Pope Honorius: A Permanent Stain in Papal Infallibility

Pope Honorius who reigned as pope from 625 to 638 AD was condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo in the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 AD) for promoting monotheletism. In monothelitism, it is taught that Christ has only a divine will contrary to the orthodox position that He has two (human and divine wills).

Although there are Roman Catholic apologists who acknowledge this condemnation, they assert that Pope Honorius was not condemned in his official capacity as pope. In order to "preserve" their beloved doctrine of papal infallibility, Roman Catholics give either one of these two escape hatches:

1. He only neglected to fight against monothelitism
2. His teaching of monothelitism did not conform in the conditions of an ex-cathedra declaration and thus he was acting as a private theologian

With regards to number one, this is easily refutable when your read the pronouncement made in the Sixth Ecumenical Council where Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic and not an incompetent pope.

With respect to number two, the conditions for an ex-cathedra statement was not made until 1870. None of the popes 1,200 years before that know about those conditions, let alone papal infallibility. Read the following excerpts of some of the sessions during the Sixth Ecumenical Council:

Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore, sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whome the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine.

Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrusm the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! to Paul, the heretic, anathema!...

Note the terms used for Honorius: Heretic and Pope of Old Rome. The doctrines Honorius followed were considered, and we quote, "hurtful to the soul". So it isn't true that Honorius was condemned for negligence or acting as a private theologian. He was condemned in his official capacity as pope. Again, the conditions for an ex-cathedra declarations and the dogma of papal infallibility were unknown during those time.

Reference: Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith, Volume 2 by William Webster

Thank you, Uncle Noli

I would like to thank my uncle, Manuel "Noli" Soliman for taking the trouble to purchase for me in the USA the three volume set of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith. These were written and edited by David King and William Webster. These books are highly recommended by popular Evangelical Apologists in defending the Reformation's doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Volume 1 discusses the scriptural basis of Sola Scriptura. Volume 2 provides the historical defense of the doctrine. Volume 3 contains patristic citations from Church Fathers affirming the principle of Sola Scriptura. Basically, the books give us a scholarly approach in defending the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and provide responses to the arguments thrown by its detractors, especially Roman Catholic apologists like Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis.

Normally, if there is an interesting book I would make a special order in Powerbooks. But the above books are no longer in the inventory of Powerbooks' suppliers for years. After I saved enough funds, I asked my uncle to buy it for me in the USA. I just got the above books yesterday, after four months of waiting. It looks like that I will have more things to do this Holiday Season.

Christmas Bonus

Republic Act 6686; Section 1:

Section 1. All officials and employees of the National Government who have rendered at least four months of service from January 1 to October 31 of each year and who are employed in the government service as of October 31 of the same year shall each receive a Christmas bonus equivalent to one month basic salary and additional cash gift of One thousand pesos (P1,000).

Presidential Decree No. 851:

WHEREAS, the Christmas season is an opportune time for society to show its concern for the plight of the working masses so they may properly celebrate Christmas and New Year.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby decree as follows:

Section 1. All employers are hereby required to pay all their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than P1,000 a month, regardless of the nature of their employment, a 13th-month pay not later than December 24 of every year.

************

It makes me wonder if the members of religions who do not celebrate Christmas (arguing that it is pagan) are rejecting these benefits. Yes, I am aware that they will only switch terminologies saying that it is 13th month pay and not Christmas bonus. But look at the context of the provision, the basis is Christmas.

Comments on Atty. Marwil Llasos' Lecture about Sects

Atty. Marwil Llasos, a resource person of Defensores Fidei Foundation, gave a lecture about sects. The one posted in his article is probably just an outline. Of course, this lecture serves no other purpose than to exalt his church, the Church of Rome, by discrediting other religions. Although that's understandable, I just couldn't resist giving my comments on Atty. Llasos lecture because there are things which he doesn't seem to realize. We're not going to deal with all of his lecture, though.

We begin with his definition of sect:

The religious groups we call sects originated from Protestantism. They have carried out their Protestant idea of the personal and free interpretation of the Bible to the limit; therefore their Biblical subjectivism has led them apart from traditional Protestantism. It has led them as well to continuous divisions and subdivisions among themselves: new sects are born according to different interpretations of the Bible.

Ah, a classic Roman definition. Any group that opposes the interpretation of Rome's magisterium is called a sect. Being the ever-loyal Catholic that he is, Atty. Llasos blames the private interpretation of Protestantism as a result of these sects.

It makes we wonder how religions such as the Eastern Orthodox and the Mormons be the result of different interpretations of the Bible since these group's authority are beyond the Bible. It also makes me wonder how Traditional Catholics, Sedevacantists, Catholics for a Choice, and the Philippine version of the Church of Rome known as the Aglipays be the result of Protestantism. Does Atty. Llasos consider these Catholic spin-offs as sects resulting from Protestantism?

What's even ironic is that Atty. Llasos stated that sects carried out the Protestant idea of personal interpretation of Scripture. Hasn't it occurred to Atty. Llasos that the sects follow Rome's system of infallible interpreter? The members of the Jehovah's Witnesses have Watchtower to interpret the Bible for them. The members of the Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path, aka Members Church of God International) are dependent on the interpretation of their founder, Eliseo Soriano. The same can be said for the members of the Iglesia ni Cristo who are always obliged to follow their ministers' interpretation. Finally, the Kingdom of Jesus Christ whose members acknowledge the rank of their leader, Apollo Quiboloy, as Son of God.

So if these sects originated from Protestantism, how come they are following the infallible magisterium system of Rome? Therefore, these sects are children of Rome.

In the next part of his lecture, Atty. Llasos discusses how to recognize a sect.

Founded within the last 100 or 150 years by persons who claimed to have been “enlightened” or “inspired.”

In fairness he is right on this part. But it is so comforting to know that Protestantism is out of this category since it was not founded 150 years ago.

By Church standards, sects are rather small groups or congregations.

The true church founded by Christ started small and then grew. If the world were to continue several thousands of years more, some of these sects will definitely grow.

They impose on people and very demanding; their leaders have much influence and authority.

Look who's talking. As if the Church of Rome is not notorious for declaring "anathema" to those who oppose her with matching excommunication for those rebellious members. And doesn't the Pope also have influence and authority?

Each sect is convinced that it, and only it, possesses the truth about religion and salvation. Other religions are complete falsehood.

As if the Church of Rome is not notorious for saying, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus or outside the Church there is no salvation. Look how Pope Boniface VIII put it in his Bull Unam Sanctam in the year 1302:

"We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

By the last part in violet, no doubt that the church being talked about here, which anyone outside cannot be granted salvation, is the Church of Rome.

They are anti-ecumenical and particularly anti-Catholic.

Unfortunately, they are also Anti-Protestant as well. Wait a second, to the the eyes of the Mormons we are anti-Mormons. To the eyes of the Muslim we are anti-Islam. I guess the feeling is mutual.

Sects reject the Church, its sacraments and liturgy, all Christian tradition, Mary, the saints, the Pope, bishops and priests. They accept only the Bible which they freely interpret (“biblical fundamentalism”).

And we have already pointed out how these sect eventually adapt the infallible interpreter system of Rome. So, again, these sects are Rome's children at the end of the day.

Highly proselytist and intolerant.

As if the Church of Rome is not working double time to call back those who left her by discrediting other religions. Look how she boasts when a Protestant converts to her.

Their faith and religiosity are simplistic and very emotional.

And the Church of Rome is not? In the Philippines look how her members celebrate the feast of the Black Nazarene.They hold a parade of a black-colored statue of Christ. There have been reports of injuries and even deaths of Catholics who wants to get a glimpse or even a touch of the image by barging in to the crowd. So who is emotional?

They usually believe in the imminent second coming of Christ.

I don't see why is this cause for an alarm. Even the Church of Rome believes in the second coming and it is bound to happen as prophesied in Scriptures. Atty. Llasos is probably referring to those preachers who are fond of shouting, "Repent for the end is near!" just to get members by scaring them.

Anyway, what we have here is a normal attitude towards opposing religions. To the Roman Catholic Church other religions are heretics just as the Roman Catholic Church is a heretic to other religions.

How do I define a sect? Well one of my definitions of a sect is a group whose members' spiritual standing is dependent on people and things instead of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, I am aware that God uses people and things to bless us but the members of sects focus more on people and things instead of Christ. And yes, the members of other religions do claim they focus on Christ but their actions are quite the opposite. So if your religious group for most of the time is boasting how good the church, magisterium or church administration, saints, popes, sent ones or sugo, angels etc. are, then you better think twice of staying there because the true church gives you the living Jesus through the Bible.

How not to defend the Immaculate Conception

Last December 8, 2010 the feast of the Immaculate Conception was celebrated by Roman Catholics all over the world. I already have written some topics about the Immaculate Conception, you may check them out as you please. However, there is one aspect of it that we would like to address.

There is this article about the Immaculate Conception written by Atty. Marwil Llasos, a Filipino Mariologist. It is a rebuttal of the Truth Encounter which is written by a former Catholic priest, Anthony Pezzotta. Unfortunately, I can't speak for Anthony Pezzotta primarily because he doesn't know me and I haven't read his book. But there is an interesting section in Atty. Llasos' article which I would like to talk about:

Dr. Anthony Pezzotta accuses the Catholic Church of trying “to prove that Mary was conceived without sin by saying that only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.”7 Once again, Pezzotta does not give evidence or proof for such claim. In vain will readers of Truth Encounter look for its author’s references and sources for the above statement. This blunder is typical of Dr. Pezzotta’s level of scholarship (if any).

I challenge Dr. Pezzotta, a scholar and expert on Catholicism, to point to official Catholic documents that say precisely that “Mary was conceived without sin because only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.” Here we see that Pezzotta is passing off as an official argument of the Catholic Church something that is not. Such is the fallacy of assumption non probata (assuming without proving).

As highlighted in violet, it is very clear to Atty. Llasos that the argument of Dr. Pezzotta (Mary must be sinless for Christ to be sinless) is not an official teaching or argument of the Church of Rome. Furthermore, with his challenge Atty. Llasos attempts to embarass Dr. Pezzotta as Atty. Llasos is confident that it is not an official argument.

Yes, you guessed it. Now comes the part where I cite other Roman Catholic apologists who use the same argument as quoted by Atty. Llasos from Pezzotta. Here's one from Catholic Bridge:

Original sin don't just come through bloodline of the human father. It comes through the mother also. We are born into sin both through our mother and through our earthly father. Jesus was born of Mary and if she would have been infected with original sin, then Jesus would have been infected also. Original sin is kind of like the HIV virus or alcoholism. If the mother has it during pregnancy then the child gets it. Of course every mother (except Mary) has original sin.

The statement is not rendered in verbatim but the effect is the same. How about in Misconceptions about Mary by Ms. Mary Fairchild:

Simply put, Catholic teaching purports that in order for Jesus to have been born without sin, he would have to have been conceived within a sinless vessel. Catholics believe that if Mary had a sin nature when she conceived Jesus, then he would inherit this sin nature through her.

Ah, here we have a closer rendition with Dr. Pezzotta, and best of all Ms. Fairchild implied that it is a Catholic belief. Here is John Salza as referred by Catholic Apologetics International:

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one" (Job. 14:4). Jesus was born without sin because Mary was without sin, according to the will of God.

Although not exactly rendered as Pezzotta's, the effect is still the same. Speaking of official Catholic documents, John Salza made this comment from the same article we quoted:

This is an accurate statement of Catholic teaching, but if Mr. Blackaby is going to cite from an authority, he should quote the official teachings of the Catholic Church (from the popes and the Magisterium). He should not rely on obscure books written by unidentified authors.

So, if Mr. Salza suggested to his opponent, Mr. Blackaby, to cite from official teachings of the Catholic Church, it follows that John Salza is arguing in his article based on the said official teachings. Here again is Salza's statement: Jesus was born without sin because Mary was without sin, according to the will of God. With this statement we can consider that Mr. Salza thinks he is speaking with what is official.

Now if Atty. Llasos is asking Dr. Pezzotta an official teaching that Mary has to be sinless so that Christ can be sinless, then Atty. Llasos should ask the same thing from these Catholic Apologists we quoted from. What does Atty. Llasos have to say for his fellow Roman Catholics who argue that Mary should be without sin for Christ to be sinless? Will he unconditionally consider this a blunder on his fellow Roman Catholics' level of scholarship (if any)?

It's safe to say that Dr. Pezzotta was not basing it from hearsay as there are Roman Catholics who use the same argument to defend the Immaculate Conception. It's not a matter whether the argument is official or not: it's a given fact that the argument is being used to justify the sinlessness of Mary. And who do you suppose taught them that? Who else but the Roman Catholic Church of course.

The argument that Mary has to be free from original in order for Christ to be sinless is called the argument of necessity. However, there are other Roman Catholic apologists who discourage using the argument. Catholic Answers admit that the argument is weak and can be refuted:

You can see why this argument won't work: It sets up an unworkable, not to mention unbiblical, regression of "immaculate conceptions" from Mary back to Eve (who, as a type of Mary in the Old Testament, was immaculately created by God, free of any stain of sin or corruption [Gn 1:31]). Rather, in view of the merits of Christ's once-for-all redemptive work on the cross, God saved Mary from all sin (Lk 1:47) even though she was conceived and gestated for nine months in the womb of a woman, Anne, who was subject to original sin (and most probably actual sin).

Also from the same article:

The problem is that God didn't need to make Mary immaculate in order to carry out his plan for the Incarnation of Jesus.

Here is what Catholic Answers suggests:

Don't use the easily refutable argument of necessity; the argument of fittingness is much better. It was fitting that God willed that Mary was conceived free from all sin, since she was chosen to be the Ark of the New Covenant, the mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the incarnate Word of God. The Father didn't have to do it that way, but it was fitting that he did.

Some Roman Catholics modify the argument of fittingness by saying that since God the Son who will be incarnated is holy, He needs to dwell in a vessel not tainted by sin. This is because grace and sin are opposed. But the sinless Christ mingled with sinners (ex. Matthew 9:9-12). He was in the sinful world for 33 years but he never sinned. As written in John 1:14, the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. He did not complain that his temporary dwelling was infected with sin. As admitted by Catholic Answers, God need not make Mary immaculate for the incarnation of Christ.

Unfortunately, the so-called argument of fittingness almost made the Immaculate Conception purposeless. Granting that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, what further purpose can it do after the birth of Christ?

No apostle has ever considered Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant and neither they taught she was immaculate. Roman Catholics are better off using the argument of necessity. Then again, they are much better off without the Immaculate Conception at all because it is both unbiblical and purposeless.