must say, professor, I have used the VC against the development of doctrine. In fact, I have done so quite recently on my blog (A Partial Confession of a Wounded Catholic). I said that the development of doctrine could not stand the test of the VC, thus making it a theological novum.
I do have a question about your post. Would it be safe to say that St. Vincent would not have needed to set forth his canon had there been a universal catechism?
Kepha:
I must say, professor, I have used the VC against the development of doctrine.
You've got to be joking here!?
Wasn't it Vincent of Lerins who in fact stated thus:
"But some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.
The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same....This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.
In like manner, it behoves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits....
Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God’s Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection.
For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties."
Yes, but Newman's theory is different. If not, then why is he credited with being the main proponent? Why then was there a shift from the Two-Source Theory to his theory? Why has Owen Chadwick written a book (From Bossuet to Newman)on that very subject??
e,
Indeed, that passage from Vincent Lerins is the root of which Newman's understanding of development is the flower. The entire intro to the Essay On Development is a meditation on the VC. I conjecture that one of the chief reasons for the Catholic reticence in accepting Newman's theory right away is not so much that it was a novel theory but that Newman's relationship to the Catholic Church itself was novel. Not being a Roman Catholic, he had no way of getting at the Roman self-understanding from the inside. He came from without, and his prior intellectual position necessitated that the conversion process begin discursively, an analysis of the claims of Rome from the standpoint of an alien to the Church, not as one of her sons. That Newman's approach would be in a sense novel was necessary, since the historical situation itself was novel. Nevertheless, the consciousness formed in Newman by his meditation on the principles of the VC seem to me to be the touchstone and fountainhead of his thinking. How is a man 1400+ years removed from Vincent to make sense of Vincent's rule? ISTM that if Vincent had been alive in 1845, he would have proceeded discursively in the manner of Newman.
Kepha:
Why then was there a shift from the Two-Source Theory to his theory?
What shift?
These so-called 'developments' are but a more 'ripened' understanding of that seed which was planted by Christ and, henceforth, 'cultivated and taken care of' (i.e., fostered and guarded) by the Church.
For instance, if I were to tell you that Christ had 2 natures: divine and human; and that, as a result of having 2 natures in his person, he had 2 intellects and 2 wills; would you, then, have me declared as guilty of heresy?
After all, where in Scripture has such fundamental aspects of Christology been explicitly detailed?
You see, the problem here is not Vincent's understanding of 'development' but your own; since it is yours which places 'development' in such a perjorative and even heretical perspective.
Why has Owen Chadwick written a book (From Bossuet to Newman)on that very subject??
What of Chadwick?
Heck, there are folks who have written books that the Catholic Church is the infamous Whore of Babylon and that the Pope is the Anti-Christ; however, do the very existence of such publications themselves prove that this is indeed the case?
What various authors have decided to write (and what has been written, for that matter, by them) do not and cannot change what is Truth.
e, you wrote:
What of Chadwick?
Heck, there are folks who have written books that the Catholic Church is the infamous Whore of Babylon and that the Pope is the Anti-Christ; however, do the very existence of such publications themselves prove that this is indeed the case?
What various authors have decided to write (and what has been written, for that matter, by them) do not and cannot change what is Truth.
You obviously have no idea who or what you're talking about. Thanks for the info., tho'.
For your information, Chadwick is amongst the many authors in my personal library.
I was merely taking advantage of an exagerration to make a point.
Though I noticed you (conveniently) overlooked y point about 'development'.
Correction: It was Henry Chadwick whose books I have, not Owen Chadwick.
e., my apologies. I in fact did miss your point. I was just a little frustrated becaue I thought you were being rude.
As for the issue of development, it is clear that the development hypothesis has not always been the dominant one. As I've already implied, the Two-Source Theory was at one time in the place that Newman's theory is now in. (I highly recommend Br. Gabriel Moran's very short work on this issue, Scripture and Tradition. The book is simply a summary and analysis of the two competing views of Tradition (partim-partim and material sufficiency) within the Catholic Church during the 20th century.)
Thanks, e., for that quotation from Vincent. Another neat passage mentioned by one of my professors (Kepha knows who) is from Gregory Nazianzen:
The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun's light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory, the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated. (Orations, 31.26)
For the context, see: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/
...7.iii.xvii.html
The words above can be taken in a very Newman-esque way, though I am not sure how accurate such an interpretation would be. Any way, they are interesting for discussion on this topic.
You can use the Vincentian Canon in an ex post facto way: "This is what the Church teaches, therefore it must be what it has always taught, though this was not in evidence at the time." Infallibility, equally, functions in an ex post facto way. We cannot doubt, now, the teachings of Nicea and Chalcedon, therefore they were and are infallible, even though this was not evident at the time and could not have been guaranteed on the eve of those Councils."
I would like to post here an answer to Al Kimel, who repeats the canard that Vatican II was not a doctrinal council but merely a pastoral one: "I am amazed that anyone can interpret Vatican II as authorizing the kind of destructive theologies that we have seen since the council."
The theologies of Kung, Congar, Schillebeeckx, Rahner are largely the theology that came to the fore at the Council itself."
" It wasn't even a dogmatic council! "
It produced two dogmatic constitutions, Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium, and what Paul VI called the "doctrinal riches of the Council" are evident in all its texts and in the process of growing awareness of the riches of Christian truth that underlie them.
"The council fathers certainly did not undertand themselves as radically departing from the authentic dogmatic Tradition of the Church."
Of course not, but they DID see themselves as attaining a fuller vision of truth on the basis of rediscovery of scriptural and patristic perspective and on the basis of reading the signs of the times, in the optimistic light urged by John XXIII.
" Indeed, they thought they were recovering the fullness of that Tradition."
Absolutely. And the restoration of the TLM is a step back from that fullness, therefore it is step toward heresy.
" I am confident that to a man they would be horrified by the kind of theology espoused by O'Leary in the name of the council. "
Well, Al Kimel, I wonder if you know anything about my theology?
Father O'Leary, why in the world have you chosen this thread on Michael Liccione's blog to respond to an offhand comment I posted somewhere a long time ago (2 years? 3 years? 4 years? 5 years?) I neither recall what I wrote or even if I wrote what you say I wrote nor what the context was. Nor do I recall where I supposedly posted the alleged comment. But one thing I do know: whatever I may have written, it wasn't important or substantive or innovative enough to warrant you stewing about it for such a long time.
It is beyond bizarre that you should now choose to post this out-of-the-blue "rejoinder."
You ask if I know anything about your theology. Well, I read a couple of your pieces a few years ago and haven't thought about you since. You seem to be an educated guy who long ago moved into a post-Christian phase; hence your theological reflections and arguments have absolutely no interest for me.
Stephen:
Mike, I truly admire and appreciate your committment to the Papacy.
It’s nice to know that a non-Catholic admires my being a papist. I can only wish more Catholics did. 
That authority always trumps everything is what bothers me; what if someone is wrong? And how will we know, given that so many are de facto in communion with the Bishop of Rome, who nonetheless openly and continuously reject the teachings of the Magisterium? (take women priests, for example?)
Well, to be in full communion with Rome means, among other things, believing that when the Pope, “acting as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine to be believed by the whole Church,” he is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching what is false. A Catholic who does not believe that is, de facto, not in full communion with Rome and therefore is Catholic in name only. A lot of Catholics are in that position. But that sort of problem is by no means a purely contemporary phenomenon. And it is not peculiar to the dogma of papal infallibility.
In the 4th century, a lot of people who were formally in full communion with Rome were de facto Arians, and therefore not materially in communion with Rome. During the Marcionite controversy of the 120s, many members of the Church of Rome followed Marcion’s heresy and were not formally excommunicated until some time during the 130s. Forty years later, St. Irenaeus faced a similar tares-among-the-wheat problem with the Valentinians in Lyons.
Today, as we both know, many conservative Protestants and Orthodox decry Rome’s willingness to tolerate heretical tares among the orthodox wheat. But such tolerance casts no doubt, logically speaking, either on the content or the truth of papal teaching. Pastorally, one can debate how far and long such tolerance should go; personally, I think Rome got too slack after Vatican II. But that is a separate issue altogether. A true Catholic knows what is orthodox by knowing what the Magisterium has taught with its full authority, and one can know that independently of how many heretics one shares the pew with on Sundays.
Best,
Mike
Ed:
If one is looking for a writer in the first millenium who was interested in the question of discerning the true Church among the various Christian factions and diverse religions, I would recommend reading the works of Theodore Abu Qurrah, 9th century Bishop of the city of Haran (located in modern-day Turkey). In his view, the ecumenical character of a council is guaranteed by the confirmation of the successors of St. Peter, whom he identifies with the bishops of Rome.
Thanks so much for that reference! I wonder what reception his views got, if any, in Constantinople.
It's interesting that Theodore was bishop of Haran. I've been reading Jewish commentaries on Genesis lately, and this morning I was struck by the fact that Abraham's father Terah ended up settling in Haran. Food for meditation.
Best,
Mike
kepha:
Would it be safe to say that St. Vincent would not have needed to set forth his canon had there been a universal catechism?
I should say yes. And BTW, thanks for the compliment.
Best,
Mike
Fr Kimel asks: "Father O'Leary, why in the world have you chosen this thread on Michael Liccione's blog to respond to an offhand comment I posted somewhere a long time ago (2 years? 3 years? 4 years? 5 years?)"
I just saw it on the thread where you posted it, as someone had linked to my blog from there. I put my reply on that obscure thread but thought it would not be noticed there so I put it here as well. Whether a comment is off-hand or not, the person commented on has the right to reply.
" I neither recall what I wrote or even if I wrote what you say I wrote nor what the context was. Nor do I recall where I supposedly posted the alleged comment. But one thing I do know: whatever I may have written, it wasn't important or substantive or innovative enough to warrant you stewing about it for such a long time."
As I say, I only came across your comment now, and I am certainly not given to stewing about internet remarks.
"It is beyond bizarre that you should now choose to post this out-of-the-blue "rejoinder.""
Come on, Origen replied to Celsus 80 years later.
"You ask if I know anything about your theology. Well, I read a couple of your pieces a few years ago and haven't thought about you since. You seem to be an educated guy who long ago moved into a post-Christian phase; hence your theological reflections and arguments have absolutely no interest for me."
Lack of interest is hardly a heuristically promising viewpoint. You see my arguments as post-Christian, yet my readers include many good Christians, including priests and bishops, who have never seen them in that light. Oh, they are all post-Christian too? Gee, it's a shrinking church I see.
Fr Kimel, if your memory is not too fuzzy you should at least specify one post-Christian tenet of which I stand accuse. Just one!
"That result was what caused St. Athanasius to observe: "The whole world groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian." "
No, it was St Jerome who made this statement.
SoVII,
what a bore!
Fr. O'Leary:
No, it was St Jerome who made this statement.
I see that you are right. Thanks. I shall revise the post accordingly.
Best,
Mike
Fr. Oleary
Absolutely. And the restoration of the TLM is a step back from that fullness, therefore it is step toward heresy.
I would have to call that one of the more breathtaking statements I have read even from a liberal Catholic. What specifically do you regard as heretical or having heretical tendencies in the Traditional Rite of the Roman Church?
ICXC
John
The step back from fuller use of Scripture and actually listening to it, from ecumenical attitudes to other Christians (no longer called heretics), from a vivid sense of the eschatological orientation of the life of the people of God toward the Kingdom (not just as heaven hereafter but as a force at work in the world and as obliging us to read the signs of the times in concern for justice and peace -- all that to be expressed in our liturgy), from the more communal sense of liturgical worship as expressed in the kiss of peace and the dialogue between priest and people, themselves made conscious of their priestly charisms (the priesthood of the faithful), the restriction of lay roles in the liturgy -- those are only a few of the ways in which the TLM steps back to an older regime of faith and scotomizes itself to the wider and fuller orthodoxy of the Council.
Mike, as ever a thoughtful reply, thank you. "knowing what the Magisterium has taught with its full authority" is a big demarcation point. How does one know? The first place should be the common prayer and belief, to be re-enforced by the Magisterium. That so much extra-liturgical is required by Catholics seems to be an imbedded time bomb that will keep blowing things up every few generations or so, as it did post VaticanII.
Fr. O'Leary,
None of the things you mentioned touch on orthodoxy in any sense; if anything, they are based on outdated ideologies of 1960's liberal democracy and flawed liturgical scholarship. So to even hint that those of us who oppose them are somehow "heretical" is ridiculous. In the end, I would say that the liturgical reforms of the Council diminished the hierarchical, hieratic, and sacral aspects of our liturgy as they were passed down to us from the early Church, as seen in the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, the ancient liturgies of the Church, and the medieval divines.The only other liturgies in Christendom that have any of your pet liturgical practices are the highly defective, heretical Protestant liturgies; all of the rest of the Apostolic liturgies of Christendom are as "obscurantist" as the old Roman liturgy, if not more.
On an ecumenical level, then, the old liturgy in many ways is superior in that it is closer to the liturgies of our separated brethren in the East, and it is closer to how non-Christians tend to worship as well. Any cursory knowledge of liturgy and the history of religion would make this abundantly clear.
Fr. O'Leary, I am glad that your many in your generation took great pleasure in trying to demolish the religion that was passed down to you. You tried to take it away, but we youngsters would just like it back. I am glad the Pope is more generous than you are in granting our requests.
Stephen:
You ask "how does one know" what the Magisterium has taught with its full authority. Well, I've spent a lot of time on this blog answering just that question, which makes me wonder whether you're just re-asking it rhetorically.
For a Catholic the answer is to a great extent obvious: what's in the creeds, the dogmatic definitions of general councils ratified by popes, and unilateral definitions by popes themselves. Those are all deliverances of the "extraordinary" magisterium. On the matter of what's been infallibly taught by the ordinary yet universal magisterium, there are some areas of zero controversy and some areas of controversy. Rome has settled the women's-ordination controversy, and I expect she will settle others in due course. But there are always areas of controversy; in many areas, our time is less troubled in that respect than the second or the fourth century. I don't see any problem in principle here, as distinct from the practical problems of poorly catechized laity and heretical clerics, which has always been with us too.
The Roman tradition has never packed as much dogma and devotional piety into its liturgy as the East has. That's neither worse nor better than the Eastern practice; it's just different. But as a solution to problems, packing more in would be untraditional and, I would venture to say, useless. Those few Catholics who would pay full attention wouldn't need it anyhow, and those who wouldn't pay full attention wouldn't benefit from it.
Best,
Mike
Mike, I don't see how packing in more would be either untraditional or useless. From what I gather, many of the thriving RC parishes these days are rife with regular readings of the Liturgy of the Hours, a relatively new practice for laity is it not? But hardly untraditional.
And, I do think those who don't pay full attention would benefit from it. For example, it'd be tough for a non-Trinitarian to last through an Eastern Liturgical cycle after year and not come to some honest conclusion that he is in place and with people who are in your face Trinitarians, and he is either wasting his time or might want to join the club. Repitition and duration go a long way to help educate people and get them to decide for themselves.
Repitition and duration go a long way to help educate people and get them to decide for themselves.
Not necessarily.
Consider the fact that Liturgy in former days was much stricter and more considerable than had been in recent times; yet, this did not prevent the deluge of heretics that had arisen even in those ages.
Mind you, many of these heretics had attended those Liturgies perhaps day in, day out.
Which begs the question, did the heretics you mention think of themselves as believing heresy? I would suggest not. So to the Liturgy was added gradually re-enforcements and repitition, to allow one and all to know just what the heck it is that this crowd believes. And this is more important, or should be, than anything else from a "how do we know perspective". If a point of faith is NOT to be found within the liturgical year and hopefully re-enforced again and again, you run a greater risk of having a more immature group of believers with a higher propensity to believe something purely personal that is at odds with the longitudinal communal belief. If you add on top of that the formal notion in the west of the magisterium and the Papacy, it can make it a bit more problematic; "Well, the Pope didn't come out against it, so it must be ok." or "Yeah, the Pope doesn't like it, but our priest and bishop still have/do (fill in the blank), so it must be ok."
Stephen:
I myself participate in the Liturgy of the Hours when I can. I always have, and I think all parishes should offer it. If that happened, an average of three or four Catholics per parish would be delighted. Getting more people to come would hinge mostly on the schedule and the esthetics—not the verbal content of the Office.
But I do not get my doctrine or catechism from either the Mass or the Divine Office. Rather, it is my prior understanding of doctrine which enables me to appreciate liturgy much more than many Catholics do. You are certainly entitled to believe that longer and doctrinally richer liturgy would reduce heresy; my own experience among Catholics suggests otherwise.
Best,
Mike
Mike, to what do you say to the average Joe then? Get more educated? Whence this prior understanding for the man in the street?
Vincent doesn't actually say to follow the general councils because they have inherent authority in themselves. He may have said to follow them because their widespread acceptance was good documentation of what had been believed "everywhere, always, by all". That would be also more in keeping with his overall approach.
The big problem for Rome in the VC is the conspicuous lack of any mention of the bishop of Rome. If the church splits, Vincent advises to follow the one with ancient teaching, or the larger body in the split and various criteria, but no mention of staying with the Roman see.
"Vincent doesn't actually say to follow the general councils because they have inherent authority in themselves. He may have said to follow them because their widespread acceptance was good documentation of what had been believed "everywhere, always, by all". That would be also more in keeping with his overall approach."
Chris,
If you read what remains of the 2nd Commonitory of St. Vincent, he states explicitly that his rule for determining the Catholic faith is based on the authority of the Council of Ephesus (See his "Recapitulation"). In effect, St. Vincent says that one ought not to believe what he says on his own warrant but rather on the authority of the Church. But this presumes that we know where the Church is.
"The big problem for Rome in the VC is the conspicuous lack of any mention of the bishop of Rome."
Actually, St. Vincent mentions the bishops of Rome a fair bit. In his 1st Commonitory, he uses the case of Pope St. Stephen's controversy with the African Church over the rebaptism of heretics to illustrate his rule. He says that Stephen "exceeded all others in the authority of his place" and sides with Stephen against rebaptism.
In the 2nd Commonitory (in what we have left of it), he not only extols the authority of the Council of Ephesus, but also calls on the witness of Pope St. Celestine, who occupied the chair of Peter during that council and of Pope St. Felix who was the occupant of that chair at the time of St. Vincent's writing. This singling out of the bishops of Rome certainly is no proof of a fully developed doctrine of papal authority on the part of St. Vincent. Nevertheless, it certainly is evidence of his belief in the unique authority of the Holy See and of its importance in helping one to ascertain the true Catholic faith.
Ed
Ok, to be more precise, what is conspicuously absent is any reference to the bishops of Rome in his answering of the question of what to do if the church splits.
Yes, he mentions bishops of Rome, and has nice things to say about them and their authority as successors to an apostolic see. But on the question of who is right when the church is at odds, Vincent presents a long line of alternatives with the BoR conspicuously absent as part of the criteria.
Chris:
If you're the "Chris" I think you are, we've had this debate before. Allow me to present my position more succinctly.
From the fact, if it is a fact, that St. Vincent does not directly address the question what the Pope is to do "when the Church is at odds," it does not follow either that St. Vincent had no view or that his view differed from that which Leo the Great enunciated a generation later. The attempt make St. Vincent's silence count against the papal claims is, well, an argument from silence. But it's at least possible that he had a thoroughly Catholic reason for silence. I argued in my post that St. Vincent was adducing criteria enabling "the thinking Catholic" to recognize the faith of the Church. In the East and while St. Vincent was writing, the place of the papacy among such criteria that was controversial. But in the West it was not, and St. Vincent was a Western father.
Given as much, it is at least a live possibility that St. Vincent was enunciating criteria that the popes themselves used in rendering vital doctrinal decisions, such as Liberius' decision in 361 to annul Rimini. As a rhetorical strategem, that was quite effective at a time when appeal to Rome would not have carried decisive weight in the East, where the Nestorian and other controversies were still being fought out.
Best,
Mike
"If you're the "Chris" I think you are, we've had this debate before."
Since I'm not sure what Chris you think I am, and since I'm pretty sure I haven't commented on this blog before, I'll leave you to ponder that.
"The attempt make St. Vincent's silence count against the papal claims is, well, an argument from silence."
I fail to see how it is an argument from silence. The modern Roman position is that there is one criteria for whether you are fully in communion with the true church - the papacy. If the church splits there is only one thing you need to know - what side of the split the pope is on. Any other considerations have zero bearing.
But St Vincent gives a ton of criteria EXCEPT the papacy. That's not an argument from silence. That is a direct contradiction of the Roman position.
If you disagree, then please tell us under what circumstances in the case of a church split, you might follow the side without the pope.
This is the great failure of the Roman position in general. There were a ton of schisms in the early church. Most were resolved sooner or later. But the one thing nobody ever mentioned in these cases is that such and such a church needs to align with the Pope because he is the sole successor of Peter. Chrysostom himself spent almost his entire life out of communion with Rome, and only came into communion by accident when he was forcibly appointed to the see of Constantinople.
Kudo's to you all for calling the nebulous "Spirit of Vatican II" on the carpet. Everyday I am more thanful for Pope Benedict and his "hermeneutic of continuity", which correcty sees the Second Vatican Council in light of the 1900 year Tradition that came before it, not as a break with that Tradition that so many in "Spirit of V2's" generation suggest.
Pope Benedict's weekly catechisis lectures going through the Church Fathers is a "masterful teaching Strategy" by this Great, and I mean Great, Pope, and it subtly smacks the "spirit of V2 types and national Catholic Reporter types" right in the face with respect to their marxist-deconstructionist project to re-create the faith their own warped images.
Someone mentioned St. Jerome earlier and his statement "the world groaned at the astonishment that the whole word was Arian". This statement, seen in historical context, points to the fact the implications of a Council, in this case Nicea in 325 AD, take some time to shake out fully, as St. Jerome made this statement in circa 380 AD, 55 years after the Council of Nicea. Yet eventually, Arianism died out and that debate was no longer the one threatening orthodox Apostolic Tradiion (of course there would be others that took its place, Nestorianism Monophysiteism, etc).
Similar to the debates regarding Arianism afte the Council of Nicea, we are witnessing the hold outs from the 1960's and 1970's still trying to force an interpretation of the Second Vatican Council that is not in conformity with the Bishop of Rome. And similar to the individuals who continued to support Arianism well into the late 4th century, these "spirit of V2 types" are starting to head to the "retirement homes and beyond" and then and only then will the "nebulous spirit of V2" be finally put to rest.
Finally, in the sprit of orthdox Catholic Tradition, I pray that those who pushed this heterodox agenda after the Second Vatican Council will repent from the heresy and dissent that they caused after the Council.
Pax et Bonum
I haven't seen anyone so far contextualize St. Vincent's "canon." What was the basis on which this was said and why? What was going on during his day that this "semi-Pelagian" would say that we need to evaluate someone's doctrine in light of the consensus patrum? What controversey was going on in Marseilles, Lerins, and other monasteries during this time of southern Gaul? You are analyzing the more *general* meaning of how this might apply to the wider range of theology without *first* exegeting the passage in its historical context and its *particular* application. Not that you can't later discuss the wider application of the canon after answering the particular, but the method being demonstrated so far turns on its very head the intention and purpose of St. Vincent's purpose of writing and *defending* himself from the charge laid on him.
Photios
What was going on during his day that this "semi-Pelagian" would say that we need to evaluate someone's doctrine in light of the consensus patrum?
Semi-Pelagian?
St. Vincent was a "Semi-Pelagian"?
I guess that makes you a "Semi-Arian"?
Chris,
That St. Vincent does not tell his reader to appeal to the judgment of Rome or even to that of a general council in determining what to do when a small part of the church splits from the rest is due to the fact that he is trying to lay out norms to be used in the absence of an authoritative judgment of the Church. If a new opinion arises in some quarter of the church, how are the faithful to judge such opinion in the absence of present magisterial guidance? That would seem to be the question he is asking. Photios Jones is correct in stating that St. Vincent's Comnonitorium needs to be contextualized. As I am not a historian, I am not particularly qualified to do that. Nevertheless, I would hazard the guess that what prompts St. Vincent to write is what he perceives as some of the novel ideas of St. Augustine relating to grace and free will. As I'm sure you know, there was considerable debate at that time between the followers of Augustine's theology, notably, St. Prosper of Aquitaine and those who held to the so-called "semi-pelagian" view, notably, St. John Cassian and Faustus of Riez. There was no magisterial decision regarding this controversy until the Council of Orange in 529.
As far as St. Vincent's view of the papacy is concerned, we don't have much to go on. He certainly considers the bishops of Rome to have some sort of special authority. Nevertheless, his words in that regard are susceptible of either an Orthodox or a Catholic interpretation.
Ed
"Nevertheless, I would hazard the guess that what prompts St. Vincent to write is what he perceives as some of the novel ideas of St. Augustine relating to grace and free will."
Bingo. I would venture to say that St. Vincent's "call for evaluation" never really took root in the West to the point of a full evaluation as to what the "cause" of this was.
"Moreover, the most illustrious Light of predestination and grace is the Saviour Himself,—the Mediator Himself between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. And, pray, by what preceding merits of its own, whether of works or of faith, did the human nature which is in Him procure for itself that it should be this? Let this have an answer, I beg."
Christ's human nature is the examplar of predestination and this takes place by *grace.*
Tip - toe to Spanish Adoptionism.
Tip - toe to the Toledo Councils and their answer.
Photios
As far as St. Vincent's view of the papacy is concerned, we don't have much to go on. He certainly considers the bishops of Rome to have some sort of special authority. Nevertheless, his words in that regard are susceptible of either an Orthodox or a Catholic interpretation.
Isn't it the very point of Vincent of Lerins, a semi-Augustinian (my preferred term), was with respect to the first organ of infallibility? That is, there must be a preponderance of the evidence, so to speak, as St. Vincent of Lerins put it (paraphrased), “a very great majority that may be interpreted to represent the Church everywhere, by all, and always.”; that if such criterion is not met, such beliefs are then to be merely regarded as theologoumenon, unless definitively condemned at some point by the Church through the organs of Council and/or pope ex cathedra. Indeed, it was from Vincent of Lerins that we obtained the Dogma Catholicum.
"he is trying to lay out norms to be used in the absence of an authoritative judgment of the Church"
That's highly speculative, if not fanciful.
Vincent discusses the situation of major schisms of the church - even schisms so big that the majority might go off the rails. That Vincent would discuss schisms of this magnitude, and it doesn't even enter into the discussion that the Pope would make a definitive statement, really settles the matter.
What good is a pope, if the entire church can be split in half on a theological dispute, and the pope doesn't make a ruling? How gigantic an oversight it would be for Vincent to discuss so many scenarios and never mention the papal source of unity.
But even so, this misses the bigger issue. For Roman Catholics, authoritative ruling or no authoritative ruling, the church subsists in those in communion with Rome. For Vincent it subsists in those in communion with the apostolic tradition. These definitions are at odds.
For what it's worth, Vincent mentions 3 popes (Chapters 6 and 32) in this version of the Commonitorium:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...athers/
3506.htm
Vincent refers to the holder of the Apostolic See, Pope Stephen, in Chapter 6 as opposing the novelty/heresy of re-baptism thusly: "When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith."
In Chapter 32, after the preceeding 2 chapters spoke of the constancy of the Ephesine Fathers in driving away the heresy/novelty of Nestorianism, Vincent speaks of 2 Popes thusly: "The foregoing [referring to the 2 chapters on Ephesine Fathers] would be enough and very much more than enough, to crush and annihilate every profane novelty. But yet that nothing might be wanting to such completeness of proof, we added, at the close, the twofold authority of the Apostolic See, first, that of holy Pope Sixtus, the venerable prelate who now adorns the Roman Church; and secondly that of his predecessor, Pope Celestine of blessed memory, which same we think it necessary to insert here also."
So that "nothing might be wanting to such completeness of proof", Vincent invokes the authority of the Apostolic See.
It seems to me then, Vincent did refer to the authority of the Apostolic See as both an exemplar in fighting heresy (Chapter 6) and as an authority necessary to complete the case against the Nestorian heresy (Chapter 32).
But then again, who can absolutely apprehend Vincents mind in all particulars by reading this document.
There is no doubt vincent held the significance of support by AN apostolic see. (recall Latin has no article, so the idea of "the" apostolic see in the fathers is always a translators gloss).
But the issue is how far the authority of rome's see extends in the case of a schism, possibly with the other apostolic sees. It is here we find that Rome doesn't define unity.
"Vincent discusses the situation of major schisms of the church - even schisms so big that the majority might go off the rails. That Vincent would discuss schisms of this magnitude, and it doesn't even enter into the discussion that the Pope would make a definitive statement, really settles the matter."
Chris,
The above is a misrepresentation of what St. Vincent states in his tract. So, allow me to summarize. St. Vincent begins his treatise by stating his purpose which is to find a universal rule by which one may be able to distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heresy. Note here, that he is not trying to find a way to determine where the true church is, but simply how to sift out heretical opinions from the truth of the faith,. His basic answer to this question is to look to both Sacred Scripture and Tradition. This is the same basic answer that a modern day faithful Catholic would give. Vincent recognizes that Sacred Scripture is, in some sense, sufficient in itself. Nevertheless, he argues that there is a need to join with it "the authority of the Church's interpretation" for the simple reason that there are various heretical interpretations of Scripture. Again, nothing that a modern day faithful Catholic would not say.
Within the Catholic Church, according to St. Vincent, there is always the possibility that someone may fall victim to heretical opinions. So, he says, in order to avoid such a calamity, one should follow universality, antiquity, and consent. Universality refers to the faith confessed by the whole Church throughout the world (it would seem here that Vincent means the faith confessed by the Church in his own day). In St. Vincent's day there was no catechism of the Catholic Church. Perhaps if he were alive today, he would tell his reader to refer to the Universal Catechism. This is what most Catholics I know will say when asked where to find Catholic truth. Of course, the problem with written sources is that they are subject to interpretation. This is why one needs living witnesses of the Church's faith. There is little doubt that, for St. Vincent, among those living witnesses are the Popes of Rome. In the 2nd Commonitory, he refers specifically to the authority of Pope St. Sixtus, his contemporary, as proof of the legitimacy of his own argument.
continued below
Antiquity refers to the faith held clearly and manifestly by the fathers.
Consent refers to those things in antiquity which were held by the greater part of the fathers.
Vincent then goes on to ask the question of what one ought to do if one or more Catholics should dissent from the rest. He treats of two cases:
1. the case in which a small part of the Church breaks communion with the greater part.
2. the case in which some heresy threatens to infect the whole church.
He uses the Donatist schism as an example of case 1. Here, a small group broke communion with the universal Church. St. Vincent states clearly that only those members of the African Church who maintained communion with the universal church were safe from this schism. He doesn't mention what it means to maintain communion with the universal Church. Did it imply communion with the bishop of Rome? He does not affirm this, but neither does he deny it. At the same time, given his great respect for the See of Rome, I would not be surprised if he thought such communion were important.
For case 2, he uses the example of the Arian heresy. Here's what he says about this:
"So also when the Arian poison had infected not an insignificant portion of the Church but almost the whole world, so that a sort of blindness had fallen upon almost all the bishops of the Latin tongue, circumvented partly by force partly by fraud, and was preventing them from seeing what was most expedient to be done in the midst of so much confusion, then whoever was a true lover and worshipper of Christ, preferring the ancient belief to the novel misbelief, escaped the pestilent infection."
Note that this is not a matter of a schism of a large part of the church, but rather of heresy infecting the church even in her highest offices. Now we know that the Council of Nicaea was convened to deal with this heresy. So does St. Vincent. But he makes no mention of it. Why? Well, because Vincent was aware that this Council was not called immediately. What rule should your average faithful Catholic follow in the interim? That's the question that interests St. Vincent. His answer is to cling to antiquity and in that manner escape the "pestilent infection."
Note here that St. Vincent does NOT deal with the case of a large schism of one part of the Church from another. Nothing like this had occurred up to his time.
St. Vincent goes on to speak of the martyrs and confessors, who adhered "to the decrees and definitions of the universal priesthood of Holy Church" rather than betray the faith. Here is a clear allusion to the teaching magisterium. Then he gives a variety of examples from Church history, including that of Pope Stephen and the African Church, the Council of Ephesus against the Nestorians, etc....
continued
He goes on to say more. But I shall end with St. Vincent's own recapitulation of his main point. Here's what he says:
"We said likewise, that in the Church itself regard must be had to the consentient voice of universality equally with that of antiquity, lest we either be torn from the integrity of unity and carried away to schism, or be precipitated from the religion of antiquity into heretical novelties. We said, further, that in this same ecclesiastical antiquity two points are very carefully and earnestly to be held in view by those who would keep clear of heresy: first, they should ascertain whether any decision has been given in ancient times as to the matter in question by the whole priesthood of the Catholic Church, with the authority of a General Council: and, secondly, if some new question should arise on which no such decision has been given, they should then have recourse to the opinions of the holy Fathers, of those at least, who, each in his own time and place, remaining in the unity of communion and of the faith, were accepted as approved masters; and whatsoever these may be found to have held, with one mind and with one consent, this ought to be accounted the true and Catholic doctrine of the Church, without any doubt or scruple."
Note that universality (i.e., the present day consensus of all) is just as important as antiquity, for without universality one can easily fall into schism, while without antiquity, one can fall readily into heresy. He also makes clear here that the recourse to the opinions of the Fathers is to be made when a new question arises which has not been dealt with by a previous General Council.
In summary, St. Vincent is clear on the primary importance of having recourse to the decrees of a General Council if such decrees are available. It should be added that in singling out the teaching of Popes Sixtus and Celestine, he clearly views their office as authoritative and it is highly unlikely that he would consider a Council to be truly authoritative without the approval of the bishops of Rome. If so, then the very fact of communion with the universal church would imply communion with Rome. It would not need to be stated explicitly. Given that St. Vincent is not asking the question of which ecclesial body is the true Church but rather takes this for granted, it is not surprising that he does not mention the importance of union with Rome. It was enough in his day to simply say “remain with the universal church” , especially when the intended audience of his treatise was not asking the question, “where is the universal church?”
continued
“But even so, this misses the bigger issue. For Roman Catholics, authoritative ruling or no authoritative ruling, the church subsists in those in communion with Rome. For Vincent it subsists in those in communion with the apostolic tradition. These definitions are at odds.”
Communion with apostolic tradition and communion with Rome are only at odds if one thinks that Rome has abandoned the apostolic tradition or that Rome is not necessary for maintaining the apostolic tradition. This is something you have not shown, but simply assumed.
“There is no doubt vincent held the significance of support by AN apostolic see. (recall Latin has no article, so the idea of "the" apostolic see in the fathers is always a translators gloss).
”
I think not. St. Vincent refers several times to Cyril, as well as to Athansius and Peter, all bishops of Alexandria, one of the apostolic sees. Nevertheless, he never refers to this see as apostolic. He only does this for the see of Rome. Hence, the translators have good reason for using the definite article when referring to the see of Rome.
“But the issue is how far the authority of rome's see extends in the case of a schism, possibly with the other apostolic sees. It is here we find that Rome doesn't define unity.”
As I think I’ve shown, the Commonitory does not deal with this issue. It does not do so because there is no need to do so. This does become a rather important issue after Chalcedon. If you were to read Cardinal Newman’s Essay on Development, you would see that he thinks it quite significant that the heresies that plagued the Church from at least the time of Chalcedon onward not only illumined the truth of the faith but also brought out the importance of the See of Rome as centre of unity and teacher of the faith based on the Divine Promise of Christ Himself. Hence, we see St. Maximus taking up this theme in his fight against monothelitism, and again, St. Theodore the Studite in his fight against the iconoclasts. By the 9th century, we have Theodore Abu Qurrah who deals directly with the question of how to recognize the true church among the ostensibly apostolic but non-Chalcedonian churches. His answer, very clearly, includes union with the bishop of Rome.
"Communion with apostolic tradition and communion with Rome are only at odds if one thinks that Rome has abandoned the apostolic tradition or that Rome is not necessary for maintaining the apostolic tradition. This is something you have not shown, but simply assumed."
The point is, Vincent grants me the right to investigate and decide that Rome has abandoned the apostolic tradition. Vincent doesn't say that in the case of schism, find out which side Rome is on, and be on that side. He says to find out which side the tradition is on, and be on that side. I have to judge which side Rome is on. I'm not to assume it.
Certainly Vincent could have saved himself many pages of writing by saying "be with Rome", instead of giving us pages of criteria. But he'd never heard of this idea that Rome defines unity.
"St. Vincent refers several times to Cyril, as well as to Athansius and Peter, all bishops of Alexandria, one of the apostolic sees. Nevertheless, he never refers to this see as apostolic."
I see no reason to assume that Vincent was an ignoramus who didn't know about the other churches which were referred to as apostolic sees. If you want to prove he was an ignoramus, I think the burden is on you.
"As I think I’ve shown, the Commonitory does not deal with this issue. It does not do so because there is no need to do so."
Yes it does deal with it. In ANY schismatic situation, modern Roman Catholic theology says to side with the Pope. Vincent discusses schisms, thus he deals with it.
But not only does Vincent discuss minor schisms, he discusses super-schisms where "What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole?" (Vincent) The answer is not to find out where the pope stands, but to follow antiquity. This is squarely contrary to the modern Roman position.
"Hence, we see St. Maximus taking up this theme in his fight against monothelitism, and again, St. Theodore the Studite in his fight against the iconoclasts."
Yes, you can find some who seem to have this theme. But they are a lot lot later in history. To take up the Vincentian canon itself, this is not what was believed everywhere, always and by all in antiquity.
It's not what was believed by St Colombus when he said ""You have already erred, O Rome! fatally, foully erred. No longer do you shine as a star in the apostolic firmament." It's not what was believed by Pope Leo II when he said of Pope Honorius that "by profane treachery he tried to subvert its spotless faith". It's not what was believed by the fifth council when Pope Vigilius drew up his Constitutum, but the council rejected it as heretical. It's not what was believed by Pope Innocent III when he said "Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy"
"Hence, we see St. Maximus taking up this theme in his fight against monothelitism, and again, St. Theodore the Studite in his fight against the iconoclasts."
It's very easy to use this one as an example when Rome was the only Orthodox See in Maximus' day. On the other hand, Maximus didn't argue with his interlocutors by first insisting that they first captiulate to Rome's "authority," in fact in many ways Maximus had to educate many of the West Romans of what the problem was along with his careful admonitions on the filioque and use of terminology. Maximus took his point of departure for arguing with his opponents the Chalcedonian definition, not encyclicals or papal decrees from the Bishop of Rome. For Maximus, the content of the faith was primary in considering what that unity consisted in or its basis thereof, and then secondary, Maximus considered that the Bishop of Rome was the touch stone of that unity *due* to her Orthodoxy in restoring that unity. Not the other way around. Anyways, Maximus didn't need to appeal to the Bishop of Rome's teaching on Christ to refute Monotheletism. The principles of Monotheletism were quite complex and it was Maximus who was engaged in the controversey and laid the ground work for all its refutation, and the Bishop of Rome *as an Orthodox See* was needed to restore the Patriarch to his position.
Photios
"It's very easy to use this one as an example when Rome was the only Orthodox See in Maximus' day."
True enough. But my point was simply that for scholars like John Henry Newman, this connection of the conquering of heresy with a clarification of the doctrine of the papacy was instrumental in leading them to Rome. A similar point could be made, for instance, about the Christological heresies. In combatting them, not only were they eventually defeated, but many other important truths came to be seen more clearly, e.g., the difference between person and nature, the fact of Mary being Mother of God, etc... These are not accidents of church history. They were, I believe, intended by God in His providential guidance of the Church. So also, the fact that the Popes were orthodox at the time of Sts. Maximus and Theodore served to bring to light the true nature of the papacy, i.e., its divine foundation.
I'm not claiming this is a slam dunk argument. I merely state that it is one legitimate way of looking at church history.
Ed
Chris:
But not only does Vincent discuss minor schisms, he discusses super-schisms where "What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole?" (Vincent) The answer is not to find out where the pope stands, but to follow antiquity. This is squarely contrary to the modern Roman position.
It is here that I discern the basic fallacy of your argument. From the fact that St. Vincent adduces certain criteria for assessing orthodoxy without mentioning papal authority, it does not follow that he believes "super-schisms" can or should be resolved without appeal to papal authority. All that follows is that, if and when papal authority turns out to be helpful, then the exercise of that authority should use the stated criteria. I don't believe the popes would disagree; in fact, most of them have basically insisted on such criteria themselves.
Such, I believe, is the beauty of St. Vincent's little work. He adduces certain criteria that, without directly mentioning the papacy, are relied on by the papacy itself. Thus Rome's assertion of authority, which will reach a zenith in the writing of Pope St. Leo the Great less than 30 years after St. Vincent, can be seen not as arbitrary but as the servant of a sound method that even the Eastern patriarchates cannot gainsay. That was to become clear in the concrete by how the Acacian schism was resolved early in the sixth century.
It's not what was believed by St Colombus when he said ""You have already erred, O Rome! fatally, foully erred. No longer do you shine as a star in the apostolic firmament." It's not what was believed by Pope Leo II when he said of Pope Honorius that "by profane treachery he tried to subvert its spotless faith". It's not what was believed by the fifth council when Pope Vigilius drew up his Constitutum, but the council rejected it as heretical. It's not what was believed by Pope Innocent III when he said "Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy."
You're expending valuable energy knocking down a strawman. The Catholic doctrine of the papacy does not say that popes are incapable of being personally heretical. It says only what Vatican I said while keeping in mind the cases you cite: "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—i.e. when, acting as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine on faith or morals to be believed by the whole Church, possesses, through the divine assistance promised him through the Apostle Peter, that infallibility with which Christ willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine on faith or morals."
Thus, e.g., St. Columban condemned Pope Boniface IV for accepting the condemnation of the Three Chapters by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 553), which council had recently condemned Pope Vigilius for refusing to condemn the Three Chapters! It was a sad and confusing time. But nobody can seriously maintain that Pope Vigilius, however pusillanimous he may have been, actually defined the offending doctrines contained in the Three Chapters. As for the Honorious issue, which has been hashed and rehashed countless times in Catholic-Orthodox polemics, nobody says that Honorius tried to bind the whole Church to monothelitism by teaching it ex cathedra; the debate is over whether his approval of monothelite language in his letter to Patriarch Sergius meant he was personally a monothelite or merely uncomprehending of what was at stake in the controversy.
Best,
Mike
"They were, I believe, intended by God in His providential guidance of the Church."
If the only surviving point of view was the modern Roman view, then this might be an argument. But since this is not the case, those in opposition to you can cite the mess the papacy has got into throughout history, together with their rejection of it, as evidence of how history providentially refutes the papal position.
"All that follows is that, if and when papal authority turns out to be helpful, then the exercise of that authority should use the stated criteria."
What? So basically Vincent's reams of advice is the sole purview of popes to read and evaluate?
Apart from this being completely fanciful, and unsupported by the text, Vincent's query is not merely concerning what is the correct doctrine, but also where is the catholic church. "What if" Vincent asks "a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith"? Well which part is the part which cut itself off? Is it the part lacking the papacy? Nope, it is the smaller member cutting itself off from the larger body.
"The Catholic doctrine of the papacy does not say that popes are incapable of being personally heretical. It says only what Vatican I said while keeping in mind the cases you cite: "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—i.e. when, acting as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine on faith or morals to be believed by the whole Church"
Uh huh. Well let's take the case of Pope Vigilius which I cited above. He closed his Constitutum with the words:
"We ordain and decree that it be permitted to no one belonging to any ecclesiastical order or office to write or bring forward or compose or teach anything contrary to the contents of this Constitutum in regard to the Three Chapters or after this present definition to move any further question. And if anything has been done, said or written by anyone anywhere about the Three Chapters contrary to what we here assert and decree... this in all we refute by the authority of the Apostolic See in which by grace of God we preside."
Pope Vigilius' Constitutum was a solemn judgment on faith and dogma, containing 61 anathemas issued by the Bishop of Rome to the Emperor and a General Council of the Church for their guidance and instruction. The finality of the judgment is exemplified by the words "ordain and decree" with the authority "of the apostolic see". If this is not ex-cathedra, what possibly could be?
The Emperor refused to receive Constitutum returning it with the scornful answer "If you have condemned the three chapters I have no need of this new document for I have from you many others of the same content. If however you have in this new document departed from your earlier declarations, you have condemned yourself". (~Mansi IX 349).
However the 5th Ecumenical Council proceeded to pronounce its own j
However the 5th Ecumenical Council proceeded to pronounce its own judgment and condemned and anathematized the Three Chapters, declaring furthermore "We therefore anathematize.. those who have written or do write in defence of them or who dare to say that they are correct and who have defended or attempt to defend their impiety" (~Sentence of the Synod, p311 Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers). Obviously, Vigilius fell under the anathema of the Council and the Council ordered the Pope's name struck from the Diptychs of the Church "on account of the impiety which he defended".
So here we have a General Council of the Church excommunicating the pope, on account of what the Pope "ordained and decreed" with the "authority of the apostolic see".
There's four massive problems here for the modern Roman position. Not just the dogmatic aspect that the Council rejected the dogmatic statements of the Pope. But even worse, the Council had no compunction in putting itself outside of communion with the Pope. If the Pope defines unity, the council didn't know about it. And the third major problem is that modern Rome says that Popes define valid councils. But this council considered its judgement final and binding even when in opposition to the Pope. And the fourth major problem is that in the following millenium nobody thought to explain to the faithful how come a General council could reject a Pope's decrees and excommunicate him. Even if you come up with a fanciful reason, it doesn't explain why a millenium elapsed where nobody noticed anything odd and commented on it.
"nobody says that Honorius tried to bind the whole Church to monothelitism by teaching it ex cathedra;"
Of course, the whole notion of ex-cathedra would be a complete anachronism, since nobody knew of such a thing!
What Honorius did or did not teach or did or did not actually believe is really irrelevant. The point is what those at the time THOUGHT he taught and THOUGHT he believed, and the fact that they THOUGHT he was teaching heresy without being bothered by the theological problem of how a pope could teach heresy. As was said at the 6th council, '"Honorius, who was Pope of old Rome, who in all things promoted and cooperated with and confirmed their heresy". The Roman Breviary in the 3rd lesson for the Feast of St Leo, June 28th. "St Leo II accepted the Holy Sixth Council wherein were condemned Cyrus, Sergius, Honorius, Pyrrhus who asserted or preached one will and operation in our Lord Jesus Christ". When Honorius responded to Patriarch Sergius, he was not interested in the private opinion of a Roman Cleric named Honorius. He was formally asking Pope Honorius to render an official verdict in his official capacity as Bishop of Rome on a major controversy of the Faith that was engulfing the Church. The 6th Ecumenical council stressed that Patriarch Sergius' letter to Honorius was "dogmatic" and that Honorius' reply was in kind.
The whole idea that somehow
The whole idea that somehow Honorius' teachings were somehow not official enough, is the fanciful overlaying on history of 19th century ultra-montanist fantasies. Such things had never occured to the church in the intervening millenium.
Commenting by HaloScan
