Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[frjohnmorris]

And still Canon 28 clearly establishes that Constantinople is 2nd to Rome:

(Emphasis mine)

This Council was also commanded by Byzantine Emperor Marcian. Who I think left Rome without aid during the attacks from Attila the Hun. This was a very inconsiderate year to convene the council considering that Attila was present in what today is Northern France at the time.

Yet Attila was defeated by the Roman army at the The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, so the Emperor did not leave the Empire undefended.

Fr. John

Still, in this Council the “Definition of the Faith” was promulgated - which is in agreement with Pope Leo’s letter to Flavian of Constantinople.

 

[frjohnmorris]

What about theological differences within the Bible i.e. the rejection of the afterlife in OT by some? Historical and scientific issue are one thing but what about theological?

The full and complete revelation of God was through Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is incomplete without Christ. Therefore the New Testament takes precedence over the Old Testament, which without Christ is only a partial revelation of God.
Neither Eastern Orthodox nor Catholics believe in personal private interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. We always submit our personal interpretations to the Holy Tradition of the Church, which gives us the divinely inspired interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

Fr. John

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Pope Honorius was condemned for formally teaching heresy. Of course you won’t find any post schism popes condemned for teaching heresy because you have now defined truth as whatever comes out of the pope’s mouth when he speaks from the chair. If the pope declares that black is white, then black is now white and anyone who says otherwise is speaking heresy.

No, that is incorrect. Pope Honorius I was condemned for negligence in allowing the heresy of monothelitism to spread by failing to teach one way or the other on it. He never formally taught monothelitism.

 

[prodromos]

No, that is incorrect. Pope Honorius I was condemned for negligence in allowing the heresy of monothelitism to spread by failing to teach one way or the other on it. He never formally taught monothelitism.

The fathers of the 6th ecumenical council obviously felt differently. I have never heard of the Church anathematising someone for negligence, have you?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The fathers of the 6th ecumenical council obviously felt differently. I have never heard of the Church anathematising someone for negligence, have you?

Another Council called by a Byzantine Emperor.

From Britannica:

The crux of Honorius’ pontificate was his role in the Byzantine church’s controversy concerning monophysitism, a heresy teaching that Christ has only one nature rather than two (i.e., human and divine), and monothelitism, a related heresy maintaining that Christ has only one will. When in 634 Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople called for an end to the controversy and proposed that both East and West support the doctrine of “one will” in Christ, Honorius replied by referring to the Council of Chalcedon’s confession of faith (451), which held that Christ’s natures were indivisible and which he interpreted as meaning a single will in Christ. He then forbade further discussion on the subject.

In 680 the third Council of Constantinople was summoned by the Byzantine emperor Constantine IV Pogonatus to settle the controversy, which still raged. Because the council decreed that Christ had two wills, Honorius’ doctrine was condemned as being pro-monothelitic. Pope St. Leo II confirmed the condemnation in 682, saying that Honorius “allowed the immaculate faith to be stained” by teaching not “in accord with apostolic tradition.” Refusing to accept Honorius’ doctrine, his successors condemned monothelitism, thus straining relations between Rome and Constantinople. Further, his questionable orthodoxy was revived and used by opponents of papal infallibility at the first Vatican Council (1869–70). Honorius’ defenders denied that his statements were official, maintaining that his teaching was imprudent rather than heretical, and many scholars believe that it is debatable whether he was a heretic. They hold that he seems to have misunderstood the point at issue, noting that his language is partially vague.

 

[Peter_J]

Today I learned: Catholics are to Orthodox what Protestants are to Catholics!

Well yeah. Any Orthodox person could tell you that, DRonald. It goes Orthodox > Catholics > Protestants > other people > various kinds of plants and trees

Hey don’t make me come over there!



But seriously, I do think that some Christians can be a little too presumptuous with regard to telling others what’s what. I say “some Christians” rather than “the Orthodox” because I don’t find it too be limited to Orthodox (nor is every Orthodox guilty of it) – for example, for us Catholics I believe there is a temptation to think it idiotic for Anglicans and Lutherans to want intercommunion with us … and then to turn around and be outraged that the Orthodox don’t allow intercommunion with Catholics.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

The fathers of the 6th ecumenical council obviously felt differently. I have never heard of the Church anathematising someone for negligence, have you?

I would point you to The Supposed Fall of Honorius and His Condemnation

In what sense was Honorius condemned by the Council? Not as one who had asserted, taught, or propagated heresy, but as one negligent in his pastoral office, one who had favored heretics (not heresy), and had been overindulgent to Sergius.

Let it be observed, in the first place, that, from the first ages of the Church, the name heretic was applied, first, to those who taught or maintained error in good faith; secondly, to those who taught or maintained heretical doctrine, not only with a knowledge of their error, but also with pertinacity and obstinacy; and, lastly, to those who neither taught nor maintained error themselves, but were accessory to the pertinacity of heretics, whether by protecting them, by favoring them, or by not repressing them, if they were obliged to do so by their office; and it was said, moreover, that bishops were obliged to this repression by apostolic tradition and the discipline of the Holy Fathers. The first class of heretics that we have mentioned were not punished; the second and third were visited with equal penalties. What we have said is clearly evident from ecclesiastical history, from the discipline of the primitive Church, and from the Fathers.

Having premised these remarks we may proceed to our arguments.

I. Many were condemned by the Sixth Council; Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Petrus, Paulus, Macarius, etc., and together with these, Honorius. Of all the rest we find it said, in the condemnatory clauses of the Council, that they had maintained one will in Christ; nowhere is this said of Honorius. Therefore it cannot be proved by the authority of the Council that Honorius taught one will in Christ.

II. In none of the Acts of the Council is it said that Honorius is called a heretic because he maintained or taught heresy.

III. It is said expressly, and not once only, that Honorius is condemned because, by his silence, he fostered the Monothelites and followed the counsel of Sergius. For example, Act. Conc. XIII., “We execrate the impious dogmas of these men, and we judge that their own names shall be cast forth from the Holy Church of God, that is to say, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, and Paul, and also Theodore. . . . And with these we order that Honorius be cast out and anathematized, because we find by the writings, made to Sergius, that in all things he followed his counsel and confirmed his impious doctrines.” The Latin has sequi mentem ejus, which is ambiguous, aud may mean either to follow the doctrine, or follow the intention and plan of Sergius; but the original Greek text, of which the Latin is a translation, has, without any ambiguity, “followed the counsel.”

Honorius, therefore, is not condemned like the rest for his impious dogmas, but because, by following the counsel of Sergius, he did not repress but strengthened (confirmavit) an impious dogma.

IV. It is expressly said. in the Acts, that God cannot endure that rule of silence, “Et quomodo non indigneretur Deus qui blasphemebatur et non defendebatur.” “And how could God but be indignant, who was blasphemed and NOT defended?” (In Sermo Prosphonetics, Act. XVIII.) Hence, also, and for the same reason the Council is indignant, and hurls its anathema against Honorius.

V. The letters of Honorius were burned because they were destructive to the Church and favorable to the heretical contumacy of Sergius, not indeed, in doctrine, but in their approbation of the rule of silence and in too great lenity toward the heresiarch. They are condemned not because they contained the same impiety as the writings of the others, but because “ad unam eademque impietatem tenderent;” they tended (in the Greek concurred) to one and the same impiety."

VI. If, therefore, Honorius is called a heretic, and is anathematized and cast out, it is not for heresy, but for connivance towards heretics. And expressly in this sense was the intention of the Council interpreted by the Emperor Constantine, who was not only present at the Council, but took part in it. In the same sense did St. Leo interpret it, who, having carefully examined the Acts of the Council and conferred with the legates who presided over it, approved them and translated them into Latin. Both Constantine and Leo say that Honorius was condemned, not because he taught error, but because he had favored and strengthened heretics, and had, not stained the Church himself, but suffered it to be distained by others.

Also from the article:

St. Leo says that Honorius was condemned, “because by his negligence he had fanned the flame of heretical dogma”

(Continued Below)

 

[SoMissCatholic]

(Continued from previous)

I would also point you to Is the Pope Infallible?, Part III. A. – Pope Honorius

If all this is so clear, how came it about that the Sixth General Council and Pope Leo II condemned Honorius? Had not these a better chance of judging him than we have, some thirteen centuries or so after the event? We answer the question by inquiring, “On what charges was Honorius condemned?” And we answer, “On the following: He concurred efficaciously in the spread of heresy, for he failed to oppose it with the truth: he expressly permitted the use of an ambiguous formula which the heretics employed in an incorrect sense: he asserted that the discussion on the relative propriety of the expression ‘one operation’ or ‘two operations,’ was futile and childish.”

None of these various condemnatory sentences can be shown to mean that he was thought to have held one will or the “one operation” in the heretical sense. Hence, his condemnation does not prove anything against the infallibility of the Pope.

We establish this position by citing briefly the words used by those who condemned him.
(i.) After listening to the reading of several letters of Sergius and two of Honorius, the Council states: “We have found that these letters concur in one and the same impiety”; it then orders the writings to be burnt because they “are profane and dangerous.” No mention is made of Honorius’s doctrines; he is guilty of “concurring” in heresy, and we have seen how he did this.
(ii.) The Council mentions Honorius as being one of those whom the devil uses, “finding them suitable instruments for carrying out his wishes.” Honorius is not a heretic; he is a useful, though unwitting, instrument.
(iii.) To Pope Saint Agatho the Emperor gives an account of the proceedings of the Council. He includes Honorius in a list of heretics who are condemned, and put him in a class apart, as “the man who confirmed this heresy” — not, it must be noted, as a man who held heretical views.
(iv.) Pope Leo II, after the death of Agatho, writes to the Emperor and confirms the acts of the Council. He, too, condemns Honorius, but for a special reason, namely, “Because he did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church by the teaching of the Apostolic tradition; but with base teaching permitted the unspotted faith to receive a blemish.” Thus Leo deliberately omits to approve of the Council having put Honorius’s name in the middle of a list of heretics, as though he was guilty in the same way in which they were.
(v.) The same Pope Leo relates to the Bishops of Spain the decisions of this Sixth General Council, and again gives a list of those there anathematized as heretics; he includes Honorius, but states the ground of his condemnation, namely, “He did not extinguish, as the Apostolic authority should have done, the incipient flame of heretical doctrine, but nourished it by his negligence.”
Thus, even supposing these two letters cited in (iv.) and (v.) are genuine — which is by no means certain — they do not prove that Pope Leo condemned Honorius for holding or teaching heresy.

---

Now, let us give what is a final answer. Let us suppose which we do not for a moment grant — that it is proved to the hilt that Honorius really was a heretic, and, moreover, taught heresy. Would it follow that those who condemned him thereby avowed their disbelief in papal infallibility?

No, not unless Honorius as making an ex cathedra statement, and there is not the slightest ground for believing that he made such a pronouncement.
For
(i.) In no less than four places in his letters, he rejects all idea of defining doctrine in favour of one side or the other:

(a) “We must not wrest what they say into Church dogmas”;
(b) “We must not define either one or two operations”;
(c) “We leave the matter to grammarians”;
(d) “We must not, defining, pronounce one or two operations.”

(ii.) Secondly, he imposed no obligations upon the faithful to hold any of the doctrinal opinions expressed in his letter: the customary grave penalties for refusing to assent to the doctrine taught, receive no mention: he makes no reference to the use of Petrine authority nor to the traditional teaching of the Church. In other words, Honorius did not claim to be speaking with the mouth of Peter nor to be exercising that Apostle’s privilege of infallibility.
Therefore, in face of all this it cannot be asserted that an ex cathedra statement was made, or that that Council thought that such a definition had been pronounced.

(all bold emphases added)

 

[dcointin]

I’d like to give some thoughts on Orthodox ecclesiology, and my own admission of its weaknesses.

Orthodox ecclesiology is Eucharistic, meaning that it takes its basis from the celebration of the Eucharist by the bishop with his presbyters, deacons, and the people, in a local church. Each church is fully catholic, i.e. complete, lacking in nothing. Each church shares the Eucharist with the others which it recognizes as orthodox, and together they mystically form one body with Christ as their head. Each bishop, by virtue of holding the same office, is therefore equal to one another, differing only in the honor of their churches. Churches were seen as more honorable based on their apostolic foundation, importance of the city in which they were located, and historic reputation. These churches gradually assumed a degree of jurisdiction over others and became known as Metropolitan and Patriarchal churches. Matters of concern to all churches in a region were addressed by a convening of those bishops who met together in councils. This practice eventually led to the convening of ecumenical councils where all bishops would consider the most important issues facing all of the churches and witness to the apostolic tradition they had received. The ecumenical council became the most authoritative expression of the Church’s universality, and the final expression of the voice of the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Church is therefore described as “collegial” in contrast to other models of Church government. The council however requires a head to convene and preside over it. In the case of local or regional councils this function has historically been filled by the metropolitan or patriarch, and in the case of the ecumenical council, by either the emperor in the case of the Orthodox Church, or the Pope in the Catholic Church.

The senior most bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Patriarch of Constantinople, called the Ecumenical Patriarch (literally “Imperial Patriarch). His authority includes the right to preside over pan-Orthodox synods and the right to hear appeals in disputes between bishops (although there is disagreement about the scope of this role). His direct jurisdiction is exercised over Constantinople (Istanbul), parts of western Turkey and Greece, and Crete. He also claims jurisdiction over the “barbarians”, which is interpreted as including the Americas and Australia (although this interpretation is disputed). The number of Orthodox faithful in his direct jurisdiction is now estimated at only several thousand (“barbarians” excluded), and most of the bishops of the Church of Constantinople are titular (meaning that they hold the bishopric of a land no longer Orthodox). The Church of Constantinople was elevated to the rank of second in canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council based on its status as the imperial capital. Since the fall of the Roman Empire in 1453 however there has not been an empire, and therefore capital, obviating the reasoning for the status of the Church of Constantinople. Its continued use of the title Ecumenical Patriarch and claim to its historical jurisdiction is controversial in contemporary Orthodoxy, disputed in particular by the Patriarch of Moscow, but also by others. In practice there is no head of world Eastern Orthodoxy, and each national church functions independently, although in communion with one another.

(continued)

 

[dcointin]

The lack of central authority in Eastern Orthodoxy has a number of consequences. One, while the ecumenical council is considered its highest form of dogmatic and canonical expression, it has not held one since 787. In the past ecumenical councils were called and presided over by the Roman emperor, a tradition established with the first ecumenical council called by Constantine in 325. Since there is no longer an emperor there is no longer an authority recognized as having that ability, although it has been assumed that in his absence the Patriarch of Constantinople would fill that role in a future council. In contrast, the Catholic Church has held 14 additional ecumenical councils (without the participation of the Eastern Orthodox Churches), the most recent in 1962, called and presided over by the Pope. I have heard the argument that the Eastern Orthodox Church has not had a need for such a council since then as the Seventh Ecumenical Council represented the final defeat of heresy, the “triumph of Orthodoxy”. This strikes me as a later justification however since new forms of heresy are always being invented, despite some similarity to older forms. There are very significant modern heresies such as rationalism and post-modernism which the Eastern Orthodox churches have been unable to address with a unified voice.

Two, it is unable to resolve differences in theological, moral, and canonical interpretation. Despite Orthodoxy’s impressive dogmatic and liturgical unity, there are areas that could benefit from clarification. For example, I have heard Orthodox priests teach that contraception is both permissible, not permissible, or a matter of economia. While this may be an area where there is no acknowledged apostolic tradition, and therefore legitimate diversity of opinion, it is unclear which of these views is correct. Other examples include purification after death, ariel toll houses, and the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Three, there are significant canonical problems which affect all Eastern Orthodox churches but they seem unable to address. One significant example of this problem is the multiplicity of jurisdictions in the New World. Canon law requires that there be one bishop in one city, but in the New World there are many bishops in the same place. This leads to the confusing situation where each church has overlapping jurisdiction, and inquirers into Orthodoxy are faced with parishes representing many national churches, each with differences in culture, language, and variations in liturgy.

Four, there is a lack of cooperation on almost every level. Each jurisdiction publishes its own translation of prayers and the liturgy, which make it impossible to pray without a service book when visiting the parishes of other jurisdictions. I have heard reports of bishops of one jurisdiction refusing to allow its member to contribute to charities of another jurisdiction. One jurisdiction (which I will not name) even refuses to recognize the clergy of two others who serve in their western-rite vicariates.

Five, it makes it difficult for outside observers to determine which churches are truly Orthodox, and which are schismatic or heretical. There are many churches which claim the title “Orthodox” but are not in communion with the mainstream Orthodox Churches, including: Old Believers, Greek and Balkan Old Calenderists, Russian “True Orthodox” Churches, various national churches, and others. To complicate the matter further, some are in communion with certain mainstream Orthodox Churches but not others, making communion an uncertain litmus test for inquirers and visitors.

Six, it prevents the Church from having a larger impact in the world community because it cannot speak with a unified voice. This limits its impact on social issues such as abortion which are tremendously important.

Seven, it harms ecumenical dialogue since there is not one Orthodox Church to dialogue with but many. While there are joint Orthodox commissions involved in these dialogues, they cannot speak in an official way for any particular Orthodox Church, and therefore any progress they make may be accepted or rejected by those churches.

In rejecting the authority of the Pope, and in the absence of an emperor, the Orthodox Churches have left themselves without any leadership capable of enabling them to act in a more unified manner, a situation that I unfortunately do not see improving in the near future. While I disagree with the more extreme claims for authority made by the Pope, I also must recognize that there is a practical benefit to his leadership. The question I have been asking myself is if this state of affairs was God’s intention for his Church, and if not, what the alternatives are.

 

[spina1953]

I believe you have hit the nail on the head as it is a major problem that sure needs solving. I hope that the Orthodox position will at some point understand just what you stated if unity is to be had.

 

[Peter_J]

But if one believes differently, how can one not but say that the two faiths are different? That to me seems just like covering up what may be unpleasant. But those who truly love are not afraid to speak the truth in love, and part of that Christian duty to love is to say that we are separated because on certain points of doctrine, our faiths differ. We do not believe that the Son is cause of the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit, and we do not believe that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. We thereby fall under the anathematisms of your Church, and your Church falls under certain anathematisms of ours (namely those of the Council of Blachernae on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Hesychast Councils, which condemned the proposition that there is no distinction at all between essence and energy, and the additions to the Synodikon of Orthodoxy made in 1583, which anathematize the practice of serving communion only in one species, the proposition that the Holy Spirit does not proceed hypostatically and essentially from the Father alone, and the proposition that the faithful who die without completing their penance must go to a purgatory of fire).

I admit it’s a difficult matter to iron out intellectually. In addition to what you said, I note that the PNCC doesn’t agree with Rome concerning Papal infallibility and UOJ, and yet neither side objects to intercommunion … even though Rome refers to those teachings as dogmas.

I guess it boils down to doing the best we can, and hoping that someday we can also explain it logically.

I understand the desire for eirenicism, and I’m sure you would be a cool guy to drink a beer or two with (any more though would be sinful excess ), but a love of peace is no reason for anybody to pretend that these differences do not exist. In fact, one of the beauties of genuine charity is that we don’t even have to agree in order to get along.

I hope. Frankly, personal experience (mostly on the internet) regarding the getting-along has left me slightly disenchanted.

 

[Randy_Carson]

dcointin-

Thank you. You’re welcome at my parish anytime.

Randy

 

[dzheremi]

dcointin, forgive me, but you seem to be half way to validating a lot of RC claims that involve leaps in logic that call into question a few of your observations. While I am not EO, I have to wonder about a few things you’ve written, like:

• The RCC being unified by virtue of having one supreme bishop over all others. You don’t need to spend very much time on CAF’s Eastern Catholic forum to see that major differences in praxis, dogmatic understanding, and outlook make the RCCs unity most visible via its top-down ecclesiastical organization. This is something that the EO don’t share, no doubt, but what that says about the unity of their faith…well, again, it depends on what presuppositions you have in mind when you talk about “unity”. If unity to you means that all are in lock-step regarding certain social issues (especially ‘philosophical heresies’ of the type that you’ve explicitly mentioned), then I don’t think the EO or the RC have unity at all. But all maintain ecclesiastical unity just the same, so I have to wonder what the lack of a unified voice on certain issues even means. Maybe each church has its own particular circumstances that led it to a worldview that isn’t necessarily shared by everybody else in the communion. (I’m thinking here of the Armenians, who had some 90% of their clergy wiped out in the genocides of the Turks, and hence are simultaneously more open and less open to outsiders than the Copts are, since the Armenians quickly found themselves surrounded by heterodox in new countries not of their choosing, and hence became inwardly focused in trying to rebuild and protect their communities, and yet built strong and lasting alliances with any Christians they could find to help them in their time of need.)
• The jurisdictional situation you’ve noticed with the EO exists to no lesser degree among the RC communion in the West; the only difference is that they do not tend to see it as a problem like the EO do.
• Things like toll houses/purification are not dogmatized, are they? So I don’t know why it is important to determine which view is “correct” when the church seems to essentially be saying that there is no one correct view (or else they wouldn’t leave it as a matter of opinion).
• With regard to condoms: Isn’t it possible that all views expressed could be correct, depending on the context in which they are invoked? To use a different example, I know that what is permissible for me with regard to the fast around the Christmas holidays is very different than what is permissible for a Coptic Orthodox Christian who comes from an Orthodox family and is within an Orthodox community all the time, but this has to do with my particular circumstances, not some kind of mythical “official church stance” which is somehow up for debate due to the presence of other people within the church who do otherwise for their own reasons. When things are approached pastorally, and economia is applied to whatever degree it is, there’s generally a reason. So I have to imagine that there is a reason you have heard that condoms are acceptable, or not acceptable, or sometimes acceptable.
• Why is each jurisdiction publishing its own translation of prayers a problem? Service books exist precisely because things are not uniform across the board (as they likewise are not in the Roman communion, or even the Roman church itself), since there are small differences in usage and phrasing even with many common prayers. Doesn’t the EO church value organic development even within their much more uniform overall practice? (e.g., that Romanians are not Arabs, Georgians are not Slavs, etc.)
• Regarding communion as the standard of where the church is: You brought up how this confuses inquirers – is it right that those inquirers should worry about communion that they can’t have? And if some churches are trying to have their cake and eat it too by being in communion with “True Orthodox” and canonical EO, then isn’t that a problem with those particular churches, and not the communion as a whole? I mean, you’re either autocephalous or you’re not, but so long as you can understand your church’s stance(s) before converting, I don’t see why this should be a problem. To use an OO example, the Indians may argue endlessly amongst each other over whether or not they should be autocephalous, but until they’ve reached some kind of agreement amongst themselves, we in the Coptic Church commemorate HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas as Patriarch of all the Syriac Orthodox, as Indian-internal politics are not our business (on the other hand, Eritrean and Ethiopian-internal politics which affect their churches are, for very valid historical reasons, so we’ve mad very definite stances regarding who is what over there, and anyone who disagrees with those places themselves out of communion with us…perhaps the EO could borrow a little bit of the Coptic synod’s backbone, as necessary? )
• How does the lack of one supreme Patriarch over all others prevent the EO church from speaking out against abortion? Is this something on which the various EO patriarchs disagree? I wouldn’t imagine that to be the case. A lot of people say this about Orthodoxy. “Where is the unity when you need it?” I can only speak for view from the Coptic peanut gallery, but I feel just as close to HG Bishop Suriel of Melbourne as I do to my own bishop, HG Bishop Youssef of the Southern United States. HG Bishop Suriel says things I agree with on social issues that aren’t any different than what HG Bishop Youssef (or David, or Serapion, or Thomas, etc.) says about those same or comparable issues. And that unity is replicated when I listen to sermons from priests of other jurisdictions, or read encyclicals of HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, or wahtever. Is EO really that different?

 

[frjohnmorris]

No, that is incorrect. Pope Honorius I was condemned for negligence in allowing the heresy of monothelitism to spread by failing to teach one way or the other on it. He never formally taught monothelitism.

Pope Honorius I not only taught Monothelitism. He was responsible for defining the heresy. The whole thing began in an effort to end the schism over Chalcedon, Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople thought that a compromise could be reached with the non-Chalcedonians by teaching that Christ had one energy. Naturally the Patriarch consulted Pope Honorius on the matter because of his role as the senior Bishop of Church. Pope Honorius’ reply to to Patriarch Sergius suggesting that instead of having one energy, Christ had one will. That letter is the origin of Monothelitism. Fortunately for the Church, St. Sophronius the Patriarch of Jerusalem rose to the occasion and condemned this heresy as did St. Maximus the Confessor. Even Honorius’ successors in Rome condemned their predecessor’s false teaching. Pope St. Agatho ordered that local councils be held in the West to deal with matter and sent a letter and large delegation to the III Council of Constantinople in 680, the 6th Ecumenical Council, to oppose Monothelitism. The council adopted St. Agatho’s letter reporting on the decisions of the Western councils condemned the heresy of Monothelitism. Session III of the council declared, “And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…” Thus, the 6th Ecumenical Council, condemned Honorius not for “failing to teach one way or the other on it,” but for his letter to Patriarch Sergius, who was also condemned, that suggested that instead of teaching that Christ had one energy, the Church should teach that He had one will. Pope Leo II, St. Agatho’s successor, officially condemned Honorius in no uncertain terms with the words, “and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”
The Eastern Orthodox Church never denied the seniority of the Pope among the Patriarchs. We only objected when the Popes began to claim that his role as “first among equals” gave him universal jurisdiction, the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another Patriarchate, and the authority to veto decisions of or an Ecumenical Council.
To see how a Roman Catholic would deal with the problem of an heretical Pope, I looked at the article on Pope Honorius on the New Advent site. It is amazing to read the verbal gymnastics the New Advent site goes through to reconcile the Pope’s heresy with Vatican I. I do not know what could be more official than a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople formally defining a doctrine. Pope Honorius I did not proclaim the doctrine “ex cathedra” because that concept of papal power did not exist at that time. Only after the schism did the Popes claim authority to make decisions on doctrine binding on the whole Church. Before the schism, only an Ecumenical Council had that authority. The article on Pope Honorius I on New Advent is not history. It is pure propaganda that no person with any knowledge of the historical facts could accept. When I read such a falsification of history as the article on the New Advent site, I really wonder if the author is knowingly twisting the truth to support their prejudice or was just grossly ill informed. Whatever is the case, New Advent is not factual and should not be taken seriously. Pope Honorius officially taught heresy. This incident alone shows how wrong the 1st Vatican Council was.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

What would lead you to that conclusion? I never said that the Orthodox say that those outside of the Church are definitely consigned to eternal damnation. St. Augustine, for example, elsewhere even writes that those outside of the Church who perform good works may be credited for them at the time of judgment. All I am saying is that according to Orthodox teaching and the teaching of numerous Church Fathers, being outside of the Church can seriously jeopardize one’s salvation, because the guaranteed and narrow way of salvation is found in the Church alone (through living the life of asceticism and the sacramental life of the Church), while outside of the Church one can only hope on the mercy of the Lord, as sacraments performed outside of the Church are lacking in their normal salvific character, as St. Augustine teaches.

The Fathers teach that “You cannot have God as your Father, if you do not have the Church as your Mother.” However, the great 19th century Russian theologian Alexi Khomiakov wrote that there are those whose membership in the Church is known only to God. That is how to reconcile the teaching that there is no salvation outside of the Church with the possibility that those who seem to be outside of the Church can be saved.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

I want to chime in again as a middleman just to say how extremely interesting this discussion has been from a non-apostolic faith perspective. I’m really engaged in this discussion and I hope you both can keep it up. God bless you in your pursuit of truth.

From wiki:

Although Honorius never issued a dogmatic (ex cathedra) decree in regards to the controversy of Christ’s wills,[2] he favoured Monothelitism. He supported a formula proposed by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius with the design of bringing about a reconciliation between Monothelites and the rest of the Catholic Church. Monothelitism is the teaching that Christ has only one will, the divine will, in contrast with the teaching that He has both a divine will and a human will.

More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”.

I believe the official answer to this one (this forum has given me some good practice) is that because it was not ex cathedra it’s no big deal.

The letter of Pope Honorius to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople is the origin of the heresy of Monothelitism, and was officially condemned for teaching heresy by the 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 68. Pope Honorius did not speak “ex catedra” because that concept did not exist at that time. Then only Ecumenical Councils had the authority to make proclamations on matters of doctrine for the whole Church. The decree on infallibility of the 1st Vatican Council stated “this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples…” If a Pope was officially condemned by an Ecumenical Council for teaching heresy, the see of St. Peter has not remained unblemished by any error.

Fr. John

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now, let us give what is a final answer. Let us suppose which we do not for a moment grant — that it is proved to the hilt that Honorius really was a heretic, and, moreover, taught heresy. Would it follow that those who condemned him thereby avowed their disbelief in papal infallibility?

No, not unless Honorius as making an ex cathedra statement, and there is not the slightest ground for believing that he made such a pronouncement. For

(i.) In no less than four places in his letters, he rejects all idea of defining doctrine in favour of one side or the other:
(a) “We must not wrest what they say into Church dogmas”;
(b) “We must not define either one or two operations”;
(c) “We leave the matter to grammarians”;
(d) “We must not, defining, pronounce one or two operations.”

(ii.) Secondly, he imposed no obligations upon the faithful to hold any of the doctrinal opinions expressed in his letter: the customary grave penalties for refusing to assent to the doctrine taught, receive no mention: he makes no reference to the use of Petrine authority nor to the traditional teaching of the Church. In other words, Honorius did not claim to be speaking with the mouth of Peter nor to be exercising that Apostle’s privilege of infallibility.

Therefore, in face of all this it cannot be asserted that an ex cathedra statement was made, or that that Council thought that such a definition had been pronounced. Bishop Gore’s objection accordingly loses its force.

THE CASE OF HONORIUS IS ALL IN OUR FAVOUR

But now that our adversaries have cited this condemnation pronounced by the Sixth General Council upon Honorius, they should themselves bear the consequences of their appeal to history. For the proceedings of this very Council, furnish a flat denial to the statement that the doctrine of papal infallibility was unknown in the early Church. The reigning Pope, Saint Agatho, wrote, through the Emperor, to the Fathers assembled in Council. And we stress very strongly the tone and contents of this letter, and still more the manner in which the instructions were received.

The salient features of this long epistle are as follows: Saint Agatho begins by making it clear beyond all doubt that he is about to state no mere personal opinion, but is declaring the faith of the Church. In this, the nature of his letter differs* toto coelo* (‘as wide as the heavens’ or diametrically) from that of Honorius’s letter to Sergius. Next, he asserts that no successor of Saint Peter had defiled the Petrine tradition by teaching error to the Church of God. Lastly, he imposes upon the Council the obligation of receiving the doctrine of two wills and two operations, as expounded by himself; the assembled Bishops were to accept his ruling at their peril. They had not, in this instance, the office of defining faith, but the duty of accepting it from the Pope, and of publishing it abroad to the world. They might, indeed, examine his arguments — as they did — and verify his citations from the Fathers; but they might not dissent from his final and authoritative decision upon a question which had so long vexed men’s minds.

Now what would be the answer of such a Council if it had not — as Bishop Gore asserts it had not — even a rudimentary idea of the doctrine of papal infallibility? Would it tamely and without protest admit the Pope’s right to dictate to a General Council of Bishops? If it disbelieved the right of Rome thus to take precedence of the See of Constantinople, would it not be at pains to reject this claim, even though it fully agreed with the doctrinal teaching concerning two wills and two operations in Christ Our Lord? But the Council made no such protest. It accepted not only the doctrine proposed to it, but also the principle so explicitly stated in the letter of Pope Agatho. For the Fathers address the Pope as one “standing upon the firm rock of the faith”; they “freely admit his true doctrine” expressed in his letter, and profess that it is “divinely prescribed by the supreme Head of the Apostles”; they relate that they have refuted the heretics by means of his teaching; and finally they ask him to confirm the acts of the Council because they have carried out his instructions and “have not changed a particle of the traditional teaching” he had expounded to them. Thus we have a full and whole-hearted acceptance of Agatho’s letter, and, therefore, a clear proof that the assembled Bishops acknowledged both that the Pope’s infallibility was independent of a General Council, and further that he had the right to dictate to a Council what doctrine it should define. Thus the history of the condemnation of Pope Honorius, far from showing that early Councils knew nothing of papal infallibility, really gives striking evidence to the contrary.

Source: pamphlets.org.au/australia/acts0382.html

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The letter of Pope Honorius to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople is the origin of the heresy of Monothelitism, and was officially condemned for teaching heresy by the 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 68. Pope Honorius did not speak “ex catedra” because that concept did not exist at that time. Then only Ecumenical Councils had the authority to make proclamations on matters of doctrine for the whole Church. The decree on infallibility of the 1st Vatican Council stated “this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples…” If a Pope was officially condemned by an Ecumenical Council for teaching heresy, the see of St. Peter has not remained unblemished by any error.

Fr. John

I’ve been looking for a source with the actual letter but have not been successful. Do you have reference I can peruse?

Thanks,

 

[frjohnmorris]

dzheremi:
I am not sure what point dzheremi is trying to make about the Eastern Orthodox Church. I do, however, have a few comments to make on his post.
The Eastern Orthodox are doctrinally united. There is no difference between what I teach and what would be taught in Moscow, Athens or Damascus. We are certainly united on our position on abortion. Abortion was universally condemned by the ancient undivided Church. Lest there be any doubt the canons of St. Basil ratified by the Council in Trullo which were ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Council excommunicate a person having an abortion. Therefore, the Orthodox Church is in full agreement with the teaching that abortion is equal to murder. The only time that an abortion would not be treated as murder is to save the life of the mother.
In those areas where the Church has not officially spoken like toll houses and non-abortive methods of birth control, there is room for disagreement. Toll houses is a very controversial teaching, that at best is only a theological opinion. Some Orthodox, especially, those under heavy monastic influence agree with the Roman Catholic teaching on birth control. However, others, including an official declaration of the Russian Orthodox Church, leave the matter up to the couple as advised by their spiritual father and would allow the usage of non-abortive methods of birth control by a married couple for legitimate reasons, such as the spacing of the birth of children, not having more children than they could care for, or if further pregnancy would endanger the health of the woman.
All Eastern Orthodox use the same liturgical texts. It is true that the various Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States have different translations, but the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North and Central America is working to develop common liturgical texts for usage of all Orthodox.
At one time there was a proposal that Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine Rite publish common translations. However, it did not work out because Fr. Robert Taft, who represented the Eastern Catholics, insisted on using modern “inclusive” language instead of literal translations. We can only use literal translations. Therefore the effort ended in failure.

Fr. John