Have Popes Been Guilty of Heresy in the Past? w/ Erick Ybarra

In this clip, Matt and Erick talk how popes in the past have been found guilty of heresy, recalling the story of Pope Honorius.
===

🔴 SPONSORS

🔴 GIVING

This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.

🔴 LINKS





🔴 SOCIAL

[Victor-coxj]

I would like to propose that the distinction between different modes of expression coming from popes is by no means "artificial" but is in fact part of the Church's broader methodological legacy concerning the understanding of both heresy and papal magisterium. Constantinople III calls Honorius a "heretic" in a very specific sense. St. Leo II, in his ratification of that Council and in other writings of his, explains that Honorius was not a heretic in the sense of defending heretical doctrine, but in the sense of failing to strongly fight against heresy. This kind of distinction on the meaning of "heretic" has existed at least since the first Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. On the other hand, neither Honorius nor any other pope has ever taught heresy in his ordinary Magisterium to the entire Church; if they did, Catholicism would lose all meaning.

The Church admits that a pope can fail in a personal capacity. At the same time, she demands assent of intellect and will when the pope teaches the whole Church, both in solemn extraordinary statements and in ordinary day-to-day teaching. The only reason she can make such demand is that it is always spiritually safe to follow the pope, even when it comes to his fallible magisterial statements.

One place to go is the work 'De Romano Pontifice', by St. Robert Bellarmine, the Doctor of the Papacy. He explains that we must follow the pope not only in solemn statements but also in his ordinary teaching. "The Pope, by himself or with a particular Council, while stating something in a doubtful matter, whether he could err or not, must be obediently heard by all the faithful". (De Romano Pontifice IV.2) "The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err. Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men. On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off." (IV.3)

The above was confirmed by the floor discussions and official documents of the First Vatican Council (cf. James J. McGovern, "Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII" [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], 239-241). And theologians have always explained that it is safe to follow the teachings of the pope. Why? Because he cannot teach doctrines or promulgate legislation that are pernicious to Church – otherwise the Church would not be indefectible.

Concerning the distinctions on the meaning of "heresy" in general and in the case of Honorius, see Louis-Nazaire Bégin, "La Primauté et l’Infaillibilité des Souverains Pontifes" (Québec: L. H. Huot, 1873), chapter 6, which is entirely dedicated to the Honorius controversy. Cf. also Paul Bottalla, "Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and History" (London: Burns, Oates, 1868).

[matuskaandme]

This is a good job of presenting this slice of theological history 
with an incredibly nuanced explanation. Many thanks!

[mattschneider]

If Honorius was "fine, " why did Popes anathematize him for centuries afterward upon taking the papal throne? Either Honorius was wrong or his predecessors were, eh?

[FrJohnBrownSJ]

Ybarra is a treasure for Catholics and YouTube.

[milagroman]

Honorius was anathematized at the Sixth Council. I don’t see how papal infallibility can be defended knowing this. I can’t see any possible explanation other than the council was wrong and Honorius wasn’t actually a monothelite but the letter clearly says otherwise.

[TheForbiddenLean]

Ybarra: I go with the Council.

Also Ybarra: Honorius was right

[bogo]

The most famous act of heresy by a pope is Peter denying Christ.

[tomgjokaj]

Love Eric Ybarra and I am learning so much from Eric thank you Matt GBU both 🙏🏻🙏🏻

[MrTeaSPoon]

Can’t believe we now have Loftonites who defend every single act the Pope performs as though it Carrie’s the full dignity of his office.

[ransomcoates]

It was certainly never imagined that a Pope could teach open heresy in an encyclical, which Francis did in ‘Amoris Laetitia’, which presents Lutheran heresy in its claims about sin. (Francis has special affection for Lutheran heresies, and has, of course, set up a statue of this arch- heretic in the Vatican.) He teaches publicly the heresy of religious indifference, he tolerates the abomination of idolatry within the walls of St. Peter’s Basilica. What more does he have to do to demonstrate that whenever he teaches something Catholic it is entirely by accident?

[johnnyd]

Yes, we have at least two cases in the history of confirmed Papal heresies...

1) Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the 5th Ecumenical Council for his support for heretical Three Chapters. After 6 months, Vigilius repented, admitted his errors, aligned himself with the Council, condemned Three Chapters and was brought back into the fold of the Church. IN his own words: "...one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognizes the truth...".

2) Pope Honorius I was excommunicated by the 6th Ecumenical Council alongside the Monothelites: "...and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things" in the XIII session. Citing his written correspondence with Sergius, Honorius was subsequently accused of having confirmed his impious doctrines; the XVI session reaffirmed the condemnation of the heretics explicitly stating "to Honorius, the heretic, anathema!", and concluding with the decree of the XVII session that Honorius had not stopped provoking scandal and error in the Body of the Church; for he had "with unheard of expressions disseminated amidst the faithful people the heresy of the one will", doing so "in agreement with the insane false doctrine of the impious Apollinaire, Severus and Themistius". The Roman legates made no objection to his condemnation.

So much so about the alleged "infallibility" of the Popes and alleged "supremacy" over the Councils.!

[johns]

Wow, "I go with the councils verdict, but".

[DANtheMANofSIPA]

1:49 Sounds like Ybarra is discrediting an ecumenical council.

[FlexCathedrafromIG]

Can the tragic case of Pope Honorius be a transferable example to modern times whenever the Pope says (not ex cathedra) something that might be doctrinal error or justifiably questionable?

[glennlanham]

YES. Infallibility is only valid in certain circumstances, he must be teaching FROM THE CHAIR, for one thing, i.e meaning to define a dogma for the whole Church, East and West

[rosarypursuit]

Papal infallibility, from what I hear, is quite rare. To make the infallible statement they must be saying it in a formal setting. In the end, even Popes are just men, albeit, Men that shoulder the weight of the Holy Catholic Church. I Nathaniel Turner wrote an article on this "Papists and Popery" it's called, a good read.

[BobbyHernandez]

hey Erick, what council was that again?

[minasoliman]

But what really does ex cathedra mean? What conditions will make someone speaking ex cathedra?

[timrichardson]

It seems that Orthodox are at a disadvantage regarding development of doctrine and papal authority. They can't seem to agree among themselves on a number of things. They seem to have been stuck without a mechanism to resolve their differences in a clear way for a long time now. The Catholic Church has it's troubles, but there is a clear mechanism to resolve issues and disputes. The buck has to stop somewhere.

[digenesakritas]

Another Great Commercial for Orthodoxy☦️