www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus

I thought I'd take this opportunity to discuss the historic Proem, very important section of the Decree on Infallibility in Pastor Aeternus. First, some facts about the historic Proem:

The Proem was not part of the original draft of the Decree on "papal infallibility" (readers will come to notice that I always place that expression in quotes, for a very good reason - infallibility is not the Pope's alone, is never exercised by the Pope alone, and was never defined in that way by Vatican 1). It was inserted into the Decree at the suggestion of Cardinal Bilio (chairman of the Deputation De Fide, the committee responsible for formulating the Decree) to meet the concerns of the Minority and those in the Majority that the Decree as it was "left open to the Pope to act without counsel, deliberation, or the use of scientific helps, when defining doctrines."

Neo-ultramontanists at the Council constantly called for the supression of the historic Proem. They objected to the fact that the Proem suggested that the Pope even needed an Ecumenical Council at all, and that the pope needed to ascertain the mind of the Church before making an ex cathedra decree.

Referring to the historic Proem, the primate of the American Church Archbishop Spalding (upon returning from V1) wrote an enyclical informing his flock that "history itself is the guarantee" that the Pope will not create new doctrine as he pleases.

Many have probably read the historic Proem in their study of Pastor Aeternus, but few really know the doctrinal significance of its addition. Most probably think it nothing more than a mere history lesson, instead of the Sacred Tradition that establishes the "limitation" on "papal infallibility" for which it was intended.

The historic Proem:
"To satisfy this pastoral duty, Our predecessors have always expended untiring effort to propagate Christ's doctrine of salvation among all the people of the world. And with similar care they have watched that the doctrine might be preserved genuine and pure wherever it was received. Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, somtimes, singly, sometimes assembed in councils, following the long-standing custom of the curches and the form of the ancient rule, reported to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which came up in matters of faith, so that there where the faith can suffer no diminution, the harm suffered by the faith might be repaired. However, the Roman Pontiffs on their part, according as the condition of the times and the circumstances dictated, sometimes calling together ecumenical councils or sounding out the mind of the Church throughout the world, sometimes through regional councils, or sometimes by using other helps which divine Providence supplied, have, with the help of God, defined as to e held such matters as they had found consonant with the Holy Scripture and with the apostolic tradition. The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His revelation, but rather, that with his assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the apostles. Indeed, it was this apostolic doctrine that all the Fathers held, and the holy orthodox Doctors reverenced and followed. For they fully realized that the See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savor made to the prince of the the Apostles, "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail, and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren."

The Sacred Tradition profferred in the historic Proem provides several lessons:
(1) "Papal infallibility" is activated (so to speak) by the appeal of the Church. The Pope cannot just wake up one morning and decide to promulgate a new dogma on his own.
(2) The Pope must seek the agreement of the Church in order to make the ex cathedra decree.
(3) The promised protection of the Holy Spirit exhibits itself in the Pope's very effort in seeking the agreement of the Church.
(4) The Pope cannot make new doctrine, but can only guard and explain the existing Faith of the Church.

Blessings

Sorry, folks. I originally intended to start a new thread on the historic Proem, then noticed Fr. Stephanos' thread. I decided to post it in this thread, then suddenly realized that the thread is about the Primacy, not the Infallibility. If the Moderator wishes to move my previous post to a new thread entitled "The Historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus," please do so.

Brother, according to this rule, which statements in history do you think are infallible according to Vatican I?

Dear brother Joe,

Are you sure the question is not actually, "which statements are ex cathedra?" instead of "which statements are infallible?" The Pope (along with his brother bishops) can teach infallibly even when statements are not promulgated ex cathedra.

I have never really thought about it, and I actually don't care which statements are ex cathedra. I've been involved with debates among Catholics and non-Catholics in CAF on the issue, but my position has always been "it doesn't matter."

But from my own studies (not that I made a specific study to find out which statements are ex cathedra, but chanced upon their identification as ex cathedra while studying other matters), I can only pick out 5 - (1) Pope St. Leo's Tome, (2) the Epistle of Pope St. Agatho, (3) Pope Benedict XII's Benedictus Deus, (4) Pope Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus, and (5) Pope Pius XII's Munificentissimus Deus. There might be others, but it's not a great concern for my faith personally to know what they are.

Btw, contrary to popular belief, Unam Sanctam was not an ex cathedra decree, but promulgated with the collegial authority of a synod, not the personal authority of the Pope.

Blessings

Then which statements are infallible?

Which statements are infallible, or is the whole Tome infallible?
Which statements are infallible, or is the whole Epistle infallible?
Which statements are infallible, or is the whole Bull infallible?

Which statements are infallible, or is the whole constitution "infallible"?
Which statements are infallible, or is the whole constitution infallible?
You make much of things then that don't concern you greatly.
So which statements are infallible, or is the whole Bull infallible?

Interesting. Very interesting. I agree that I did ask the question wrong. A very interesting intellectual pursuit indeed, and I certainly never before considered that it is not important. I should think about this.

Almisry, your response sounds rather abrasive, forgive me. Surely our brother knows such statements would never conflict with the catholic faith.

Not abrasive, precise. Though pinpointing might feel abrasive.

Much is made of this "magisterium" which claims to make infallible statements. Yet when we ask for said statements, their importance is minimized. It claims to speak ex cathedra, what has it said?

Dear brother Joe,

To be more concise, I am not saying knowing which statements are ex cathedra is not important. Rather, all I'm saying is that making an exact, predetermined list is not important. If you compare the matter to the Canon of Scripture, I hope you can see the reason for my statement. The Churches have different canonical lists, and it has always been that way. So determining the exact list is not the most important thing. Rather, what is important is that all our lists have the same basic set of books, and the several differences affect neither the common unity nor the common Faith of the Churches.

Similarly, you will find that certain theologians have attempted to produce an exact list of ex cathedra decrees by Popes, yet not all these lists agree. However, you will also find that there are is a common denominator among these lists.

If one MUST have a list, look for it among the common denominator shared by all the different lists.

Also please consider my response to brother Isa below.

Thanks for the support, but I have very thick skin. I don't wonder about whether what someone says is abrasive, but only if it is a logical statement worth taking the time to answer.

Blessings

The problem here is that you are not considering the impetus for wanting said statements. Personally, I am not going to spend time finding a list of ex cathedra statements just for the mere sake of finding a list of ex cathedra statements.

I will search for a particular Truth and what the Church has stated on it (including, of course, ex cathedra statements) once I am put in a situation when that particular Truth will be relevant in my life. So far, I am quite content that the knowledge I have of the Christian Faith is enough for me at this time. If God feels I need more knowledge about a particular point of Faith, I'm sure He will present me with an opportunity or impetus to search it out.

Why do you feel it is so important to have such a predetermined list? I admit that is a strange question to ask a non-Catholic, but since you seem to insist on the matter, I would like to know what importance it has. Rather, the question should probably be - what relevance do you think such a list SHOULD have for me?

Blessings

I had received several questions by e-mail on the matter of "papal infallibility" from a member of Byzcath. I received permission from the member to post the questions and my response here. Maybe it will generate some interesting discussion:

you mentioned that the 6th Ecumenical Council accepted without reservation the letter of Pope St. Agatho which explicitly acknowleged papal infallibility-is this true?
I don't recall ever saying that the 6th Ecumenical Council accepted Pope St. Agatho's Epistle without reservation. Even if they did so, that would have no bearing on why or how "papal infallibility" was being exercised by Pope St. Agatho. The idea that the Church accepting an ex cathedra decree unreservedly somehow demonstrates "papal infallibility" is one of the most pernicious misunderstandings of "papal infallibility," and infallibility in general, that exists.

A lot of people think that "infallibility" denotes the prerogative to demand an assent of Faith. This is false. The doctrine of infallibility (papal or otherwise) has nothing to do with the prerogative to demand an assent of Faith. The one and only thing that the doctrine of infallibility is concerned with is the status of Truth itself. When the CC says something is "infallible" (or "irreformible"), it means only that the teaching is objectively God's Truth. That is ALL It means. The Church has always taught the ultimate value of free conscience for the acceptance of Truth, so an assent of Faith is by no means equivalent to blind Faith. That there is evidence in history of members of the Church (bishops or otherwise) ascertaining the Truth of an ex cathedra decree before accepting it does not make one dent in the dogma of "papal infallibility"; conversely, even if we find evidence of unreserved acceptance of an ex cathedra decree, that acceptance also has no bearing on "papal infallibility." This is because the concept of infallibility, as explained, has nothing to do with the acceptance or process of acceptance of the Truth, but only with the status of the Truth itself. For example, that bishops investigated the merits of Pope St. Leo's Tome by comparing it to St. Cyril's Epistles does not affect the infallibility of the decree itself (i.e., that the decree itself was/is in fact God's Truth, i.e., infallible, regardless of however many people accept it). In fact, far from weakening the dogma of "papal infallibility," the subsequent acceptance by most of the Church of Pope St. Leo's decree actually underscores the objective infallibility of that papal decree.

Another way to explain this is that people very often confuse "infallibility" with "certainty." People always have to be certain of what they believe, and that naturally involves whatever effort one exercises in order to arrive at the truth. But that certainty, or the process of arriving at that certainty, has no bearing on the objective status of God's Truth as Truth (i.e., infallibility, and concurrent irreformability). Consensus - which is a measure of certainty - has nothing to do with making God's Truth what it is, the latter being concerned with infallibility, not certainty. In fact, the idea that consensus is what determines truth is one of the worst heresies of modernism.

Also, does the Pope have to consult the bishops before making an infallible statement?
In truth, this question is a bit of a red herring - i.e., it is not the correct question. Vatican 1 never debated the issue of whether the Pope needs to consult the bishops per se, but rather whether the Pope needs to consult ALL the bishops.

The necessity of consultation is not the same thing as the necessity of agreement. Agreement can be obtained without consultation of all the bishops for several reasons:
(1) The mere fact that all bishops (which includes the Pope) have the same sources (i.e., Scripture and Tradition). The dogma assumes that the Pope and the bishops together will be faithful to the Sacred Tradition that is the font of Faith for all bishops.
(2) Infallibility extends to the entire Magisterium, which is a feature not just of the papacy, but also of the episcopate as a whole. The one infallibility of God ensures that if a bishop is orthodox, there will be faithfulness to the common font of Faith from which all bishops derive their teaching, and hence there will be agreement between the head bishop and the rest of the bishops (per the ancient Apostolic Canon 34, which the Official Relatio explicitly asserted is the rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope), even if not all bishops have been consulted by the Pope on the matter. Note that the principle here is not that the bishops will be in agreement with the Pope because they are bound to obey the Pope. Rather, there will be agreement because the one infallibility of God pervades the entire Magisterium of the Church (Pope and bishops together), not just the Pope alone.
(3) There's never been an Ecumenical Council composed of all the bishops of the world. This fact demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the consultation of all the bishops of the world is not necessary for an infallible decree to be promulgated. (This fact also helps to explain by analogy what "papal infallibility" really is. I'll discuss this below in reponse to your query about how to present "papal infallibility" to Orthodox that would be acceptable to them.)

It should be especially noted that even if all the bishops of the world were consulted, it might be the case that not all agree. Both Catholic and Orthodox adhere to the principle of the necessity of a particular teaching to have moral unanimity in order for it to be be considered an infallible Truth from God. Note, again, that this unanimity or consensus is not what makes it infallible Truth, but rather merely gives the Church certainty for the sake of unity. Vincent of Lerins classic principle does not insist on absolute unanimity, but only a moral unanimity across the ages - not even at one particular time. The foregoing serves to demonstrate the obvious difference between "consultation," on the one hand, and "agreement," on the other.

So Vatican 1 was only teaching the following:
(1) There is a dogmatic necessity for the Pope to be in agreement with the Magisterium of the bishops.
(2) There is a moral, practical and dogmatic necessity for the Pope to consult the Church.
(3) There is no dogmatic necessity for the Pope to consult with ALL the bishops.

The argument by many Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and (simultaneously) the Low Petrine detractors is that the Pope does not need the agreement of the bishops. Vatican 1 never taught this, but they mistakenly presume it by (1) an unjustified extrapolation of the principle that there is no dogmatic necessity for the Pope to consult all the bishops, (2) an unjustified equation of the term "consultation" with the term "agreement," and (3) the statement in the dogma that the decree is irreformible not by the consent of the Church. Presumptions (1) and (2) can be resolved easilty (if you need help with them, let me know - though I think the discussion above should help a lot). It is presumption (3) that usually presents the most difficulty. I explained the matter sufficiently at CAF (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9759345&highlight=Gasser#post9759345. In short, Vatican 1 did not teach that a papal decree is irreformible because the Pope decreed it (i.e., "It's true because the Pope said so"). Rather, she taught merely that it is not the consensus of the Church that makes an ex cathedra decree irreformible. Do you see the difference between the two statements? One can better understand the difference when one realizes that the term "consensus of the Church" actually includes the Pope, as he is also a member of the Church. This was explained explicitly by Bishop Gasser in the Official Relatio - the Pope is not for one instant separated from the body of the Church in the process of declaring an ex cathedra decree. So the dogma is saying that it is not the consensus of the Church - WHICH INCLUDES THE POPE - that makes a decree irreformible. An ex cathedra decree is considered irreformible not because the Pope said so, nor because of what anyone else says in consensus/agreement with the Pope. Rather, it is considered irreformible simply and only because of the promise of Christ through the Holy Spirit that the Gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church. If you need further help on resolving presumption (3), let me know.

Is there a way to explain papal infallibility to Orthodox which would hold to the doctrine but would be acceptable by them?
Yes. A proper understanding of "papal infallibility" will reveal that the objections Orthodox have to it are not really objections to "papal infallibility," but are rather objections to a mistaken interpretation of "papal infallibility."

Here are the most popular objections to (i.e., misinterpretations of) "papal infallibility," with responses:
(1) God does not give infallibility to only one man.
Fine, but this is not what the Catholic Church teaches with the doctirne of "papal infallibility." Specifically, as the dogma itself explicitly states, "papal infallibility" is the infallibility of the Church (" ...the Roman Pontiff...possesses through the divine assistance...the infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed the Church to be endowed..."), not the infallibility of only one man. Another way to reword the dogma is this: When the Pope speaks as the voice of the Church, being a member of the Church, never separated from that body, then he shares in the infallibility of the Church given to her by Christ while promulgating a decree ex cathedra. Is not the Pope a memher of the Church? So why cannot the Pope share in the Church's infallibility when he is called upon by the Church to make an ex cathedra decision? It is only upon this condition (i.e., as the voice of the Church - that is, speaking ex cathedra - being a member of the Church) that "papal infallibility" has any meaning at all. If you think about it, it is actually the detractors of the papacy who are guilty of separating the head from the body by their insistence that the Pope cannot possibly share in the Church's infallibility.
I give a further explanation below on this point after enumerating the five popular objections.

(2) Papal infallibility means that the Pope is the source of all doctrine.
Actually, the source of doctrine is Sacred Tradition, which no bishop, including the Pope, has the authority to contradict. If there is something to which the Pope himself is dogmatically bound to adhere, then it cannot be the case that the Pope is the source of all doctrine.

(3) An ecumenical Council is no longer needed.
Actually, as the official Relatio explained, the Ecumenical Council is the NORMATIVE way the Church resolves matters affecting the entire Church. In fact, the exercise of "papal infallilibility" would be rare if you think about it (as, in fact, it has been rare). As the historic Proem indicates, it is the bishops, by their solicitude, who apprise the Pope that an issue affecting the Church requires his intervention. The Pope responds, according to the needs of the Church (as explicitly stated in the Canons), by either (1) issuing a decision by his formal, personal authority, that decision having been arrived at with the help of the Church, including, but not limited to, his brother bishops, or (2) issuing a decision by the formal collegial authority of a Synod or Ecumenical Council. Whether the Pope calls an Ecumenical Council depends on the situation. If the Pope's personal authority alone is not enough to resolve a matter, an Ecumenical Council will be called. Oftentimes, it is the bishops themselves who wish an Ecumenical Council to be called, and in such occasions, I'm not aware of a single instance that the Pope has ever refused his approval of an Ecumenical Council.

(4) There is nothing to stop the Pope from making up new doctrine.
Those who proffer this objection have never bothered to read the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus, or if they have read it, have never realized the doctrinal importance of the addition of the Proem to Pastor Aeternus. As the historic Proem explicitly asserts, "...the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St,. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His revelation, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the Apostles."

(5) There is nothing to stop the Pope from making an ex cathedra decree anytime at his mere discretion.
Those who proffer this objection have never bothered to read the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus, or if they have read it, have never realized the doctrinal importance of the addition of the Proem to Pastor Aeternus. As the historic Proem indicates, the exericse of "papal infallibility" is initiated by the bishops, not by the Pope himself. Even our canons (CCEO Canon 45-2; CIC Canon 333-2) are explicit that the Pope's prerogative rests in his ability to decide, according to the needs of the Church, on how to formally RESPOND to an issue facing the Church (whether personally or collegially) - in other words, it is not a prerogative of the Pope to create an issue where there is none, and make an ex cathedra decree when there is no need for one.

If you can think of any other objections, let me know, but the foregoing were the ones that I counted against the Catholic Faith when I was not yet Catholic. My study of the Catholic Faith on this matter revealed that all my objections did not even touch upon the actual teaching of the CC on "papal infallibility." In other words, I had a false understanding of "papal infallibility" and it was the false understanding that I was really rejecting, not the actual teaching.

Positively speaking, "papal infallibility" is the infallibility of the Church, not the infallibility of one man. I mentioned earlier that one can infer the true meaning of "papal infallibility" by a consideration of how "conciliar infallibility" has worked in the Church. Permit me to explain the analogy at this point. The only difference between "papal infallibility" and "conciliar infallibility" is the manner of exercising infallibility. The Magisterium (i.e., teaching authority) of the Church is exercised in two ways:
(I) The ORDINARY manner. The Church exercises infallibility in an ordinary manner in the day-to-day handing on of her holy doctrines that are not disputed. The body of bishops as a whole (including the Pope, of course, who is a bishop) is graced with this infallibility. Even priests, theologians, and lay persons can be protected by this infallibility, and the Church accomodates this understanding under her teaching on the infallibility of the sensus fidei. In other words, the ORDINARY manner of exercising Church's infallibility is always collegial.

(II) The EXTRAordinary manner. The Church exercises infallibility in this manner when JUDGMENT on a particular teaching is required. It is a much more formal way of exercising infallibility. The Church has two distinct organs of exercising infallibility in an extraordinary manner - (a) the formal, collegial authority of an Ecumenical Council, and (b) the formal, personal authority of the bishop of Rome exercised collegially. There are three important corollaries to remember in regards to the Church's exercise of infallibility in an EXTRAordinary manner:
(1) ONLY bishops can exercise the infallibility of the Church in an extraordinary manner.
(2) When the Church exercises infallibility in an extraordinary manner, the Church's exercise of infallibility in an ORDINARY manner does not somehow and mysteriously disappear, but always remains intact. The historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus testifies to this fact then it indicates that the promised assistance of the Holy Spirit to the Pope is evinced in the Pope's search for the agreement of the Church in the process of formulating an ex cathedra decree.
(3) NOT ALL bishops need to participate explicitly for the Church to exercise the EXTRAordinary Magisterium. No Ecumenical Council has ever been composed of ALL the bishops of the world; likewise, neither is it a requirement for the Pope to consult ALL the bishops of the world in the process of formulating an ex cathedra decree.

In short, "papal infallibility" is not the infallibility of only one man; neither is "conciliar infallibility": the infallibility of only that group of bishops. It is the dogma of the Church that the Church AS A WHOLE is infallible. "Papal infallibility" and "conciliar infallibility" are merely two formal ways by which the CHURCH exercises the infallibility of her EXTRAordinary Magisterium.

But, how can one defend Vatican I's teaching on the Pope's Universal Jurisdiction? The Orthodox hate this one!
In order to understand universal jurisdiction, one must first have a good understanding of what jurisdiction is. With that proper understanding, the idea of "universal jurisdiction" will not seem so objectionable. The Orthodox argument is really a double-standard. When the Orthodox Church speaks of jurisdiction (of any bishop), they don't imagine themselves to be referring to absolute or dictatorial power, but rather a power that humbles itself in service for and to the Church (having been on that side of the fence, I can speak with certainty on this). And when the Catholic Church speaks of jurisdiction (of any bishop, Pope included), neither does she refer to absolute or dicatorial power, but, likewise, rather a power that humbles itself in service for and to the Church (being now on the Catholic side of the fence, I can also speak with certainty on this). So why is it that when Orthodox speak of jurisdiction as it relates to the papacy, its meaning out of the blue somehow becomes transmogrified to that which it normally does not refer - i.e., absolute and dictatorial power? Ask them what mental process occurs that causes such a misapprehension?

But let's consider the jurisdiction of the papacy as one (whether Catholic or Orthodox) would normally understand "jurisdiction." What objection can possibly be proffered to an office that has the power to render service for and to the Church anywhere in the Church (i.e., universally)? Think about that, and let's discuss.

I was, I must admit, heavily influenced by Orthodox on these issues and, hearing their arguments and historical references, agreed with them against Vatican I...Don't we have irrefutable proof that papal infallibility is false? I remember reading Von Dollinger's "The Pope and the Council" and he brings up statements made by Popes in past ages that were considered to be final Dogmatic decisions, and they were erroneous. I would have to open up the books to tell you the specific times, but do you know already what I am talking about?
Maybe 95% of the Orthodox arguments that you will encounter against the papacy are actually against the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations of the papacy. As an advocate of the High Petrine position, I will agree most times with Orthodox in their remonstrances against the Absolutist Petrine positions (though I don't agree with the Low Petrine rationale of some Orthodox). There are two arguments proferred by Orthodox based on historical evidence:
(1) Certain episodes demonstrate that the Pope did not act alone in proclaiming the teaching, contrary to the claims of "Papal infallibility." Examples of these include the Tome of Pope St. Leo, and the Epistle of Pope St. Agatho. Answer: As explained above, this is really a straw man because the dogma of "papal infallibility" does not teach that the Pope is the only one graced with infallibility NOR that he acts alone in promulgatiing an ex cathedra decree. Recall also the discussion above about the fact that infallibility has nothing to do with how or when a particular teaching is received by the Church.

As you mentioned that you obtained your informatoin from a book discussing the Councils, This would be an opportune time to discuss the difference between infallibility and ecumenicity. They are not prefect synonyms. While a doctrine/dogma proclaimed Ecumenically is indeed infallible, not all things that are infallible are necessarily proclaimed Ecumenically. There have been local - not Ecumenical - councils that have proposed infallible teaching. Another way to put it is that while the reception/acceptance/recognition of the Church can reflect the infallibility of a teaching, the infallibility of a teaching is not dependant on such reception/acceptance/recognition by the Church. As already explained, God' s Truth is true (i.e. infallible and irreformible) regardless of how many people receive it as such, and regardless of how long it may take for that Truth to become accepted by the Church as a whole (remember not to confuse "infallibility" with "certainty").

(2) The Pope proclaimed a dogmatic teaching that ran counter to Sacred Tradition. The Catholic rebuttal falls under two categories:
(A) Did the Pope really make an ex cathedra decree? A classic example is the case of Pope Honorius who, though he was declared a heretic by an Ecumenical Council, never promulgated it as a public teaching of the Church. In fact, the Sixth Ecum recognized this, according to its Session 13 - "but the names of those whose doctrines we execrate...Sergius...Cyrus...Peter...Theodore...And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius...because of what we found written by him to Sergius...We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory..." There are 2 things to notice about this record of the Acts of the Sixth Ecum:
(i) Unlike the first four names, who are charged with being the originators of the doctrine and taught it publicly, the Council admits that the only basis of the charge against Honorius is the private letter to Sergius.
(ii) The Council distinguishes the letter of Honorius to Sergius alone from the letter of Sophronius that was a public, synodal letter.

Another common example is the case of Pope John XXII who expressed a teaching contrary to the received Tradition of the Catholic Church regarding the afterlife. In that instance, the Pope actually and explicity affirmed that he only preached his own private opinion from a pulpit sermon and never represented the matter as the teaching of the Church. Note that even at this time in the 14th century, a Pope was cognizant that there was an important difference between the official and public teaching of the Catholic Church, on the one hand, and the private opinions of individuals, even those of the Pope himself, on the other.

(B) Was the dogmatic teaching really counter to Sacred Tradition? The best example of this category is Unam Sanctam. Another, less popular, one is the dogma of the IC. Let me know if you have a problem with, and want to discuss, the orthodoxy of these two teachings.

Sorry for misunderstanding what you said. Following this discussion with great interest. Happy Lent to you brother.

On the Greek calendar, the two early saint popes of Rome on your list are commemorated one day apart at the end of February. I find that fact interesting. S. Leo, Feb. 18, and S. Agatho, Feb. 20th.

It is good to be back here and see Br. Markdum is still involved and providing interesting posts for all to consider. I like the reference to a red herring, for that is exactly what it is in terms of "papal infallibility". The day a pontiff who has no prior dealings with the college of bishops of the worldwide church is elected and starts spouting off new "dogmas" that he personally feels are true from scripture and tradition--but happen to fly in the face of established Truth in the Deposit of Faith--is the day when I will think there is something to be concerned about. Of course, the Pope is constantly interacting with the lay faithful and the bishops on all matters of faith and morals, so nothing he announces ex cathedra (rarely, very rarely) is ever new to the Church (not to say there are not different roads that go the same general path, i.e., Dormition and Assumption as corollaries of the same Truth). Perhaps we are talking about a lag time of a millennium now and then on certain issues?

marduk, Your posts in this thread really are excellent, admirably careful and thoughtful, and to my mind, genuinely helpful both for Catholics and their interlocutors. I am very sympathetic with the general direction of your interpretation. However, there is something I want to ask you about in relation to Pope Honorius's condemnation.

That Pope Honorius might NOT have offered his (heretical) personal opinion as the teaching of the Church is important in this instance--the case of Pope Honorius--but it only begs the larger question. If the Roman pope should fall into heresy, what if he did attempt to introduce novel doctrines as the church's teaching? He might even understand himself to be doing so with all the teaching authority of his office. He may declare that his novelty is 'ex cathedra' definition and make every attempt to signal that it is. I do not believe that anyone would say his (false) teaching had been made true.

However, some may say that the doctrine of infallibility amounts to an assertion that this historical event is impossible, but I do not think it does, at least not necessarily. Your argument certainly attempts to show that the example of Pope Honorius does not falsify the Catholic teaching. For you, does Catholic teaching equal the assertion that this historical event is impossible?
(This is not a polemical question.)

On a related issue, if Pastor Aeternus were correct, Pope St. Martin's Lateran Council of 649, led by St. Maximos, would have sufficed in its condemnation of Monotheletism. It wasn't: and the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III had to be held.