@California Newt
(reply bug)
You are doing the classic “durr how can pope be bad and be pope”. Popes have been bad. We will continue to have bad ones. There have been far worse than you have mentioned, murderers, deviants, you name it. Humans are base creatures to our core, welcome to Catholicism.
You misunderstand my point- Honorious was at most guilty of personal heresy- nothing was ex cathedra, and infallibility was not engaged. Indefectibility protects official church teaching, not personal beliefs so there was no “formal heresy.” You are cherry-picking and ignoring how any of this actually works. Catholic theology distinguishes between a pope’s personal failings and his official acts- Honorius did not issue a doctrinal definition promoting Monothelitism. His letters avoided taking a clear stance, which was harmful, but it did not constitute an infallible proclamation. The condemnation was posthumous, for actions that did not engage infallibility, and it served to clarify orthodoxy, not to depose a sitting pope. Furthermore, his letters were not widely circulated during his lifetime and their impact was limited until the council revisited them posthumously.
Here is a much better source than wikipedo that explains things far better than I can. As for the ecumenical council, I'm not sure how you can seek to undermine the papacy by citing a papally authorized council whose main goal with this was to uphold the orthodoxy and correct Honorius’ error, thereby reinforcing the Church’s indefectibility.
As for Leo, you are really showing your lack of understanding here of both theology and history. I already answered this fully, the inscription lacked ex cathedra status because it was a localized, symbolic act, which precludes it from being an "Ex Cathedra" statement which must:
- Have the pope address the universal Church in his official capacity
- Explicitly define a doctrine
- Clearly intend the teaching to be obligatory for all Catholics, invoking his supreme authority
- Speak with definitive intent
At the end of the day, Leo fully supported the filioque ("it is forbidden not to believe such a great mystery of the faith"), he just didn't think it was 100% necessary to always be included in the creed. The burden of proof is on you for thinking putting up a fancy decoration means "this is the definitive end all be all proclamation of all Catholic teaching forevermore" or something. His referencing of the "Orthodox Faith” likely refers to the Creed’s conciliar integrity, not a rejection of the filioque’s theology.
The fact that you try preempt my thousands-of-years-old points by saying I am trying to wriggle out of the exact topic we are discussing in order to cover the gaps in your own and then saying that my argument is somehow wrong because it supports my worldview (duh dude) proves that you are arguing in bad faith and I have already wasted way too much time on your dumb ass. Have a good one, if you're actually curious there is a wealth of information out there on this topic (literal thousands of years worth, as I mentioned) but I know you're not, you just came into the Catholic thread hoping to dunk on papists. Get fucked.
