D
dmar198
Guest
Pope Agatho.
Defending Universal Papal Jurisdiction with the First Seven Ecumenical Councils
- Status
D
dmar198
Guest
I answered your question, will you answer mine? How do you interpret the statement I quoted from Session 4 of the Council, if you think the Council condemned the pope for teaching heresy?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
I interpret it as typical hyperbole and rhetorical flourish from a fairly lengthy letter. You can’t take phrases written in what was the typical over top rhetoric of the time as some kind of dogmatic statement. If you did every patriarch and even the emperor himself could claim infallibility.
A
Abu
Guest
The real Catholic can be strengthened by equipping himself with the means to answer objections (real or imagined) such as the EWTN printed answers and facts printed by Catholic Answers.
In this case the above errors are exposed as follows:
Answer by Dr. William Carroll (EWTN) on 05-29-2002:
When Pope St. Leo II affirmed a council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius, he specifically declared that Pope Honorius had not taught heresy, but had been condemned for failing to denounce it soon enough.
**Answer by Dr. William Carroll (EWTN) on 10-23-2001: **
Pope Honorius never actually taught heresy at all. It was all a misunderstanding, which is explained in full detail, fully documented, in the second volume of my history of Christendom, THE BUILDING OF CHRISTENDOM, pages 252-254.
Answer by Matthew Bunson (EWTN) on Oct-01-2002:
Following the deaths of Constantius II and the pro-Arian Emperor Valens, a new era began under Emperor Theodosius who, in 381, gave his blessing to the First Council of Constantinople (the second Ecumenical Council in Church history). The 150 bishops in attendance, with representation from Rome, confirmed the Nicene Creed and condemned several forms of Arianism as heretical. As for Pope Liberius, he was exiled by Emperor Constantius in 355 and replaced by an antipope, Felix (II). In exile, Liberius was still recognized by the orthodox bishops and faithful, although he was powerless to oppose the heresy owing to his relative isolation. His return in 357 was achieved apparently after he gave assent to some kind of heretical formula under pain of death. While in exile, Liberius was Both Athanasius and St. Jerome supported the claim, however, that he had done so under duress, and Liberius himself annulled all Arian decrees passed by various heretical councils. Greater leadership was provided by his successor, Damasus I (r. 366-84), the pontiff who did so much to encourage Emperor Theodosius to help stamp out Arianism in the empire.
A
Abu
Guest
That Christian Classics Ethereal Library Reference is linked to ccel.org/give – Calvin College’s donation page.
No suitable reference for real Catholics and unreliable for facts.
D
dmar198
Guest
Why do you think it’s hyperbolic? Is there something in the text or context that makes you think so?
I ask because I think there is good evidence that it isn’t. For example, in the preceding and following paragraphs, the pope explains and defends his declaration of Rome’s unswerving fidelity to the faith, repeats it in more than one way, declares its support in Scripture (citing especially the passage where Jesus tells Simon to feed his flock) and says that the ecumenical synods and Fathers of the Church agreed with him by supporting Rome in all its decisions.
Defending what I would call Rome’s infallibility takes up about 12.5% of the rather lengthy letter he sent to the Council, by my count. To me, that means it was very important to him, not just rhetorical flourish. The fact that his letter was unanimously endorsed by an ecumenical council and included as part of their proceedings just makes it that much more significant, in my opinion.
Anyway, I don’t think you have to agree with my position, but I would like to know why you think the words I quoted are just a rhetorical flourish. Do you see why I think otherwise?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
That quote is from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. I will say it’s pretty funny that you would call that book unreliable but not newadvent.org.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Sure. It’s not the text itself that makes me think that. That was simply the manner of speaking and writing at this time in history.
A
Abu
Guest
What is important is the approval of an Ecumenical Council by a Pope or his representative – only what is approved is a reality for Christ’s Church and for Catholics.
Thus at the Council of Chalcedon:
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
See: The Papacy
What did the Early Church Fathers Say?
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm
From Constantinople to Rome: Why I did not join the Eastern Orthodox Church
by Brian W. Harrison
Again, Fr Brian Harrison, O.S., before becoming a Catholic investigated the Orthodox, and confirms:
“The Orthodox countered the standard Catholic reading of the New Testament’s Petrine texts with interpretations similar to those of Protestant scholars. And when it came to the witness of history, they claimed that Eastern recognition of the Bishop of Rome’s universal jurisdiction over all the local churches in the first thousand years was a reflection only of Rome’s high political status and human ecclesiastical law, rather than (as Catholics claim) a disposition of divine law issuing from Christ himself.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html#Harrison
How confused can you get in denying Christ’s mandate to St Peter and the Apostles?
Thus at the Council of Chalcedon:
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
See: The Papacy
What did the Early Church Fathers Say?
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm
From Constantinople to Rome: Why I did not join the Eastern Orthodox Church
by Brian W. Harrison
Again, Fr Brian Harrison, O.S., before becoming a Catholic investigated the Orthodox, and confirms:
“The Orthodox countered the standard Catholic reading of the New Testament’s Petrine texts with interpretations similar to those of Protestant scholars. And when it came to the witness of history, they claimed that Eastern recognition of the Bishop of Rome’s universal jurisdiction over all the local churches in the first thousand years was a reflection only of Rome’s high political status and human ecclesiastical law, rather than (as Catholics claim) a disposition of divine law issuing from Christ himself.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html#Harrison
How confused can you get in denying Christ’s mandate to St Peter and the Apostles?
A
Abu
Guest
“For the confused, Philip Schaff (January 1, 1819 – October 20, 1893), was a Swiss-born, German-educated Protestant theologian and a Church historian who spent most of his adult life living and teaching in the United States.
“It was his hope that the pope would abandon the doctrine of infallibility and undertake the reunion of Christianity.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Schaff
This demonstrates his own confusion and failure to understand and accept Christ’s mandate to St Peter.
“It was his hope that the pope would abandon the doctrine of infallibility and undertake the reunion of Christianity.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Schaff
This demonstrates his own confusion and failure to understand and accept Christ’s mandate to St Peter.
D
dmar198
Guest
Do you have evidence of that? I ask because it is my understanding that this language is basically unique to the see of Rome. Earlier you seemed to indicate that similar statements can be found about other patriarchal sees and about the imperial throne. Could you give some examples? Because I would be very surprised to see any quote state that the other four patriarchal sees or the imperial throne had never accepted the innovations of heretics, for example, or never would. As you probably know, the other sees of Christendom, and the imperial throne, had taught very influential heresies and most of them had produced notorious heresiarchs. In light of that, I would be very surprised to see any Father state that Constantinople, for example, had never accepted the innovations of heretics, because of a promise of Christ, as the Sixth Ecumenical Council said was true of Rome.
By the way, earlier I said the defense of Rome’s infallibility takes up about 12.5% of Pope Agatho’s letter, by my count. You can reproduce that number by measuring the number of words in the passage where he defends what I would call Rome’s infallibility against the total number of words in the letter. I counted between two sentences that I think begin and end the section on Rome’s infallibility, and those are the sentence that begins “And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart” and the sentence that ends “when he demands a strict account of the office I have received?”
I think the pope spent a large amount of time defending papal infallibility, and I think that’s very significant, especially since the Council unanimously adopted his encyclical as part of the Council’s proceedings. But that’s not the only reason I think it was more than rhetorical flourish.
Another reason I think that is because I think there is evidence of a controversy over whether Pope Honorius had taught heresy or not, evidenced by several letters defending him by bishops of the East and the West. And I think part of the Council in question spent time judging his character. Therefore, for this letter to appear in the Council’s proceedings stating that the Roman See had never fallen into heresy and never would, I think a statement like that on such a central issue of the Council can’t be just rhetorical flourish. If the Council was really going to condemn Pope Honorius for teaching heresy, how could they unanimously endorse a lengthy rhetorical flourish denying that the Roman see had ever fallen into heresy?
Anyway, I hope you’ll continue this discussion. You said this was just the way people talked, which I interpret to mean you think it doesn’t really mean Rome never fell into heresy and never would. I’ve given you some evidence for why I think that’s what it means, I would love to see your evidence that this was just the way people talked. Do you have other examples where the other patriarchal sees or the imperial throne were said to have never fallen into heresy, or that Christ had promised they never would? Or is your evidence of another kind?
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
It does, however, have Philip Schaff’s nineteen-volume reference, The Early Fathers, which has passed into the public domain (so it’s free).
Schaff was a staunch protestant, and this is reflected in his commentary on the writings of the Fathers. But I have never observed (or heard of) any deliberate translation bias introduced into the writings of the ECFs themselves. Schaff tried to “explain away” certain passages in his commentary, but I don’t think he tampered with the text (which was the work of other translators (some of whom were Catholic) - Schaff just compiled and commented on them).
It is, to my knowledge, the only free, reasonably complete online compendium of the full text of Early Church documents in the English language.
I use William Jurgens’ outstanding collection, The Faith of the Early Fathers to locate passages (this is pretty much the only reference book I own which has never been, and will never be, superseded by the Internet). But Jurgens quotes only doctrinally-relevant passages of the ECFs. If I want to read the passage in full context, I use Schaff’s collection, and I’m grateful to ccel.org for hosting it.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
No it’s definitely not unique. I’ll give you a couple of examples.
And hence, since I know you, venerable Prince, imbued as you are with the purest light of truth, waver in no part of the Faith, but with just and perfect judgment distinguish right from wrong, and separate what is to be embraced from what is to be rejected, I beseech you not to think that my humility is to be blamed for want of confidence, since my cautiousness is not only in the interests of the universal Church but also for the furtherance of your own glory, that under your reign the unscrupulousness of heretics may not seem to be advanced and the security of Catholics disturbed.- Letter of St Leo to Leo Augustus
His Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, All Egypt and All Africa, Father of Fathers, Pastor of Pastors, Prelate of Prelates, the Thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Universe. - Ancient Title of the Patriarch of Alexandria
For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now. - Homily 1 on the Gospel of John, St John Chrysostom
D
dmar198
Guest
Thank you.
From your post, I think you’re trying to say that St. Leo’s words about Emperor Leo, and St. John Chrysostom’s words about the Apostle John, mean about as much as the Council’s words about the papal throne, and that none of them imply anything about infallibility. Am I understanding you correctly? Because I think there is evidence to the contrary. For example, I think St. Leo really thought that Emperor Leo’s faith was solid and orthodox, and wavered in no part of the faith. I don’t think it was just a rhetorical flourish. And with St. John Chrysostom, I think he really thought that the Apostle John wielded the keys of heaven, and could use them to teach without error, make ecclesiastical law, and judge sinners. I don’t think it’s just a rhetorical flourish. And with the Sixth Ecumenical Council, I think the words really mean that the Roman see had never fallen into heresy and never would. What do you think all these words mean?
If they are all rhetorical flourish, are they meant to support each person’s doctrine, or are they meant to do something else? And if they are meant to support each person’s doctrine, do the words about Pope Agatho support his doctrine?
Another difference between the words about Pope Agatho and the other examples, at least based on how I understand these quotations, is this: St. Leo’s words to Emperor Leo seem to be about his personal faith, I don’t think they say anything about the past occupiers of the imperial throne or the future ones. But the Sixth Ecumenical Council appears to say that the Roman see has never erred “from the beginning,” since the time of her founders, and never will err “unto the end,” which I think includes future occupiers of the throne. Am I missing something?
Do you know when we see that title appear in historical records for the first time? You write that it is ancient, I would like to see how far back we see documentation of it, because I think it’s important to know the historical context for patriarchal titles.
- Status