Canon XXXIV of the Holy Apostles prescribes that the primate shall not “do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all.” But in the “Code of Canons” which John Paul II promulgated in 1990, we find the amazing claim that “Romanus Pontifex a nemine iudicatur” – the Roman Pontiff is judged by no one. This is not merely an historical inaccuracy. The Sixth Ecumenical Council, as is well known, considered itself competent to judge and anathematize Honorius of Rome, and no Pope since has ever dared attempt to overturn that decision.
The same “Code of Canons” also announces that “contra sententiam vel decretum Romani Pontificis non datur appellatio neque recursus” – there is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff. What should we Orthodox think about these very strong statements?
Pope John Paul II, in Ut unum sint, has invited us to contribute to the discussion on how the Roman Primacy can be exercised convincingly and effectively as a divinely-blessed service to the Church. I believe these canons should be considered at the heart of our discussions. Despite all the administrative chaos one can find within Orthodoxy, despite all the need for order, the Orthodox are not able to accept the notion that this particular human individual has a right to judge the entire world, purely on his own initiative. To quote another Latin phrase, nemo debet esse iudex in propria causa – nobody can be the judge of his own case.
The ultimate effect of this is to render the Roman Primacy, in its current form, unconvincing. Archimandrite Victor Pospishil, who is perhaps the most eminent of Eastern Catholic canonists, has repeatedly asserted that no “Roman Pontiff” can be bound by his own word, and still less can the word or promise of the “Roman Pontiff” bind his successors in that unique office. It is reasonable, therefore, to ask in all seriousness: what possible value could such a primacy have? When universal primacy functions in this manner, then the over-development has reached the stage of preventing the primacy from functioning effectively. Therefore, I believe some sort of “therapy” is needed in order to restore the primacy to a healthy functioning.
There is a natural human weakness to seek to extend one’s own power, one’s own control over others. In the case of the Roman Primacy, this weakness manifests itself in several areas, but perhaps most clearly in the matter of the “right” to select bishops. As can easily be shown, up until the twentieth century most of the Catholic bishops of the world were not directly nominated by the Pope. Nor will anyone be apt to claim that in the earlier centuries of the Church the Pope had some sort of right or function to name all the bishops. However, owing to a combination of political circumstances and the general centralizing tendency of Roman Catholic ecclesiastical administration, the Popes of Rome have managed to obtain the “right” to name almost all the Catholic bishops of the world. Meanwhile, in absolute terms the number of Catholic diocesan bishops and titular bishops has increased, to the point where today there are probably about three thousand diocesan bishops, and perhaps a thousand or more titular bishops.
No one man, not even the Pope, could possibly have a personal acquaintance with three or four thousand bishops, let alone all the potential candidates to succeed the three or four thousand bishops.
The ancient canons of the Church are clear: bishops are to be elected by their prospective colleagues, the bishops of the province. That, I submit, makes sense: the bishops of the province are well placed to know the diocese, to know the needs of the diocese, and to know the candidates.
Certainly there have been abuses. One reason which enabled the Popes to aggregate to themselves the power to select bishops was the habit of secular governments to interfere in the process. Reserving the matter to the Pope has not completely prevented governmental interference, but it has unquestionably reduced that problem significantly.
Nevertheless, this has created a situation that may be even more difficult to correct. Since, as I have said, it is obviously impossible for the Pope personally to select all these men, the practical result is that bishops are selected by members of the Roman Curia, ecclesiastical bureaucrats whom no one can call to account.
Father Clarence Gallagher, a highly respected canonist and former Rector of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, informs me that he questioned the provision in the so-called “Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches” which requires that every episcopal election by the Eastern Catholic Synods must be approved by the Pope. In response to his question, he was told that this Papal approval is necessary “because the Eastern Catholic Synods might make a mistake.” So they might; no doubt they have done so from time to time. But does anyone care to defend the implication that the Roman Curia cannot make a mistake in episcopal appointments? A restoration of genuine conciliarity is urgently needed in the matter of episcopal elections. If the bishops of the province make a mistake, there is the possibility of correcting that mistake. Who is to correct the mistakes of the Roman Curia when they act in the name of the Pope?
Another human weakness is to attempt to expand one’s own power-base at the expense of others. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, obviously. He is also “Patriarch of the West,” according to the titles of the Pope which appear in official documents [N.B. This title, apparently, has been officially dropped by Benedict XVI – Ed.]. The “Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches” requires an Eastern Catholic Patriarch to have a clear-cut distinction between his functions as a diocesan bishop and his functions as Patriarch; the Patriarch must have two separate administrations for these two functions. But the Patriarchate of the West is administered by the Roman Curia, who seldom distinguish between those matters that concern the Patriarchate of the West, and those matters that concern the Universal Church.
What is the result? The Patriarchate of the West has expanded all over the world and continues to do so. Meanwhile, the Eastern Catholic Patriarchates are confined to, of all things, the territory of the Ottoman Empire as it existed in 1894. It is not at all self-evident that Australia, Oceania, China, the Americas, and many other places belong by right to the Patriarchate of the West, but the Roman Curia seems to take that for granted. The rights of the primates of the local Churches in Western Europe have also been drastically reduced, and abrogated instead to the Roman Curia which has thus aggregated these territories to the Patriarchate of the West.
Africa quite definitely belongs to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, who bears the title “Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa.” Nevertheless there are Latin dioceses with territorial titles in most African countries, and the Roman Curia appoints bishops to those African dioceses without the faintest reference to any Patriarch of Alexandria.
The honor of the Roman Primacy requires that this situation be put right, even at considerable cost. The Pope claims the right to adjudicate disagreements between Patriarchs. The Church needs to have such an arbiter. But no Patriarch will take the Pope’s arbitration seriously until it is clear that the Pope will not abuse such an occasion to bring further profit to his own Patriarchate.
On this point, I rather suspect that within the Western Patriarchate there are not a few people, including even bishops, who would agree with me. In some of the countries I mentioned, the Catholic Church is sufficiently developed to qualify as a full-fledged Local Church on its own, with a Synod, and able to elect her own bishops and take major decisions. The Eastern Churches are always alert to defend the rights of the Christian East, but it seems to me that the Local Churches of the West should also share these rights.
With that point, I shall conclude for the present, because I wish to end with the consideration that a genuine reconciliation between primacy and conciliarity will be for the benefit of the entire Church, not only of the East. I hope that through fraternal discussion we may develop and refine these ideas. May the divine grace, which always heals what is infirm and supplies what is lacking, bring us this gift. May God thus grant us “concord, and be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
Cathedra Unitatis 
From the essay “Primacy and Conciliarity” by His Eminence, Archbishop Vsevolod of Skopelos (Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople), from the book We Are All Brothers (Fairfax, VA: Eastern Christian Publications, 1999), pp. 329-332.
Since, as I have said, it is obviously impossible for the Pope personally to select all these men
This is definitely true.
… the practical result is that bishops are selected by members of the Roman Curia…
This is not true. In point of fact, the Roman Curia has only as much say in selecting bishops as the Pope lets them have. The real yeoman’s work of selecting new bishops in the Catholic Church rests with the provincial synods. That is to say, when Peoria (for instance) needs a new bishop, the bishops of the province of Chicago meet and send a list of candidates whom they consider qualified for the job (including folks from outside the province). The Congregation for Bishops serves mostly to vet these candidates, not to compose a new list of its own candidates. I am given to understand that, at least under John Paul II, these Congregation for Bishops also selected the finalist, but as I said, they selected him from a list put forward by the Provincial Synod. In other words, the current fashion in which bishops are chosen is not too terribly different from the ideal that Archbishop Vsevolod proposes. To be very sure, I see little reason to think that Archbishop Vsevolod’s proposed model would work any worse, but I think that his depiction of the current model somewhat distorts the truth of its actual functioning.
Africa quite definitely belongs to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, who bears the title “Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa.” Nevertheless there are Latin dioceses with territorial titles in most African countries, and the Roman Curia appoints bishops to those African dioceses without the faintest reference to any Patriarch of Alexandria.
You know, this was true before the Schism as well. Carthage, for instance, was much more closely bound to Rome than it ever was to Alexandria. Meanwhile, the sad truth is that Rome evangelized Sub-Saharan Africa and Alexandria did not, despite having plenty of time and a huge geographical head start on the work. While we are at it, the same goes for Asia and Australia. It seems to me that it would be rather unfair, at this point, to the faithful of these lands who have grown accustomed to Roman usages to all of a sudden say “hey, who cares what you think, 1700 years ago some folks whom you never met decided that your particular bailiwick belongs to the Patriarch of Antioch, so you all need to switch rites now.”
Well said, Greg.
here’s also the converse of that situation: I am a convert to the Church in North America through and under a particular Eastern patriarchate. My exposure to Catholicism and the rites of Rome were extremely limited (I had attended mass once in my life only, and it was basically incomprehensible to me) before my chrismation. Should I belong rather to the Roman patriarchate being an American of Germanic descent? Rome currently might consider me a member of a patriarchal “diaspora” and limit my ecclesiastical rights as being a guest in someone else’s house… but I am at home nowhere else.
Fr. Behr from St. Vlad’s wrote an interesting article in a recent “Again” magazine (a publication of the former EOC and the current Antiochian Archdiocese) on the problem of jurisdiction and suggested that in our day and age, geographically-centered rite and jurisdiction may no longer be applicable. Anyone read this?
Fr. Behr is certainly right about present realities: a simple geographic division, if it ever existed at all, no longer seems relavent at all, especially considering, for example, just how many different patriarchs of Antioch there are today, each representing different rites. But how do we propose alternatives without slipping into a system of ethnarchies?
Also, it seems that Pope Benedict dropped the title “Patriarch of the West” precisely so that he could establish multiple patriarchs in the West…
Rome currently might consider me a member of a patriarchal “diaspora” and limit my ecclesiastical rights as being a guest in someone else’s house… but I am at home nowhere else.
Hi, OC. Could you elaborate? I am a little confused. What do you mean by “guest in someone else’s house”? Do you mean because you are Orthodox? And when you say you are “at home nowhere else,” what are you referring to? I.e., what do you mean by “home”–East or West, Constantinople / Moscow or Rome? Sorry for the nosy questions…I am intrigued by your post but confused by your phrasing. 🙂
Thanks!
Diane
If we expect to find the solution to the seeming dichotomy between primacy and conciliarity in the history of the first millennium, in canons, in constitutional arrangements, or in some brilliantly-devised system of “checks and balances”, to use a phrase which we Americans like, we shall be wasting our effort. Humanly speaking, there is no such perfect or magical solution. We can note and realize that the problem has been with the Church from the beginning of her pilgrimage towards salvation. This is why I am convinced that this problem is an insufficient reason to justify the schism. On this issue there was never an Arcadian ecclesiological utopia to which we can look back for a perfect model of successful primacy and conciliarity, in unmarred harmony with one another.
I do not have much to say about this, save to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the good archbishop in this respect. “There is not perfect solution to the present difficulties, nor was there ever,” should be engraved on the walls in every facility where Orthodox/Catholic dialogues take place.
Thanks for the post.
Not to take up too much comment space here, I have posted a comment on Sacred Traditions in substantial support of the Archbishop, with a suggestion, along his lines, of a model for reunion and what I think are still other continuing grounds of concern inhibiting such reunion.
Thanks, Father Patrick, for the response. For the convenience of our readers, Father Patrick’s response can be found here.
The Sixth Ecumenical Council, as is well known, considered itself competent to judge and anathematize Honorius of Rome, and no Pope since has ever dared attempt to overturn that decision.
The same “Code of Canons” also announces that “contra sententiam vel decretum Romani Pontificis non datur appellatio neque recursus” – there is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
These seem to contradict one another. But maybe what is meant is that the Pope can speak for the whole Church and no ‘one’ can deny his voice, unless that ‘One’ is the voice of the whole Church: all it’s bishops in the form of a Council. So, yes the Pope is infallible, but once he becomes a heretic, and a Council recognizes this, he is no longer Pope.
I am probably on dangerous ground here, because I am Catholic and I know that the Fathers at Vatican I determined that Honorius was not actually guilty of heresy. But I was trying to see how these two sentences, spoken by the Fathers (apparently) could make sense (because they have to make sense, right?)
Klaus Schatz, in his book Papal Primacy (pp. 73-75) has an interesting little section on the development and interpretation of “Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur”. The relevant pages of Schatz can be read online for free, thanks to Google Books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=IeH4OKYflbkC
The endlessly rehearsed Honorius issue is a red herring, for two reasons.
First, even supposing that Honorius was personally a heretic, his Monothelite stance did not violate Vatican I’s criteria for infallibility. He did not act “as shepherd and teacher of all Christians” in such a way as to “define, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine to be believed by the whole Church.”
Second, and for that reason, his “Monothelite” letter to Patriarch Sergius cannot be said to convey a decision to bind the whole Church to a dogmatic definition. The bad theology contained in Honorius’ letter—which was condemned as heretical later on, and at the very least could be readily interpreted in a heretical sense—did not involve the sort of decision that subsequent popes may not overturn. It conveyed only his opinion about how to handle a then-controversial point of Christology. And so the fact that the 6th Ecumenical Council anathematized Honorius posthumously, with the approval and ratification of Pope Agatho, does not violate the Code of Canons.
Sadly pp 73-5 are not part of the Google Books sampler. I will have to take your word for it that the section in question is interesting. That said, I am broadly inclined to agree with Archbishop Vsevolod that the claim is nonsense, at least in the strong sense of the words. That said, Roman Catholic canon law applies only to the Roman rite, so I suppose that the affirmation in the code of canon law simply means to say that no one in the Roman rite has the authority to judge the Pope. Certainly, however, ecumenical councils must be able to pass judgment on the Pope. How else to explain the means by which the Council of Constance ended the Great Western Schism?
#11, Michael: Precisement, as Poirot would say. 🙂
Greg –
I don’t have any problem accessing the relevant pages through Google Books. Let me try and post a direct link to page 73 here.
Dr. Liccione,
On the Honorius issue, you’re right that it’s “endlessly rehearsed” and there’s no reason to renew that debate right now. I’m sure that anyone who is interested in it can Google it and come up with thousands of takes on the whole affair, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox.
The only thing I will add to what you said (from the Catholic perspective, which I am inclined to agree with) is that I don’t think that Archbishop Vsevolod’s mention of Honorius was meant as a dig against Vatican I (though undoubtedly the good Archbishop has a few complaints about that council!).
The Archbishop’s point seems to be that “Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur” cannot be taken in a literalistic and maximalistic sense, since we all know that Pope Honorius was judged by an Ecumenical Council (whether or not his particular case creates a problem for Vatican I’s infallibility criteria). The Western canonical tradition has always recognized, at least in theory, that a Pope who is personally a heretic is subject to a higher court (but of course, such a fall into heresy meant that the Pope was really no longer truly the Pope). Greg mentioned another loophole: the settling of the Great Schism of the Roman Church by the Council of Constance.
Anyhow, I just wanted to head off the beginnings of a heated debate about Honorius here. 🙂
Hmm, when Google Books loads up on my computer, it tells me that “Pages 63-77 are not part of this book preview.” I wonder what magic one must work in order to get to see them like CU does?
That’s weird, Greg! I can get them just fine. Do you think that Google lets different people see different parts of the book?
In any case, I will post the Schatz excerpt here ASAP.
Incidentally, I do wonder if the VI councils judgment really tells against the particular canonical formulation “prima sedes a nemine judicatur.” After all, by the time that Constantinople III was passing its judgement Honorius no longer held the “prima sedes.” In other words, it is possible to distinguish between Honorius and the “prima sedes,” and it is not obvious to my mind that the council’s condemnation of Honorius can quite be said to constitute a judgement of the “prima sedes.” In this respect, Constance is a much more relevant consideration.
CU:
I interpret the canon you cite as Rome does: there is no appeal against the prima sedes when a pope has issued a decision manifestly intended to bind the whole Church and has thereby exercised the supreme apostolic authority of the Roman see. My point about Honorius and Constantinople III was that there could be such appeal because no such decision had been made.
Greg:
When cited in favor of conciliarism against Vatican I, Constance too is a red herring. The purpose of that council was not to judge a pope but to decide, among several claimants, who was to be pope. Once they got one, Martin V, he was perfectly within his rights to annul the conciliarist decree.
Best,
Mike
Mike –
I see your point re: Honorius now. Thanks for the clarification.
The purpose of that council was not to judge a pope but to decide, among several claimants, who was to be pope.
Fine, but that constitutes a jugdement being passed, no? Each claimant had to stand before the bar and defend his credentials to the council, which held the authority either to reject or uphold a given claimant’s case. In other words, the council was possessed of the authority to pass judgment on a Pope.
Incidentally, I do not dispute the right of Martin V to annul various elements of the Council. I am simply pointing out that in order for the council to be understood to have achieved anything, it must be presupposed that the council was invested with the authority to judge a pope.
Greg:
In that case I’m afraid we disagree. My point was that the council did not judge a pope, and therefore did not exercise any presumed authority to do so, even granted that it presumed to have such authority. Its work was to elect a pope. Until it did, there was no clear pope to judge; once it did, it could not judge the pope elected, when that pope exercised his supreme apostolic authority and thus bound the whole Church.
Best,
Mike
But before it could presume to elect a pope, it had to determine that none of the present contenders were already the pope. One really cannot get around this, Dr L. The council deposed both John XXIII and Benedict XIII, but refused to elect Martin V until Gregory XII had died (even though it accepted Gregory’s resignation). In other words, the council’s decision presupposes the council’s authority to determine who is the Pope, which is a species of passing judgement on a pope.
Incidentally, the council of Constance also gives the lie to the claim that there is no appeal against the decree of the Roman Pontiff. Were that the case, the council could have had no authority even to elect a pope, because the last indisputably legitimate pope had left no stipulation that his successor should be elected by such a council. Rather, the standing orders at the time of Gregory XI’s death were that the college of cardinals (not an ecumenical council) elected the next pope. As such, that this council can be understood to have done anything presupposes that it had the authority to overturn the decision of a pope.
Greg:
Nice try, but it won’t do.
The Council of Constance assumed the authority to determine who is pope because there had been irresolvable debate throughout the Church about whether Gregory XI’s instructions for electing his successor were or even could be satisfied in the circumstances. That is exactly why the schism had lasted as long as it did. I suppose you can stipulatively define such a move as “a species of passing judgment on a pope,” but that doesn’t make it so, especially given that there was no agreement on who really was pope, and therefore no agreement on whether the real pope was being judged. What the Council did was elect a pope in the de facto absence of an alternative means of doing so.
And rightly so, I might add.
Best,
Mike
Greg:
I’m a little confused here. By your logic, the College of Cardinals is technically above the pope, since it elects the pope…non? That would seem (to me at least) to be one logical consequence of your line of argument. But maybe I’m missing something.
Surely you would not argue that the College of Cardinals is above the pope, as some final court of appeal? Well, then, neither is the Council of Constance, which served a similar purpose: determining which claimant among several was the real pope.
(My head is hurting. :))
Dear Diane,
Not at all. The college of cardinals, far from being above the Pope, derives their authority to elect the pope from the pope. That is, it is because the Pope delegates the authority to choose his successor to the college that the college has said authority. It lies completely within the scope of the Pope’s authority to dissolve the college tomorrow and simply appoint his own successor. As such, the college of cardinals is quite definitely below the pope.
By contrast, the Council of Constance was not invested by the pope with any such authority. Pope Gregory XI left this Earth with the provision established that the college of cardinals should elect his successor. When this did not happen, the Council of Constance convened on its own authority (or on the authority of the Emperor Sigismund, if you prefer to look at it that way) and elected a pope. As such, they were presuming to trump the authority of Pope Gregory XI. Of course, I say “presuming,” but from a Catholic standpoint is must not be mere presumption, because we accept their choice, Martin V, as a real pope. As such, if follows that the decrees of a Pope cannot be understood to be truly beyond appeal, because if such were the case then it would follow that the council had no authority to elect Martin, and thus he (and by extension all of his successors) are mere anti-popes.
In summary, the college of Cardinals, to the extent that they do anything, does so by the Pope’s say-so. By contrast, the Council of Constance, to the extent that they can be understood to have done anything, did so without (indeed, against) the pope’s say-so. That is why your analogy to the college of cardinals is inapt.
…the Council of Constance, to the extent that they can be understood to have done anything, did so without (indeed, against) the pope’s say-so.
That’s exactly the point I was arguing against in my previous comment.
The Council of Constance convened for its purpose precisely because, as circumstances had developed, there was no effective way to elect a pope “according to Gregory XI’s instructions.” Given as much, the bishops and other Church leaders got together and did the only other thing that could resolve the schism. Logically, that implied no judgment about the de jure authority of Gregory’s instructions; all it implied was that said instructions could not be carried out de facto. And so the council did the only thing left to be done.
Sure, I agree. My only point is that, implicit in that course of action is the assertion that the decrees of a pope can (at least in some circumstances) be set aside by a council. As such, the assertion “contra sententiam vel decretum Romani Pontificis non datur appellatio neque recursus” cannot be taken in its strongest sense. There is necessarily a certain nuance to it, so when Archbishop Vsevolod takes issue with the claim, I submit that he is really objecting to a claim which no one on the Catholic side is actually making.
I’m sorry, CU, I know you don’t want to “rehearse” the Honorius controversy again here, but I cannot let Mike’s arguments re the issue stand unanswered.
Mike, if the Sixth Ecumenical Council had felt that no dogmatic action had been taken by H., it wouldn’t have censured him for “confirming” the heresy. The fact is, “private” letters to Patriarchs directing this or that action be taken was a common way popes and other prelates made doctrinal directives in that time. Bulls and encyclicals did not yet exist.
The H. matter goes beyond the issue of infallibility, but if it is said that it doesn’t bear on the dogma of infallibility, then I say so much the worse for the dogma. If the charism of infallibility is so narrowly delimited that it cannot prevent a pope for being censured by an ecumenical council for confirming heresy, then it is of little use. Joe
Thanks for that clarification. I agree with you. And the point you’re making will prove useful in my interactions with the Orthodox.
but if it is said that it doesn’t bear on the dogma of infallibility, then I say so much the worse for the dogma.
With all due respect, Joe, this is absurd. No one has ever, ever argued that the pope is infallible every time he says “boo.” Surely you would not want such a broad definition of papal infallibility! It would indeed elevate the pope to the status of a demi-god.
Moreover, Honorius did not “confirm” heresy. Rather, he refrained from checking it, which is quite different from proactively confirming it. And he did this in private correspondence, not in a formal ex cathedra statement. If private correspondence falls under the aegis of infallibility, then God help us!
IMHO, ihe narrow scope of the definition of papal infallibility is one of the main indicators of the dogma’s truth. The whole purpose of infallibility is the protection of the faithful. That is precisely why only certain statements qualify as being subject to the charism of infallibility. The pope must be explicitly and formally teaching the entire Church, on a solemn matter of Faith and Morals. Surely you can see why these parameters are necessary? A great deal of latitude is allowed in theological speculation (as it should be!)…which is why it is necessary to differentiate between such speculation and explicit, formal dogmatic teaching. Otherwise, you are inviting endless confusion. (For an example of “endless confusion,” check out the thread on Orthodox concepts of Hell at the Catholic Answers forum–44 pages and counting!)
Sheesh…the poor pope can’t win, it seems. If the scope of papal infallibility were broader, non-Catholic critics would be all over it, claiming that it turns the pope into some sort of god. So…the scope is actually quite narrow, and critics object to that as well. Good grief! In the immortal words of that little old Italian lady, “Catch-a 22, catch-a 22.”
Hm, I might have responses to both Joe and Diane, but if our good host is trying to keep this from turning into an argument about Honorius, then I do not wish to throw any further fuel on that fire. Is there, perhaps, a better place to take such a discussion? Or has the thread reached the point where it no longer matters if the conversation wanders away from Archbishop Vsevolod’s essay? If the answer to either of those questions is “no,” then I will simply content myself to say that I would wish to register disagreement with Joe’s take on the isse and limited disagreement with Diane’s.
Greg, Diane and Joe,
Not that Honorius is not an important issue. Personally, I just find the controversy to be extremely tiresome. To me, it’s a dead horse; but since we’ve never had a conversation about Honorius on this blog before, I suppose it’s inevitable. And, of course, Archbishop Vsevolod did make reference to Honorius, so I can’t say that it’s off-topic. So, at this point, I say “Let ‘er rip.” 😉
Joe:
All you’re doing, it seems to me, is indulging your old habit of interpreting Catholic dogma differently from how the Magisterium itself does. In this case, you’re doing that by construing the word ‘confirm’ too strongly.
In case you’ve forgotten, the Fathers of Vatican I not only discussed the Honorius issue but also framed their definition of papal infallibility partly so as to exclude Honorius’ complicity in the Monothelite heresy from the class of teaching said to be infallible. Thus Pope Agatho, who ratified Constantinople III, and all subsequent popes took the Council’s censure of Honorius for “confirming” Monothelitism to mean that Honorius, as Bishop of Rome, lent the heresy credibility and strength in the Church by what he had written to Patriarch Sergius. Yet by the same token, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has never held that Honorius, “acting as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, defined by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine to be believed by the whole Church.” Honorius never anathematized Dyothelites; and given the way he expressed himself to Sergius, it isn’t even clear that he understood what the problem at the heart of the controversy really was. To my knowledge, nobody with a right to an opinion has ever thought of him as a particularly sharp theologian.
If you insist on reading magisterial pronouncements in a way antithetical to how the Magisterium itself reads them— as you have in the case of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the filioque—that is your prerogative in a country that respects freedom of thought and religion. But you cannot reasonably expect me to think that such an insistence poses a genuine problem for the Catholic Church.
Best,
Mike
Mike,
I have heard this before. Is there an actual document that I can read and refer to that describes the Councils discussion of the Honorius issue with respect to infallibility? I would like to read that document if it exists.
Thanks for any direction you can provide.
Diane:
>Moreover, Honorius did not “confirm” heresy. Rather, he refrained from checking it, which is quite different from proactively confirming it.
The word “confirmed” comes straight from the English translation of the decrees of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so your problem is with them, not with me.
>And he did this in private correspondence, not in a formal ex cathedra statement. If private correspondence falls under the aegis of infallibility, then God help us!
Of course, “private correspondence” is misleading. It was a reply to an inquiry from the Patriach of Constantinople on a pressing theological issue. The “private letter” contained statements of theology and a concrete directive that certain theological terms (“two wills”) were not to be used in the Church. It was clearly written in H.’s capacity as Bishop of Rome, and intended to effect a certain outcome in the debate over monothelism. And it was, quite foreseeably, implemented by an official decree of the Eastern emperor, the one that St. Maximus went to his death refusing to agree to.
A Catholic author you may be familiar with, Dom Chapman, said this about the episode: “The result of the pope’s letter was the so-called heresy of Monothelism, which up to this point can scarcely be said to have existed, except as an opinion under discussion.” (Abbot John Chapman, *The Condemnation of Pope Honorius*, p. 17, cited in Phillip Hughes, *The Church in Crisis: a History of the General Councils*, p. 139). Hardly a trifling matter. Joe
For what it’s worth, I found the following helpful with regards to the Honorius issue.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea5.asp
It has some interesting quotes from the parties involved.
Joe–please see Mike Liccione’s response above. It pretty much says it all.
Anyone used to working with words, BTW, knows how malleable they are, especially in translation. But, again, Mike has answered you re this.
If you ask me, Honorius gets a bum rap from many folks. Unlike us, the poor guy didn’t have the advantage of hindsight. And some of those early Christological controversies were pretty darned confusing — even now, let alone at the time.
Mike
>All you’re doing, it seems to me, is indulging your old habit of interpreting Catholic dogma differently from how the Magisterium itself does.
That’s not a fair characterization of any argument I’ve made, and I hope others reading this will not take it at face value.
The question in our debates in the past has generally been the consistency of some teachings of the western church over time. Thus, the question is not only how the magisterium interprets particular teaching *now*, but how it interpreted both now *and* in the past. The way you framed the issue obscures this, by attempting to build in the assumption that the western magisterium always has interpreted the teachings in question in the same way, which is of course exactly the matter at issue.
In the case of main point of contention in the past, the consistency of the dogmatic statement of the Bull *Unam Sanctam* on salvation outisde of communion with the pope, with the later teaching epitomized in *Lumen Gentium*, you want to project concepts which play a part in the current teaching, such as “invincible ignorance”, back onto the Bull, even though it was written at a time (1302) when those concepts had no currency, and against the actual wording of the statement and the document in which it appears, and its historical and theological context.
But, to return to the case at hand:
>In case you’ve forgotten, the Fathers of Vatican I not only discussed the Honorius issue but also framed their definition of papal infallibility partly so as to exclude Honorius’ complicity in the Monothelite heresy from the class of teaching said to be infallible.
I am certainly aware that the case of Honorius was discussed at VI; I was not aware that VI’s definitions were tailored so as to exclude it.
>Thus Pope Agatho, who ratified Constantinople III, and all subsequent popes took the Council’s censure of Honorius for “confirming” Monothelitism to mean that Honorius, as Bishop of Rome, lent the heresy credibility and strength in the Church by what he had written to Patriarch Sergius.
Exactly so, in my opinion. Despite what you say, I am not holding for an interpretation of the anathemas much differetn than that.
>Yet by the same token, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has never held that Honorius, “acting as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, defined by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine to be believed by the whole Church.”
If by “the Magisterium of the Catholic Church”, you mean the Magisterium of the post-schism church in communion with Rome, of course not. As is well-known, around the time of the anathemas of 1054, the western church took pains to bury the entire episode, removing the oath anathematizing Honorius that previous popes were required to take. It is questionable whether prominent medieval apologists for papal primacy, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, were even aware of it.
And besides, even in terms of the post-schism western church, the question isn’t whether Honorius has been officially held to have spoken ex cathedra, etc., but whether he **objectively** met the pre-schism equivalent of the VI criteria. After all, it has never been officially declared that Pius IX spoke infallibly in provlaiming the IC; it is simply clear that the statement met VI’s criteria. Thus, your sttement is not germane.
But the relevant question is, how was Honorius’ statement regarded by the “magisterium” (a word not then in currency) of the undivided Church in the period following Honorius. The anathemas seem to speak for themselves on this point as to the importance given to the statement, as well as subsequent Pope Leo II’s statement that Honorius “consented that the spotless tradition should be spoiled”. Did the Catholic Church of that time mirror the language of Vatican I? Of course not. The church at that time didn’t speak in those terms. But to me it is clear that the voices of the Church at the Council, including Pope Agatho, considered that Honorius had a God-given duty to promote and safeguard the teaching of the Truth in the Church, and that he failed this duty. And my point is that, if the Vatican I formulation of infallibility is so narrowly defined that a pope can fail this duty, and yet, remain “infallible”, then that renders the formulation of questionable use.
>given the way he expressed himself to Sergius, it isn’t even clear that he understood what the problem at the heart of the controversy really was. To my knowledge, nobody with a right to an opinion has ever thought of him as a particularly sharp theologian.
All that may be true, but so what? Where in the criteria of infallibility of VI is it stated that a pope must understand a theological problem fully to pronounce infallibly on it? If papal infallibility is a charism given by Christ, isn’t the charism powerful enough to protect against feeble-minded popes? Was Pius IX a “particularly sharp theologian”? If Pope Benedict XVI today makes an ostensibly infallible pronouncement, am I entitled to inquire into his theological acumen before accepting it?
>If you insist on reading magisterial pronouncements in a way antithetical to how the Magisterium itself reads them— as you have in the case of extra ecclesiam nulla salus
No, I have never tried to obscure or change the meaning of extra ecclesium nulla salus. Our dispute is over the use given it in Unam Santam. The statement in US is not merely a restatement of *extra ecclesium salus est*, but US starts with EENS as a *premise*, and forms a clearly understandable syllogism by adding the premise, taken from Aquinas, that no one is in the Church of Christ who is not subject to the Pope, and then draws the logical conclusion, *original in an ex cathedra statement*, that subjection to the Pope is necessary for salvation. That is clearly the import of the entire document, it makes the document fully intelligible, and you have never offered an alternative reading which does the same. Joe
Thank you, PT!
Karl Keating also has an excellent discussion re Honorius in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism. (Yes, the rabid anti-Catholic fundies try to make hay out of the Honorius case, too.)
Excuse me for butting in on a debate that is rather internal to the Roman Church regarding the Council and judging the Pope but I want to ask a question and query the understanding with a framework of what a council does.
The question is whether the Pope is above being judged by God? The answer can perhaps be made from a statement found among Pope Gregory VII’s letters that says “a duly ordained pope is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St Peter.” Thus placing the Pope outside God’s judgement, putting aside the case of Honorius. If this is so then how can a council judge a Pope? However, perhaps it can judge who is the Pope, or rather who is not the Pope, leaving the only “unjudged” claimant as the Pope.
If a Pope can be judged by God then he can also be judged by a council, because the decrees of a council properly constituted in the Holy Spirit (i.e. inspired) are those of God. Thus, it is God who is judging through the council, unless one is to hold that councils are merely human affairs without inspiration.
I really think, obscure references in the writings of this or that pope notwithstanding, that it goes without saying that the Pope is judged by God. For that matter, it is clear enough that the Pope is liable to the judgment of councils. I agree with Archbishop Vsevolod that the wording of canon law is unfortunate, but for pity’s sake people, a modicum of common sense is in order. We Catholics really do affirm the Constantinopolitan council’s condemnation of Honorius even as we simultaneously affirm the Vatican councils claim of papal infallibility. The two are able to be reconciled. If you wish to read the two claims as mutually exclusive, it is your own willfulness and not really our problem.
After all, it has never been officially declared that Pius IX spoke infallibly in provlaiming the IC; it is simply clear that the statement met VI’s criteria.
Actually, I would contest this point. More on that in a moment.
my point is that, if the Vatican I formulation of infallibility is so narrowly defined that a pope can fail this duty, and yet, remain “infallible”, then that renders the formulation of questionable use.
Indeed it does. It takes no great genius to recognize as much. We Catholics are well aware that papal infallibility is no magic bullet which solves all problems. The problem with papal infallibility is that the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, but it is truly impossible to know when that is the case. Not even Pius IX’s Ineffabilis Deus or Pius XII’s Muneficentissimus Deus can really be established with any certainty to constitute ex cathedra claims, regardless of what anyone might tell you.
If you wish to read the two claims as mutually exclusive, it is your own willfulness and not really our problem.
Whoops, just to be clear, that “your” is intended generally and is quite definitely not directed at Fr Patrick in specific.
>We Catholics really do affirm the Constantinopolitan council’s condemnation of Honorius even as we simultaneously affirm the Vatican councils claim of papal infallibility.
I’m afraid Diane’s posts on this thread contradict the first clause of your statement. Joe
Greg:
>>my point is that, if the Vatican I formulation of infallibility is so narrowly defined that a pope can fail this duty, and yet, remain “infallible”, then that renders the formulation of questionable use.
>Indeed it does. It takes no great genius to recognize as much.
Ok. I hope no one here thinks I’m passing myself off as a “great genius”.
>The problem with papal infallibility is that the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, but it is truly impossible to know when that is the case.
If that’s true, then how is papal infallibility as formulated by VI divinely-revealed? Does Christ give His Church charisms that serve no purpose?
>Not even Pius IX’s Ineffabilis Deus or Pius XII’s Muneficentissimus Deus can really be established with any certainty to constitute ex cathedra claims, regardless of what anyone might tell you.
This is a new one on me. Joe
Joe:
In my opinion and that of many others I’ve discussed them with, my logical and historical analyses of each of the points in dispute between us show that the Magisterium has never negated any teaching that satisfies its own criteria for infallibility. In your opinion, my analyses fail to do that. As I’ve said, you are entitled to your opinion, which you already knew. But as I’ve also said to you before: if the Magisterium were as evidently self-inconsistent as you seem to believe, then it would appear fraudulent to most intelligent people who study these matters, which is clearly not the case.
That should tell you that your way of interpreting the pertinent texts is not logically necessitated by what they say. It is simply the way that, to you, makes the most sense in light of all the facts you deem relevant. The theological difference between us stems mostly from our differing criteria of hermeneutical relevance. That difference might or might not result from a yet-more-fundamental philosophical difference; I’m not sure, and am disinclined to do the work involved in finding out, given how much work I’ve already done with you to no avail. But in any case, yours end up preventing you from trusting the Magisterium. Mine do not.
That should tell you that my attitude is consistent with being Catholic, and yours is not. Since I cannot judge your conscience, I cannot say whether your rejecting Catholicism at this time would help or hurt your prospects for salvation. But I can say that it would be honest.
Best,
Mike
Greg:
I don’t know of any reputable theologians who say that the definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption cannot be known to satisfy Vatican I’s criteria for papal infallibility. If you have a text to offer, I’d like to see it so that I can examine the argument.
Best,
Mike
If the Magisterium were as evidently self-inconsistent as you seem to believe, then it would appear fraudulent to most intelligent people who study these matters, which is clearly not the case
Bingo.
Dear Dr L,
Does it matter whether or not “reputable” theologians can be found who would deny the ex cathedra status of ID or MD? I dare say that there were no “reputable” theologians willing to gainsay Unam Sanctam at the time of its promulgation. As you surely know all too well, however, only some theological claims end up enduring, now matter how popular they might seem at a given time. Five hundred years hence will the Immaculate Conception still motivate the Catholic mind? I certainly hope so, but if it turns out to be otherwise, I think that you can see that there is plenty of room for a future Church to wiggle out from under the weight of “infallibility” which presently attachs to the claim. There is simply no objectively certain way of assessing the ex cathedraness of any given claim. I am not denying the fact that the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, but I do agree with Joe that this point is of little practical value, as it will never serve to end any argument in the Church, even among people of bona fide commitment to the magisterium.
Dear Diane,
For the record, do you or do you not affirm the decrees of the VI ecumenical council? I do not mean that to sound like I am some sort of district attorney cross examining you in the witness chair, but I think that Joe is misunderstanding you here, so I thought it might help to take a moment to clear this up.
I’m afraid Diane’s posts on this thread contradict the first clause of your statement.
Incidentally, dear Joe, for what little my opinion on this subject is worth, I think it is worth the trouble to distinguish between one’s considerations of Constantinople III qua theologian and qua historian. From a theological point of view, Constantinople III was an ecumenical council and its declarations are binding on the faithful unto the age of ages, full stop. From a historical point of view, however, the council was simply wrong in the particulars. We have the text of the letter from Honorius and it does not say that which the council condemns it for saying. None of this, however, really tells against the particular point which Archbishop Vsevolod was making – to wit, that it is clear that councils are competant to judge popes, as it has happened that a council has judged a pope. On that point there can really be no argument.
Greg:
I have a question for you. If the line of thought expressed in your comment #50 is correct, why would it not follow that we cannot identify with certainty any given teaching as having been infallibly defined? After all, general councils, be they “ecumenical” or not, only bind Catholics if ratified by the pope; and if solemn unilateral papal definitions cannot be identified with certainty as infallible, then why would papal ratifications of conciliar definitions not suffer from the same difficulty?
You might take the Orthodox line that what’s binding is the consensus fidelium, as sometimes but not necessarily expressed by “reception” by the Church over time of conciliar definitions. The pope would have an important role in that, but he would be neither necessary nor sufficient. In some cases, I believe, that is true; but one cannot say, consistently with being Catholic, that that is the only way to identify a solemn teaching as binding. There is, after all, the pope. But if papal rulings present the difficulty you suggest, then appealing to the pope really solves nothing, and we’re left with an essentially Orthodox conception of magisterial authority as the only practically effective conception. I have no idea how that position is compatible with being Catholic. Perhaps you can explain how it is.
BTW, the dogmatic definition contained in Unam Sanctam remains irreformable, not in the sense that it cannot be improved on, but in the sense that what it actually says remains de fide and thus binding. The dispute with the Feeneyites is about its interpretation: specifically, over the question whether being “subject to the Roman Pontiff” always and necessarily entails explicit assent to the Catholic Faith. I have discussed that issue in depth in my Development and Negation article, which of course Joe finds unpersuasive. If you agree with him, then I’m afraid it cannot be said that you find the Magisterium of the Catholic Church any more credible than he does.
Best,
Mike
I almost forgot:
My latest blog post touches tangentially on this discussion.
Dear Dr L,
I think that the matter of reception of a council is altogether simpler than the matter of deterining whether a given papal statement is spoken ex cathedra. The pope either receives the council as ecumenical or he does not. It really does not matter whether he is speaking ex cathedra when he receives it. If there is a bull, an encylical, an apostolic letter, etc in which he says “I receive this council as ecumenical” then it is received. No need to enquire further. I agree that the so-called Orthodox model of conciliar verification is unworkable and the Catholic model is much better, but I do not see how my comments about ex cathedra statements in any wise complicate the Catholic model. I think that you may be reading more in to my comments than is there.
Meanwhile, vis-a-vis Unam Sanctam, I have no quibbles with the Church’s magisterium whatever on this matter. My only point is that there are plenty of theologians (even “reputable” ones) who would not class that document in the “contains an ex cathedra statement” file. This leads me to suspect that 500 years hence there will be other theologians sorting Ineffabilis Deus in the same way, and if they do, I dare say they will be able to contrive an explanation which will be acceptable to Rome as to why they sort it as they do. This is not a matter which really admits of any sort of “bright line” distinction.
Greg:
I think I now see better what your difficulty is in the case of unilateral papal definitions. I grant you that one either does find or can find some theologians who “spin” de fide definitions so that they don’t appear to be de fide, and that such theologians are not always censured by Rome. But I don’t think it follows that Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility is of little practical use, any more than it follows in general that all statements you can find somebody controverting are ipso facto controversial. All that follows is that Rome too often allows such theologians to confuse the faithful by failing to censure the theses in question.
I agree that there are cases where that reduces the practical effectiveness of the Church’s extraordinary magisterium, including that of the papacy in particular. But I don’t believe that’s the fault of Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility, nor do I believe the difficulty entails that there are no objective, traditional criteria for identifying a papal definition as infallible. Indeed, I’ve never heard of anybody who regards the dogmatic definitions of Marian doctrines as false who does not, by the same token, regard the definition of papal infallibility as false. No doubt some ingenious theologian will someday manage it, or think he manages it; but that would only show how clever he is at self-deception and how slack Rome can be in calling him on it.
Best,
Mike
Greg: I most certainly do affirm the decrees of the VCI ecumenical council.
If Joe is misunderstanding me here, I can assure you it isn’t the first time. 🙂
“VCI ecumenical council”? Did you mean “VI ecumenical council” and just accidentally type a “C” in the middle there, or are you talking about some other council than Constantinople III?
But I don’t think it follows that Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility is of little practical use, any more than it follows in general that all statements you can find somebody controverting are ipso facto controversial. All that follows is that Rome too often allows such theologians to confuse the faithful by failing to censure the theses in question.
But my good man, the only purpose of the magisterium is to prevent confusion. If a tool in the magisterium’s tool box does not serve to prevent the wicked from confusing the faithful, then it is by definition a useless tool. As such, the only way papal infallibility could be of use is if Rome were to articulate some clear “bright line” means by which the faithful might recognize the ex cathedra statements from amidst the rest. Given that there are no such means (not even controverted ones) it follows that the charism of papal infallibility is of little practical use.
…the only way papal infallibility could be of use is if Rome were to articulate some clear “bright line” means by which the faithful might recognize the ex cathedra statements from amidst the rest.
Greg:
Once again, I’m not sure I understand you. For what you say seems on the surface to be plain silly.
It is a matter of settled tradition that, for any doctrine D, statements of the form “If anyone denies that D, let him be anathema” are dogmatic definitions of D. (Cf. Galatians 1:9). That is not the only possible form such statements might take; but if a statement is of that form, then it is a dogma. So far, that’s how theologians and the faithful have clearly recognized the dogmatic definitions of councils to be such definitions. Now Ineffabilis Deus uses just that form, and Munificentissimus Deus uses a similar one obviously intended to do the same job. So ID and MD are dogmatic definitions, and as such they satisfy Vatican I’s definition of the exercise of papal infallibility. I don’t understand what is supposed to be the problem with that. I’ve always believed it, and I’ve never heard any serious argument that such a belief is questionable within a Catholic context. That is the ordinary way in which the Church “manifests” the infallibility with which her dogmas are set forth.
Perhaps what you really have in mind are people who argue that no teaching is infallible unless Rome actually comes out says it’s infallible, or something to the same effect. As we both know, Ratzinger did that in the case of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and it hasn’t quelled all dissent. And that’s because what’s being demanded is otiose, arising from a peculiar problem of self-referentiality. The whole argument is a diabolical trick that takes in some people but hich must be rejected at its root.
The Church, as represented by councils and popes, is only infallible when she speaks with her full authority about a matter comprised within the deposit of faith and morals. But no assertion to the effect that “The making of such-and-such a statement by a pope or council at a particular time and place is an exercise of ecclesial infallibility” is comprised by the deposit of faith or morals, even when made by popes or their delegates and even when true, which in many cases it is. Therefore, all assertions of that form would be, and are, treated by as a matter of opinion only by people who are determined to evade whichever doctrines are, or would be, supported by such assertions. If that’s the sort of thing you have in mind, then I can understand why you say what you do. But you’re missing a rather elementary point.
Dogmatic definitions covered by infallibility are recognized in the Church by tradition by the sort of form I’ve indicated. Others may gradually evolve. Thus the problem of self-referentiality is evaded by reliance on a well-understood “language-game,” to use a technical term of Wittgenstein’s. I don’t know of any Catholic theologian, and you haven’t named any, who rejects that without rejecting the very idea of the Magisterium itself as binding in conscience. If you do know of any, I’d like to hear about them, read their argument, and consider it.
In the meantime, I shall chalk up your position to conceptual confusion rather than mere silliness.
Best,
Mike
Mike:
>But as I’ve also said to you before: if the Magisterium were as evidently self-inconsistent as you seem to believe, then it would appear fraudulent to most intelligent people who study these matters, which is clearly not the case.
First of all, how do either you or I know what the consensus of “intelligent people who study these matters” is? Has someone done a poll of all of them? Can you honestly say that you’ve read all the singnificant literature on these questions, Catholic and non-Catholic? I can’t.
Secondly, intelligence is not a guarantor of attaining to Truth. Many an intelligent person has erred because they knowingly or unknowingly had an agenda.
>But in any case, yours end up preventing you from trusting the Magisterium. Mine do not.
That should tell you that my attitude is consistent with being Catholic, and yours is not.
Well, I want to make clear that simply holding the views I do about some inconsistencies in post-schism western teachings does not entail that I envision Rome as engaging in nefarious schemes with murderous albino monks. I in no way believe that the Spirit has departed from either East or West, or that the west is devoid of holiness or grace. Joe
Greg:
>From a theological point of view, Constantinople III was an ecumenical council and its declarations are binding on the faithful unto the age of ages, full stop. From a historical point of view, however, the council was simply wrong in the particulars. We have the text of the letter from Honorius and it does not say that which the council condemns it for saying.
I understand that distinction and I think it’s a good one to make. I think the council was a little hard on Honorius. If you read Henry Chadwick’s new book, *East and West: the Making of a Rift in the Church*, he goes into the politics behind this and other first millenium episodes. Basically, if I read Charwick right, he says that the Council basically threw Honorius “under the bus”, as the expression goes, with the consent of Rome, so that Rome could distance itself from H. But I still think that, essentially, they were right about H’s letter. As I siad in my earlier response to Diane, there is planty of evidence that the letter had the effect of furthering monothelism.
>None of this, however, really tells against the particular point which Archbishop Vsevolod was making – to wit, that it is clear that councils are competant to judge popes, as it has happened that a council has judged a pope. On that point there can really be no argument.
Well, I agree with this completely. I think the contrast between what happened at Nicaea II and Dictatus Papae clearly shows a change in ecclesiology in the west between 700 and 1100 AD.
But I’m guessing that Dr. Liccione and Diane will argue with you. Joe
Papal Primacy, itself, is a red herring, at least in terms of protestants refusal to be subject to Rome. It matters not if the Pope is a dictator or merely an honorary leader with no power outside Rome. The REAL issue is whether the Catholic Church is the original and enduring Church founded by Christ with Peter as its first leader (honorary or otherwise).