Were Pope Honorius’ controversial letters to Sergius acts of the papal magisterium – or something else? Part II of our early study on the matter.
Introduction
This is a re-release of an article published on 29 July 2021 – one of the first articles published at The WM Review. It has now been revised and updated.
This is the second part of my study of Professor Roberto de Mattei’s treatment of Honorius, the so-called “heretic pope”. In his book, Love for the Papacy and Filial Resistance to the Pope in the History of the Church, Professor de Mattei presents the events in such a way as to bolster his own very particular “recognise and resist” view of the crisis in the Church. In certain respects, his narrative is closely aligned to those of anti-Catholics and anti-papalist.
In the first part, I discussed how theological principles regarding the crisis in the Church can be improperly shaped by interpretations of history – and began to demonstrate how this is the case for Pope Honorius.
I hope that this study will, in de Mattei’s own words in the same book, overcome “the many misunderstandings that often divide the forces of good people.”1
The claim to be analysed
Fr Ludwig Ott provides a compressed account of the standard narrative – unsullied by those of anti-Catholics and anti-papalists – of the “Honorius event”.
“There is no doubt but that Pope Honorius I (625-638) was personally orthodox.
“However, through his prohibition against speaking of two modes of operation [“two wills” in Christ] he unwittingly favoured the Monothelite error [“one will in Christ”].
“The Sixth General Council wrongly condemned him as a heretic. Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed his anathematisation but not for the reason given by the Council.
“He did not reproach him with heresy, but with negligence in the suppression of the error.”2
The previous part addressed the historical account of Honorius’s letters and his subsequent condemnation. I did not claim to have proven that the letters were orthodox or that Honorius was not condemned as a heretic, but rather to have shown the uncertainty of the claims against him.
As de Mattei’s subsequent theological principles depend on his historical claims as their foundation, and as I have shown this foundation to be unsound, my study could have ended there.
But tribal myths do not die easily. With an alarming regularity, commentators and pundits resurrect the anti-Catholic myth of Honorius to support the very flawed “theology” of the so-called “recognise and resist” movement. This regularity gives an impetus to continue the critique, because responses to the crisis in the Church must be based on the truth and on sound doctrine, and not on anti-papal myths adopted in support of a priori conclusions.
In this part, we shall turn to another assertion, which de Mattei presents as certain.
He claims, with no indication that he is aware of any controversy:
“[Honorius’s letters] are undoubtedly magisterial acts, but in the non-infallible ordinary Magisterium there may be errors and even, in exceptional cases, heretical formulations.”3 [These and all subsequent emphasese are our own unless otherwise noted.]
This essay focuses on whether Pope Honorius’ letters can be called “magisterial acts”, and will show that, far from being “undoubtedly magisterial”, the nature of these letters is at best a debated subject.
As with the previous claims considered, this claim also sets de Mattei against two doctors of the Church and very many Catholic authorities – who have taught that they were private letters which did not engage his papal authority.
De Mattei also fails to provide authorities for his assertion of the “undoubtedly magisterial” quality of the letters. De Mattei has himself stated that he is an historian, rather than a theologian4 – and this makes it all the more important for him to thoroughly reference his material when he begins “doing theology” in this way. De Mattei does indeed provide authorities for uncontroversial points, and so his omission of evidence in support of controversial points such as this is noticeable. Without such authorities, he is acting as a theological authority in his own right – which is obviously not the case for a lay professor of history.
Is it pedantic to hold a popular column to such a level of rigour? No, because it is not treated as a mere column. It has been widely syndicated in several languages, and is given weight by de Mattei’s reputation. It is therefore appropriate to hold its debatable claims to this standard.
Further, as that which is asserted without evidence is refuted with a simple denial, we could again end this study here. Nonetheless, an exposition of this faulty theological method is essential.
Both the claim and de Mattei’s article as a whole exhibit “Döllingerist historical theology” at work.5 This Döllingerist approach claims to purify theology by subjecting it to the findings of history: in reality, it seeks to justify a priori principles (in this case, those regarding resistance to the pope) against the received theology of the Church.
Both the premise and the reality are unacceptable to Catholics. Uprooted from true theology, historical theology leads to irrelevant parallels and neglects true distinctions. This makes the precedents and principles it establishes liable to contradict received, traditional Catholic theology.
With that in order, let us consider de Mattei’s claim.
The Magisterium
It is unclear exactly what de Mattei means by “undoubtedly magisterial acts,” as he does not define his terms or refer us to any authorities.
For this reason we must ask: How should we define the term “magisterium”? What is it, and when is it exercised?
Fr Pietro Parente (consecrated bishop in 1955 and made a cardinal in 1967) defines the magisterium in his 1951 text as follows:
“The power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) is constituted as the unique depository and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authoritatively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation. […]
“The means, therefore, established by Christ, for the propagation of his teaching is not writing, but oral preaching, living magisterium, to which he assures his personal assistance to the end of the world.”6
Properly speaking, then, the magisterium is a permanent power to teach, which is exercised by the act of teaching, by those who have received it. The word can be used to refer both to those who have and exercise the power, and its exercise.
Those who have received this power are the Apostles and their successors (bishops with ordinary jurisdiction) – and not auxiliary bishops, priests or laymen.7 It is, perhaps, comparable to the Roman concept of imperium, the supreme power of command conferred upon certain magistrates.
By calling Honorius’s letters “magisterial,” de Mattei implies that they are exercises of this power, and as such public acts.8 We are therefore to assume that Honorius exercised his teaching authority, as the successor of St Peter and teacher of the universal Church, even if not at its highest level.
But even this idea contradicts the very many authorities, who hold the letters to be private, and not engaging his papal authority at all. De Mattei does not acknowledge this opinion, nor does explain his reasons for rejecting what is taught even by two Doctors of the Church.
In order to address the letters, we must consider when the magisterium is exercised, and when the pope acts as the pope, as opposed to as a private individual.
When does the pope act as pope?
Theologians differ in their terminology regarding the official teaching acts of the Pope, but their distinctions between public and private acts are clear.
For example is Cardinal Louis Billot SJ, one of the most important theologians of the twentieth century,9 who explains this idea as follows:
“It is important to know that we can speak of the pope in three different ways.
“Firstly, as a private person, or as a theologian among others, in which case he can err in matters of faith and morals, just like anyone else: this is a fact that cannot be disputed.”10
When acting as a private person, his actions are no more magisterial than a sovereign’s private actions are monarchical. Billot points to examples such as Benedict XIV’s work as a private theologian on the canonization of saints as an example of this (although not as an example of a Pope erring as a private person).
He continues:
“Secondly, the pope may be considered as pope, but not as using the fullness of his apostolic power to define something that the whole church should hold.”11
Billot gives the examples of acts that either do not concern the universal Church, or do not constitute a “definition.” But just as there are no secret or private truths of the Catholic faith, there can be no secret or private acts of the magisterium: there is an opposition between the very categories of secrest/private and magisterial. That which truly is secret or private is, by that fact, not magisterial.
Billot continues:
“Thirdly, the pope can be seen as ‘discharging his office as pastor and doctor of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals as to be held by the whole church.”12
The essence of this third way of acting is the definition (which is not necessarily the same thing as a solemn definition) – the settling of a question for good.
With Billot’s division, we have three ways in which the pope can act.
A private person (even if this exercise is public, but the act of a private teacher), who can err.
A public teacher, exercising his office by teaching the whole Church or some part of her, but not defining anything.
A public teacher, teaching definitively, whether that be explicitly addressed to the universal Church or not.
These general distinctions are clear, even if there are some grey areas. The matter is illuminated further by Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ, who wrote the following:
“[I]t is manifest that the Roman Pontiff can teach something without defining ex cathedra. For upon becoming Pontiff he does not lose the qualities common to all men; the exercise of the authority to teach, moreover, can be manifold, while the full exercise of supreme power belongs freely to him who possesses it. It can also be discerned when the Roman Pontiff is not speaking ex cathedra: for when he teaches something but does not intend to impose an obligation to believe it as something to be held by the universal Church – that is, he does not signify that it is his will – then he is not said to be speaking ex cathedra, even if he is speaking of doctrine concerning faith or morals.
“In such a case it is not accurate to say that he speaks as a private teacher (doctor privatus); for although he does not speak from the fullness of his authority, he does speak with authority. Wherefore a Roman Pontiff speaking in this manner is not to be relegated to the rank of any private doctor possessing no authority.”13
We see here that Fr Palmieri also identifies an opposition between that which is private and that which is authoritative or magisterial.
The issue is also illustrated in the American Ecclesiastical Review’s answer to the question of whether a pope could teach heresy.
First, it was stated that the question was “altogether futile” and hypothetical, as “history has hitherto furnished no example of such an occurrence.”14
But the answer continues:
“… The admission that the Pope, whilst personally peccable, yet in his office as supreme teacher and moderator of the Church is infallible, covers the whole case; nor is there any more difficulty here than there is in distinguishing between the official acts of a sovereign and his private deeds, not as a private man but as sovereign.”15
We could also summarise it like this:
“Private acts” are those which do not engage the pope’s authority as pope. “Private” does not mean “secret,” as even the pope’s acts as a private teacher can be public in a certain sense – e.g. as the author of a theological text, intending to exclude his papal authority.
The pope acts as pope, and thus as a public teacher, when he exercises his magisterium, to whatever degree. These acts are necessarily magisterial.
Neither his public acts as pope, nor his magisterium, are limited to solemn judgements or to definitions (it is also not clear that definitions are necessarily solemn judgments).16
While Billot’s division may not be the only legitimate one, the differences are concerned with the categorisation of magisterial acts and the nature of the assent which they are owed. The theologians distinguish clearly between the pope acting publicly and privately – as taught, for example, by Salaverri,17 Berry18 and others.
For example, Cardinal Franzelin quotes Melchior Cano in the following context:
“[The popes] often respond to private questions of this or that bishop, by explicating [their] opinion concerning the matters proposed to them, [and] not by imposing a judgment in which they mean the faithful to be obliged to belief.”19
Franzelin even cites Honorius’s letters as an example of such private actions. Of course, such private questions may also receive public, magisterial answers from the pope as pope: but whether this occurs will turn on the facts.
Does de Mattei accept a general division like this?
Elsewhere in his anthology of articles on resisting the Roman Pontiff, de Mattei makes these surprising claims – which run directly contrary to the theologians whom we have just cited:
“[…] the expression “private doctor” does not refer to the Supreme Pontiff’s acts of a private nature, but to his “public” function as “supreme pastor of the Church.”20
He clarifies:
“[…] at the First Vatican Council, Monsignor Vincenzo Gasser (1809–1879), representative of the Deputation of the Faith […], stated precisely that the pope is considered a “public person” only if he is speaking ex cathedra, with the intention of binding the Church to his teaching.”21 [Our emphasis]
In other words, he is claiming that ex cathedra statements – which he considers narrowly as solemn judgements – are the only occasions in which the pope is a public person. Encyclicals, motu proprios, apostolic exhortations: de Mattei claims that these are all the works of the pope as a private doctor, and as such may include heresy. It is difficult to express how deleterious this is for Catholic theology.
For his first claim, de Mattei cites an Italian work by Umberto Betti on the First Vatican Council. Betti (1922-2009) was involved in the preparation of Vatican II, contributed to Dei verbum and Lumen gentium, and was made a cardinal by Benedict XVI. I have not been able to locate this text.
However for the second claim, the paraphrase of Mgr Gasser at Vatican I is grievously misleading. This, below, is the text, originally in Latin, which de Mattei gives in the footnote to claim that “the pope is considered a “public person” only if he is speaking ex cathedra”:
“[…] The supreme Pontiff speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ not, first of all, when he decrees something as a private teacher, nor only as the bishop and ordinary of a particular See and province, but when he teaches as exercising his office as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians.”22
As is clear, text in no way whatsoever even suggests that the pope is only a public person “if he is speaking ex cathedra.” It simply asserts that he does not speak ex cathedra when acting as a private teacher or as the teacher of particular churches. Considerably more evidence would be needed to prove de Mattei’s interpretation.
To confuse this as meaning what de Mattei says defies belief, indicating either an inability to reason. It is quite shocking for this Latin text to be cited, which most cannot understand or verify, in support of such a point.
Further, if even encyclicals are the acts of a “private” teacher, then the word “private” has no meaning. If the pope’s ordinary magisterium is reduced to that of a private teacher, then we may take or leave his “opinions” as we judge them to be true. So much for what Pius XII said of “the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’”23 This also has grave consequences for the preaching of the magisterium as the “proximate rule of faith”.
For these reasons, de Mattei’s account is to be rejected.
Any remaining ambiguities only prove the rule
The divisions drawn from Billot and others make it possible to categorise most of the pope’s acts, and so determine whether they are magisterial or not.
Nonetheless, there may be some acts about which it is harder to say that they are public or private, or definitive or otherwise. This difficulty may only increase with the lapse of centuries.
However, this does not undermine the basic divisions. Billot addresses uncertainly defined points, “which only probably belong to the definite truths.”24 Such cases, he says, are subject to “the general principle, that a doubtful obligation is void precisely insofar as it is doubtful.”25 Uncertainly defined points are not to be treated as undoubtedly defined; and uncertainly magisterial acts are not to be treated as undoubtedly magisterial.
As noted, the various divisions all assume the existence of private acts, but are mainly concerned with categorising the public acts of the magisterium. They hold that the faithful are bound to give (at least) a firm, true and internal assent to all exercises of the papal magisterium. This is a truly standard doctrine taught by magisterium itself,26 canon law27 and is the very common teaching of theologians.28
In this sense, whether a true teaching act is ex cathedra, a definition or something else is an interesting question in itself, but (in some ways) a moot point – especially for laymen and non-theologians. We can leave further categorisations to theologians and confessors, becuase we are required to assent to all that we are clearly taught by the papal magisterium. There is no non-obligatory magisterium, at least with reference to clear papal teaching: all such teaching requires religious assent and a respectful silence.
This is because the primary fact, which all these theologians seek to explain, is this: Our Lord has given us a safe, simple rule of faith – the preaching of the living and perpetual magisterium. Van Noort addresses this clearly:
“The Church’s preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people’s needs. For:
“(a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching?
“(b) It is a safe rule, for the Church’s teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ’s doctrine.
“(c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.”29
No doubt Van Noort’s emphasis on easiness and safety may be surprising to many in our day. But this is the teaching of the Church, and we are obliged to accept it – and to judge our current situation in light of it.
Also, as is clear, this is “rule of faith” is necessarily public, such that anything which is private or secret cannot possibly be a part of it.
Having now established all our principles, let us turn to Pope Honorius.
What actually happened with Honorius’s Letters
Pope Honorius’ letters were addressed to Sergius alone. This does not necessarily mean that they are not magisterial: in recent times, papal addresses to small groups (e.g. midwives, newlyweds) were sometimes promulgated to the whole Church through inclusion in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.30
As such, Berry and others teach that a private letter like this could only really be considered magisterial if it were intended for the universal Church, notwithstanding the immediate person to whom it is addressed. How would we know if it were so intended? In his discussion of ex cathedra pronouncements, Berry quotes Cardinal Mazzella:
“‘[…] it should be noted for whom, rather than to whom the Pope speaks. [It may be] evident from the nature of the matter treated, from the manner of treatment, or from any other circumstance, that he speaks for all […]’”31
Does this apply to Honorius’s letters?
De Mattei could have cited the arguments of Fr Hartmann Grisar SJ, whom he cites elsewhere:
“A private person is not consulted in the way that Sergius consulted Honorius; nor does he write letters like those that Honorius sent to Sergius, and, with similar force of expression, to [others], and clearly with the purpose that they should be a standard for the whole church.”32
Fr Emile Amann, another of de Mattei’s sources, argues that a request from the Patriarch of Constantinople for the highest authority to settle a controversy cannot be reduced to private letters between two individuals.33 He argues that the letters purport to teach and impose this teaching, and as such are magisterial acts.
Bishop Hefele – another of his sources – also claims that these letters were implicitly intended to teach the whole Church.34
On the one hand, de Mattei’s source Dom Chapman holds that “Honorius addresses Sergius alone and not the whole Church,” and that the letter had “less publicity than a modern Encyclical” and “does not define or condemn [or] bind the Church.”35 Nonetheless – somewhat contradictorily – he also says that “the letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation.”36
But although Pope Honorius may have been consulted as a public person, it was his prerogative to decide how to reply; and a reply with private letters, no matter how peremptory their tone, seems to preclude his response being public act of authority.
Authorities who held them to be private letters
Further, against the sources mentioned, and de Mattei’s uncited claim, most authorities believe that Honorius’s letters were private, and as such did not engage his papal authority. For example:
St Robert Bellarmine – Doctor of the Church – says that “all that Honorius is accused of [is] that he fostered heresy in private letters.”37 He does not hold him to have expressed or taught heresy, nor even to have fostered it as accused. In fact, he praises him for the prudence in advising silence, “For then it was the beginning of this heresy, and nothing on these terms was yet defined by the Church.”38
St Alphonsus Liguori – another Doctor of the Church – writes in The History of Heresies that “he only wrote them as a private doctor, and in no wise stained the purity of the faith of the Apostolic See” and also, “there is no open heresy in the private letter of Honorius to Sergius.”39
Cardinal Franzelin is so clear on the private nature of Honorius’s letters that he uses them as an example of a pope acting as a private person.40
Cardinal Hergenröther – the great historian who refuted the historical theology of the excommunicate Döllinger in his work Anti-Janus – cites another writer (Habert) approvingly, saying that “the letters of Honorius were private letters.”41
Berry states that the letters were “not issued for the universal Church.”42 They were “private letters” and were “merely a matter of personal advice requested by Sergius.”43 “But,” he observes, “even as such they contain no error of doctrine”44 – Honorius fault, after all, being a failure to condemn, rather than the teaching of error.
However, it seems that Honorius’ letters were so private as to be actually unknown until they were produced at the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
Cardinal Manning, in Petri Privilegium, quotes another bishop, saying that the letters “were not published, even in the East, until several years later,” and Sergius had managed to keep his letter concealed for eight years, even from the Emperor – and this was “probably because its contents, if published, would not have suited his wily purpose of secretly introducing, under another form, the Eutychian heresy.”45 Manning concludes that “his letters were not addressed to a general council of the whole Church and were rather private, than public and official.”46
Dom Prosper Guéranger – whom de Mattei calls a “great theologian of history”47 – describes the events between Honorius’s death and his condemnation, referring to the various saints and prelates that appealed to Rome for aid against the monothelitist heresy. He writes:
“In all these letters [engaging in the Monothelite controversy after Honorius’s death], there is not the slightest mention of Honorius, nor of his having forbidden reference to one will, or of two wills. Everywhere the same confidence in the unbreakable fidelity of the See of Rome to the true faith, everywhere the conviction that this See has not yet pronounced on the question.”48
What can we conclude from this apparent ignorance of Honorius’s letters, Guéranger asks?
“Honorius’s letter to Sergius remained unknown in the Church in its capacity as a private writing; or that if it was known to a certain extent, no one recognized in this document the characteristics of an apostolic judgment. [It] was not addressed by him to the Church [and that] it never had any other character than that of a private writing.”49
He concludes that “those conditions which would take the letter out of the character of a private writing and elevate it to the importance of a general law […] are totally lacking here.”50
Fr Paul Bottalla SJ – the author of an important work on Honorius – summarises these arguments decisively:
“[The letters] were not intended for the instruction of the whole Church. Far from this, they were not even destined for circulation among all the Bishops of either East or West; still less were the Bishops required to sign them. […]
“No record whatever exists from which we learn that the letters of Honorius were communicated to the Oriental Bishops. Sergius, who was principally interested in the matter, did not put them in circulation, nor did he even mention them in the Ecthesis, which was his own composition.”51
Can private letters, which were in fact unknown, really be called “magisterial” at all?
Further, even if we were to believe them to be magisterial, can documents whose very status is so debated be called “undoubtedly magisterial”?
Concluding reflections
This present essay is a critique of historical theology, rather than the building of theories of my own. It is not necessary to prove that Honorius’ letters were private in order to establish the point in question – that they are not “undoubtedly magisterial” acts, and so provide no basis for the “recognise and resist theology.” Given the logic of de Mattei’s case, which depends necessarily on his premises being certain, all that I need to do is establish uncertainty on this point.
Why is this question important? The idea that these letters were “undoubtedly magisterial” is itself harmful to Catholic doctrine, as are the further theories derived from this claim. This historical-theological approach is used to bolster a particular interpretation of our crisis which is incompatible with the received theological tradition.
We have already seen Billot’s truism, that “a doubtful obligation is void precisely insofar as it is doubtful.”52 “Uncertainly magisterial” acts are not to be treated as “undoubtedly magisterial.”
The question, therefore, turns on the facts. Can private letters, unknown to most bishops at the time, addressed to a single Patriarch, not published in a form indicating a magisterial character, which were concealed for years, and which weighty authorities from the time and since have treated as mere private letters – can they really be called “undoubtedly magisterial acts”?
It is very difficult to see in what sense they could be called magisterial, public or official teaching.
I do not believe that I can settle this question – although to some extent, to ask it is to answer it. Given the certainly private aspects of the letters, and the debate around their actual status, we cannot conclude that are undoubtedly public or magisterial teaching in the sense defined above.
However, it is a serious mistake to compare this to our present situation. Amoris Laetitia, Fratelli Tutti and various documents of Vatican II cannot be compared to Honorius’s private letters. Amoris Laetitia, for example, was addressed universally, “to bishops, priests and deacons, consecrated persons, Christian married couples and all the lay faithful.”53
Such documents have been issued universally, and are held by all to be official.
The idea that the presence of dangerous errors within them automatically reduces these official documents to the level of private acts is not tenable. These documents truly are “undoubtedly ‘magisterial’ acts” of the so-called conciliar church – which, as proved elsewhere, cannot be the Catholic Church.
Thus, even if Honorius’s private letters did contain some error or heresy, the situation is completely different. They do not provide any precedent for the apparent spectacle of a heretical magisterium, or for the scandalous post-conciliar “pontificates”. False parallels cannot form the basis for us all “uniting around tradition,” as de Mattei says he desires; nor can they be a theoretical basis to assist us at this most dreadful hour of history.
We must unite around the truth, both in fact and in principle.
Post-script: The next stage of analysis
We have now seen that the best authorities hold Honorius’s letters to have been orthodox in themselves, but also private – and thus not exercises of the magisterium.
We have seen that de Mattei widens the boundaries of the magisterium to include even secret, private acts – and that elsewhere he constricts the boundaries of public acts to ex cathedra statements alone. These dubious boundaries allow him to suggest that the magisterium has previously taught dangerous errors and heresy with public acts.
We have seen that any historical parallels here with our crisis are unsound, and these letters have no points of comparison with the “undoubtedly ‘magisterial’ acts” of the conciliar church.
However, conclusions can be true, even if the premises used to defend them on occasion are false. What are we to make of de Mattei’s theological principle, that the “non-infallible ordinary Magisterium” can contain errors and even heresy?
Does it stand up to scrutiny? Or is it more historical theology, doing violence to received Catholic doctrine?
2026 Note
These questions were addressed in the subject of the next two parts of this study. These next two parts argued for the theory of “infallible safety” – namely that acts of the magisterium could not contain so-called “dangerous error”, and held Professor de Mattei to task for failing to adopt this theory himself.
I have since revised my views on this theory, which is why Parts IIIa and IIIb have been unavailable for so long. I hope to find time to revise them in due course.
My current thoughts on this theory may be found, in part, here, and here:
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Read Next:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)
Roberto de Mattei, Love for the Papacy and Filial Resistance to the Pope in the History of the Church (henceforth LPFR), Angelico Press, Brooklyn NY, 2019. iii
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Roman Catholic Books, Fort Collins CO, 1854 edition. 160.
LPFR 23-29. 28.
De Mattei claims to recognise this in the summary given of a 2014 address in Poland: “De Mattei is clear, he is speaking as an historian, not a theologian.” https://www.robertodemattei.it/2014/02/13/roberto-de-mattei-the-unspoken-history-of-vatican-ii/
Dr Ignaz von Döllinger was an opponent of papal infallibility, and was eventually excommunicated for his rejection of the Vatican I definition.
Cardinal Pietro Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee 1951. 170.
Berry notes: “Priests, catechists, parents, and other are simply witnesses to the teachings of the Church.” (258) Cf. also the discussion on “successors of the apostles,” page 232. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, Wipf Stock and Publishers, Oregon, dated 1955.
It is not clear that de Mattei necessarily sees the terms “magisterial” and “private” to be opposed, due to his unusual idea of a private ordinary magisterium, which we address in this essay.
As an indication of his singularity, Pius XII spoke of him in 1953 in an allocution to the Gregorian University: “Let us gladly recall our teachers such as Louis Billot, to name one, who, with spiritual distinction and intellectual acumen, incited us to venerate the sacred studies and love the dignity of the priesthood.” Quoted in Fr Dominique Bourmaud, An Anti-Liberal Theologian, TheAngelus May 2016, available at http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3845
Cardinal Louis Billot SJ, L’Église II – Sa constitution intime, trans. L’Abbé Jean-Michel Gleize SSPX, Courrier de Rome, no year given. Our translation. n. 980.
Billot 982.
Billot 984.
Fr Domenico Palmieri, Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum Prolegomeno de Ecclesia, p. 704. Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis Emendata. Prati, 1891. Available here.
‘Question and Answer’, American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. XVII 1897, pp. 312 -314. The response also refers to Honorius, as merely accused of heresy, and not a heretic or teacher of heresy himself.
Ibid.
This is a debated subject, but not in the way that many think.
Fr Joachim Salaverri SJ, On the Church of Christ, in Sacrae Theologia Summa IB trans. by Kenneth Baker SJ, Keep the Faith 2015. Ns. 593, 657.
Berry 271.
Cardinal John Baptist Franzelin, On Divine Tradition, trans. Ryan Grant, Sensus Traditionis Press, 2016, pp 168-9 (Th XII Cor 4)
De Mattei, “Resistance and Fidelity to the Church in Times of Crisis,” in LPFR 106
De Mattei, LPFR 107
Bishop Vincent Gasser, Draft and Final Text on Papal Infallibility and the “Relatio” of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, July 11 1870. Digitised by James McNally and available at: http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1070
Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis 20, 1950, available at https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
Billot 988.
Billot 988, 614.
“But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this Holy See.”
Dei Filius, Vatican I Canon 4. Available at https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm
Similarly, it is a constant theme of the papal magisterium that the faithful are obliged to receive and assent to all that is taught by the Holy See. The most recent example is from Pius XII in Humani Generis 20, discussed elsewhere in this essay.
Canon 1324 (1917) reproduces the text from Vatican I in more or less the same terms.
We could quote various theologians. For the sake of brevity, cf. Palmieri below:
Mgr G. Van Noort, ‘Christ’s Church’, Dogmatic Theology II, Newman Press, Maryland 1957, 122.
“Canon 9: Laws laid down by the Apostolic See are promulgated by publication in the official commentary Acta Apostolicae Sedis [Acts of the Apostolic See], unless in particular cases another mode of promulgation has been prescribed; and they take their force only upon the completion of three months from the day on which the number of the Acta [Acts] comes out, unless by the nature of the thing they bind immediately, or in the law itself a longer or shorter pre-enforcement period is specially and expressly established.”
Berry, p. 271.
Hartmann Grisar SJ, Analecta Romana, Vol I, Desclée Lefebvre e C. Editori, 1899, 399. Translation via DeepL. Available at https://archive.org/details/analectaromanadi00gris/page/399/mode/2up
Emile Amann, “Honorius Ier”, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique Vol VII, Libraire Letouzey et Ane, Paris, 1922. 111.
Karl Josef von Hefele, A history of the councils of the church, Vol V. Trans. Clarke. T&T Clark, Edinburgh 1896. 61. Available at https://archive.org/details/historyofcouncil05hefeuoft/page/n61/mode/2up
Dom John Chapman, “Pope Honorius I” The Catholic Encyclopaedia. 1913.
Ibid.
On the Roman Pontiff, trans. Ryan Grant 2nd Edition, Mediatrix Press, 2017. 573. 37b: p 468 of ebook version of Vol II Books III-V.
Ibid.
St Alphonsus Liguori, The History of Heresies and their Refutation, Vol I 2nd Edition, trans. Mullock, James Duffy, Dublin, 1857. 182, 187.
Franzelin pp 168-9 (Th XII Cor 4).
Fr (Later Cardinal) Josef Hergenröther. Anti-Janus, trans. Robertson, Burns, Oates & Company, 1870. 82.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, Petri Privilegium: Three Pastoral Letters to the Clergy of the Diocese, Longmans, Green, and Co, London 1871. 224.
Berry, p. 285.
Robert de Mattei, “New scenarios in the coronavirus era”, a video presentation from March 2020, included as a chapter (pp 11-30) in Punishment or Mercy? The divine hand in the age of Coronavirus, (henceforth PM) Calx Mariae Publishing, London, 2021. 22.
The original French text of Dom Guéranger is available in Défense de l’Eglise romaine contre les accusations du R.P. Gratry, Victor Palmé, Paris, 1870, p 10-11. Available here: https://archive.org/details/dfensedeleglis00gu/page/n27/mode/2up?q=canonique
Guéranger 11.
Guéranger 9, 11.
Fr Paul Bottalla, S.J. Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and of History, Burns and Oates, 1868. 33. Available at https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_Xks7b6ynj64C
Billot n. 614, p 218.
Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia 2016, https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf