Eastern Catholic and Orthodoxy

[byzgirl]

Please let BYZGIRL know this. Yes there were some Byzantines that openly entered into communion with Rome, there were some that did it for political reasons and then there were some that didn’t know that the schism occured.

Thank you

Regardless, the choice made could have easily been altered. Are you claiming that any of these ‘categorized’ Catholics were ‘forced’ to be Catholics under the Pope? Those ‘Byantines’ whom you say did so for political reasons (still no specifics as to what those were) or sheer ‘confusion’ (they didn’t know of the schism)…could have, at any time, realized their supposed ‘error’ and sided with the Orthodox Church (in schism). I guess, despite the categories, they decided to stay in union with the Pope.

And today we have many Byzantine Rite Catholics who are in unity with the Pope, free of any politics and/or confusion. Hmmm.

 

[Hesychios]

I’d give them more credit. What ‘political influences’ do you refer to exacatly, and how does that equate with the utter ignorance and confusion–ie they were ‘fooled into it’ by their own misunderstanding) for the reason for their coming to accept the Papacy?

-Q:Let’s speak of the international dialogue about the Greek Catholic Church. In Balamand (1993) the joint Catholic-Orthodox commission – to which the Greek Catholic Church was not called - on the one side has condemned Uniatism understood as a form of proselytism and on the other side has recognized the existence of the Greek Catholic Church as a church. What is your position concerning this resolution and how do you see the future today, because the international discussion was interrupted in Baltimore in 2000?
Cardinal Husar: **If we take Uniatism in this classical way of trying to re-establish unity, we as well do not accept it. We were tricked into it. It was not the intention of our bishops at the end of the 16th century. But this was the political situation within the Polish kingdom of that time. And it was also the theological understanding of the Latin Church after the Council of Trent. But this is the past. And we would not like to have Uniatism used anymore as a way of establishing unity.

**Interview conducted in Lviv, 26 January 2004 by Antoine Arjakovsky, professor at the Ukrainian Catholic University.

 

[byzgirl]

Actually, some of our Churches reunited without any political influences, and knew full well that there was a Schism. Case in point: the Antiochian Church, A.K.A. the Melkite Catholic Church.

Reunited of its own accord, Synod and Patriarch, without regard of the political safety of the move (the Church became a non-protected entity under Ottoman rule after this decision). Some of our Churches made the decision quite openly, and without pressure (aside from that put on them by the Eastern Orthodox/Muslim rulers to not reunite), thank you.

Peace and God bless!

Thanks for this post. Some seem to be trying to allege that there was some political ‘pressure’ or complete ‘ignorance/confusion’ --as the reason for such a choice (to side, after the Great Schism, with the Papacy). I don’t buy that. And as you correctly point out, ‘many reunited of their own accord’ and ‘made the decision quite openly’. Thanks for a more accurate (and believable)depiction of the actual events.

 

[byzgirl]

-Q:Let’s speak of the international dialogue about the Greek Catholic Church. In Balamand (1993) the joint Catholic-Orthodox commission – to which the Greek Catholic Church was not called - on the one side has condemned Uniatism understood as a form of proselytism and on the other side has recognized the existence of the Greek Catholic Church as a church. What is your position concerning this resolution and how do you see the future today, because the international discussion was interrupted in Baltimore in 2000?
Cardinal Husar: If we take Uniatism in this classical way of trying to re-establish unity, we as well do not accept it. We were tricked into it. It was not the intention of our bishops at the end of the 16th century. But this was the political situation within the Polish kingdom of that time. And it was also the theological understanding of the Latin Church after the Council of Trent. But this is the past. And we would not like to have Uniatism used anymore as a way of establishing unity.

Interview conducted in Lviv, 26 January 2004 by Antoine Arjakovsky, professor at the Ukrainian Catholic University.

16th century??? I think we’ve jumped over a few centuries here. I think we were speaking of the events surrounding the Great Schism of 1054, and whether or not the Byantine Rite sided with the Catholic Church (Papacy) with or without pressure or knowledge.

 

[Pravoslavac]

[QUOTRE=byzgirl;3944886]16th century??? I think we’ve jumped over a few centuries here. I think we were speaking of the events surrounding the Great Schism of 1054, and whether or not the Byantine Rite sided with the Catholic Church (Papacy) with or without pressure or knowledge.

Sounds like you’re backing down. I knew I had some info on Byzantine Catholics back then in the 1500 thanks to Hesychios…he beat me to it.

Kudos to Hesychios!!!

 

[Nicholas82]

Maybe these comments, from a Catholic apologist, will help:

“I would say that most Orthodox see themselves as the true church in as much as all Apostolic churches are authentic and therefore hold authority to teach, preach and admonish. Each Patriarch is almost like a mini pope, holding virtually total authority over his respective church. He is not isolated however, the universal church shares a role in forming doctrine, namely the creeds; but jurisdictional matters are seldom handled beyond the individual Patriarch.
I have not met an Orthodox who does not hold the Catholic Church to be apostolic and therefore authentic. They do consider us flawed on several issues, but valid just the same. It is our apostolicity that can become a fertile ground for discussion.
It is most important to bring into a discussion with regards to Peter’s unique authority. They may counter you and point to Mt 18, where Jesus gives all the Apostles the power to bind and loose, but drawing the distinction between the two events is critical. In Mt 16, Peter alone is given the keys, a symbol drawn directly from Isaiah 22, where Shebna was removed as Master of the Palace and the keys were given to Elikiah, and to his descendants for all posterity. Compare the language of the two instances and you will see how Jesus modeled his own handing on of the keys after this very incident.
Understanding the context of Isaiah is important to dicipher Mt 16. Shebna was virtually the Prime Minister of King David’s cabinet. He had the authority of the king to act in his name, and was uncontestable. Only the king himself could override him. In Jesus kingdom, Peter becomes the new master of the Palace, or prime minister, acting in place of the king (Jesus) in all matters regarding authority. While Jesus did give all the apostles his authority to bind and loose, only Peter is given the distinctive symbol of the keys, that symbol which represents Christ’s own authority, trumping all others. His primacy is therefore not only “a first place” among the apostles, but of a unique character that is set above. It is not merely a token privilege but a practical one, enabling Peter to settle disputes among the bretheren should problems arise, or to settle matters regarding doctrine and practice. Keys = authority, it’s that simple. The Orthodox know very well that Apostolicity means handing down authority, not something that dies with the person. Peter’s office continues, just as Elikiah’s did, to all the “little jugs, bowls and dishes.”
the Catholic Church claims to hold the seat of Peter, the Papacy, and therefore the charism of primacy and supremacy. Our debate with the Orthodox is chiefly over this point; they concede primacy, but not supremacy, to Peter’s seat.
We hold that the Papacy is the critical seat of unity for the Church that Christ built (he only built one) and therefore the Orthodox are the scismatics. The day we work out this issue we will likely restore the unity that Christ desired for His Church. Our present Pope has made it a priority for his papacy, to unify the “lungs” of the Body of Christ.”

Also, see this timeline for a better historic background:

raeshomepage.bravehost.com/orthodox.html
raeshomepage.bravehost.com/orthodox2.html

Also see:
Why I’m not Eastern Orthodox (by Jimmy Akin)
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

A Response to Orthodox Critiques of Catholic Apostolicity
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html

and

raeshomepage.bravehost.com/meaning.html
What Does Catholic Mean?

Here are a few reasons I give the above writing no credence and a vote of no confidence:

Firstly, this person has honestly never met an Orthodox Christian who does not consider the Catholic Church “valid” or “authentic”? In what sense is “valid” being used? Orthodoxy does not subscribe to the Agustinian view of the Sacraments, allowing one person or a sect to depart from the Church yet retain the Sacraments, Holy Orders or elsewise, therefore we have no concept of ‘valid but illicit’.

Secondly, in what sense is “authentic” being used? No one would deny that the Church of Rome is authentically the historical Church of Rome, but the Orthodox Church does consider the Church of Rome to be scismatic and that it has subscribed to heresy. So does the author just need to meet more Orthodox Christians? Is the author just confused? aybe the author is distorting the truth to bolster their position?

Concerning why we believe ourselves to be the true Church this person states: "I would say that most Orthodox see themselves as the true church in as much as all Apostolic churches are authentic and therefore hold authority to teach, preach and admonish. " That quite simply implies that we do not see ourselves to really and truly be the true Church, except “in as much as” we retain Apostolic succession. That is not true. We believe ourselves to be the true Church, not “in as much as” anything. The author seems to be implying that we must not really believe we have a claim as the true Church, and therefore can point to apostolic succession as our only claim. That is certainly not the case.

If this author wants to misrepresent Orthodox beliefs and views to bolster their position while spouting some diatribe then don’t expect anyone to take any of it too seriously.

 

[byzgirl]

I’m not calling them protestants; that really isn’t what I mean by “two sides of the same coin”. I am however stating that I believe whoever you quoted made poor analogies and the quote lacked any real substance. That’s just my opinion.

I think if you dig a bit deeper you’ll find that things are not so black and white as you wish to present them. There are those Eastern Catholics who genuinely believe themselves to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome”. From your posts I assume you believe that mindset to be misguided?

I’m certainly not “anti-Rome”, I just have a differing opinion from yours. As a Catholic, does your non-acceptance of Anglican orders make you “anti-Anglican”? My whole faily is Roman Catholic anyway… I’m not anti-Roman, just pro-Orthodox

If you’re whole family is Roman Catholic, what’s YOUR reason for being what you call "pro-Orthodox’?

non-acceptance of the Papacy (as the critical seat of unity) is not quite the same thing as non-acceptance of Anglican ‘orders’ (why bring the Anglicans into this?) The Catholic Church has never denied the validity of the Orthodox priesthood or its sacraments. And 'differences of opinion" can certainly be anti-Rome, if the arguments are. I’ve dealt with enought anti-Catholic, anti-Rome, anti-Papacy stuff, from my very hostile, Evangelical (non-denominational) brother-in-law…to recognize it.

But I appreciate that you toned down your response this time, and seemed to show more concern that you may have come off as an anti-Catholic (anti-Roman). You certainly have.

 

[byzgirl]

Here are a few reasons I give the above writing no credence and a vote of no confidence:

Firstly, this person has honestly never met an Orthodox Christian who does not consider the Catholic Church “valid” or “authentic”? In what sense is “valid” being used? Orthodoxy does not subscribe to the Agustinian view of the Sacraments, allowing one person or a sect to depart from the Church yet retain the Sacraments, Holy Orders or elsewise, therefore we have no concept of ‘valid but illicit’.

Secondly, in what sense is “authentic” being used? No one would deny that the Church of Rome is authentically the historical Church of Rome, but the Orthodox Church does consider the Church of Rome to be scismatic and that it has subscribed to heresy. So does the author just need to meet more Orthodox Christians? Is the author just confused? aybe the author is distorting the truth to bolster their position?

Concerning why we believe ourselves to be the true Church this person states: "I would say that most Orthodox see themselves as the true church in as much as all Apostolic churches are authentic and therefore hold authority to teach, preach and admonish. " That quite simply implies that we do not see ourselves to really and truly be the true Church, except “in as much as” we retain Apostolic succession. That is not true. We believe ourselves to be the true Church, not “in as much as” anything. The author seems to be implying that we must not really believe we have a claim as the true Church, and therefore can point to apostolic succession as our only claim. That is certainly not the case.

If this author wants to misrepresent Orthodox beliefs and views to bolster their position while spouting some diatribe then don’t expect anyone to take any of it too seriously.

Well, I wouldn’t expect someone who has no interest in dialogue for unity, to read anything “Catholic” (big C) with an open mind.

 

[Nicholas82]

Regardless, the choice made could have easily been altered. Are you claiming that any of these ‘categorized’ Catholics were ‘forced’ to be Catholics under the Pope? Those ‘Byantines’ whom you say did so for political reasons (still no specifics as to what those were) or sheer ‘confusion’ (they didn’t know of the schism)…could have, at any time, realized their supposed ‘error’ and sided with the Orthodox Church (in schism). I guess, despite the categories, they decided to stay in union with the Pope.

And today we have many Byzantine Rite Catholics who are in unity with the Pope, free of any politics and/or confusion. Hmmm.

No politics and/or confusion concerning the place and authority of Eastern Catholics Churches in relation to Rome?

 

[byzgirl]

Again, I’d like to ask, If you’re whole family is Roman Catholic, what’s YOUR reason for being what you call "pro-Orthodox’?

 

[Nicholas82]

If you’re whole family is Roman Catholic, what’s YOUR reason for being what you call "pro-Orthodox’?

non-acceptance of the Papacy (as the critical seat of unity) is not quite the same thing as non-acceptance of Anglican ‘orders’ (why bring the Anglicans into this?) The Catholic Church has never denied the validity of the Orthodox priesthood or its sacraments. And 'differences of opinion" can certainly be anti-Rome, if the arguments are. I’ve dealt with enought anti-Catholic, anti-Rome, anti-Papacy stuff, from my very hostile, Evangelical (non-denominational) brother-in-law…to recognize it.

But I appreciate that you toned down your response this time, and seemed to show more concern that you may have come off as an anti-Catholic (anti-Roman). You certainly have.

MY reason for being pro-Orthodox is that I believe it to be the truth, I don’t know what other reason would be rational.

I brought Anglicans into this for the reason that Orthodoxy does not recognize Sacraments outside the Church(outside the Orthodox Church), not the Eucharist, not Chrismation, not Holy Orders- so from the Orthodox side a Catholic might find their Church thought of in the same way an Anglican might find their Church thought of in relation to the Roman Catholic Church. My point is that no more makes me “anti-Roman” than it would make you “anti-Anglican”. I only stated my opinion- I did not call the Pope the anti-Christ or anything ridiculous like that, that would be anti-Catholic. Again, I said no such thing…

 

[byzgirl]

[QUOTRE=byzgirl;3944886]16th century??? I think we’ve jumped over a few centuries here. I think we were speaking of the events surrounding the Great Schism of 1054, and whether or not the Byantine Rite sided with the Catholic Church (Papacy) with or without pressure or knowledge.

Sounds like you’re backing down. I knew I had some info on Byzantine Catholics back then in the 1500 thanks to Hesychios…he beat me to it.

Kudos to Hesychios!!!

backing down? sorry, but No. You’re changing the discussion altogether. I won’t be overwhelmed by too much at once. If you want to get into later debates, between the Orthodox and the Catholics, I think that should wait, or you can send me a private e-mail. I’m answering too many posts right now. Besides, we were talking about the events surrounding the Great Schism.

 

[Nicholas82]

Well, I wouldn’t expect someone who has no interest in dialogue for unity, to read anything “Catholic” (big C) with an open mind.

I gave you my reasons for not putting any trust or credence in the writing you quoted, and none of them had anything to do with a lack of a desire for unity or a closed mind. You should understand that Orthodox Christians feel just as strongly about our status as the ‘true Church’ as you do, and not without reason… a scism doesn’t last 1000 years just because one side is too stubborn or dim to see the other side’s “truth”.

 

[byzgirl]

Here are a few reasons I give the above writing no credence and a vote of no confidence:

Firstly, this person has honestly never met an Orthodox Christian who does not consider the Catholic Church “valid” or “authentic”? In what sense is “valid” being used? Orthodoxy does not subscribe to the Agustinian view of the Sacraments, allowing one person or a sect to depart from the Church yet retain the Sacraments, Holy Orders or elsewise, therefore we have no concept of ‘valid but illicit’.

Secondly, in what sense is “authentic” being used? No one would deny that the Church of Rome is authentically the historical Church of Rome, but the Orthodox Church does consider the Church of Rome to be scismatic and that it has subscribed to heresy. So does the author just need to meet more Orthodox Christians? Is the author just confused? aybe the author is distorting the truth to bolster their position?

Concerning why we believe ourselves to be the true Church this person states: "I would say that most Orthodox see themselves as the true church in as much as all Apostolic churches are authentic and therefore hold authority to teach, preach and admonish. " That quite simply implies that we do not see ourselves to really and truly be the true Church, except “in as much as” we retain Apostolic succession. That is not true. We believe ourselves to be the true Church, not “in as much as” anything. The author seems to be implying that we must not really believe we have a claim as the true Church, and therefore can point to apostolic succession as our only claim. That is certainly not the case.

If this author wants to misrepresent Orthodox beliefs and views to bolster their position while spouting some diatribe then don’t expect anyone to take any of it too seriously. :shrug:

So is this also a farce?..something misreprentative of history (in order to ‘bolster a position while sprouting some diatribe’?)

A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

Patriarchal / See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy
Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius c.341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius c.342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul “the Black” c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite
These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.

Without the Roman See, we’d all be heretics now.

 

[Nicholas82]

So is this also a farce?..something misreprentative of history (in order to ‘bolster a position while sprouting some diatribe’?)

A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

Patriarchal / See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy
Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius c.341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius c.342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul “the Black” c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite
These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.

Without the Roman See, we’d all be heretics now.

Would you want to see a list of Roman Popes who the Orthodox Church would consider heretics? Will that prove anything to you? How about the heretic Pope Honorius? That was way before the schism!

 

[byzgirl]

MY reason for being pro-Orthodox is that I believe it to be the truth, I don’t know what other reason would be rational.

I brought Anglicans into this for the reason that Orthodoxy does not recognize Sacraments outside the Church(outside the Orthodox Church), not the Eucharist, not Chrismation, not Holy Orders- so from the Orthodox side a Catholic might find their Church thought of in the same way an Anglican might find their Church thought of in relation to the Roman Catholic Church. My point is that no more makes me “anti-Roman” than it would make you “anti-Anglican”. I only stated my opinion- I did not call the Pope the anti-Christ or anything ridiculous like that, that would be anti-Catholic. Again, I said no such thing…

I don’t buy it…if your whole family is Roman Catholic, then what convinced you of the truth of the Orthodox Church in contrast to the Catholic Church?

I could claim the same thing, “that I am pro-Catholic because I believe it to be true”; however, my family is Catholic (so it could be claimed that I am biased). In your case, you went against the grain. There must be some specifics there.

 

[byzgirl]

Would you want to see a list of Roman Popes who the Orthodox Church would consider heretics? Will that prove anything to you? How about the heretic Pope Honorius? That was way before the schism!

No, because it’s their ‘opinion’, and always in response to their denial of the Papacy. As you can see, no Pope (of the Roman See) has ever TAUGHT heresy (officially).

No response to that big list? You just shift it back to me?

 

[byzgirl]

Would you want to see a list of Roman Popes who the Orthodox Church would consider heretics? Will that prove anything to you? How about the heretic Pope Honorius? That was way before the schism!

FOR the serious anti-Catholic, Pope Honorius I (625-638) occupies a small but pivotal role in the drama of Rome’s errors and abuses. This obscure pontiff lacks the lurid luster of the Crusades and the Inquisition in the anti-papist’s arsenal; nevertheless Loraine Boettner and other Protestant polemicists have used Honorius in attempting to deflate papal claims. Eastern Orthodox apologists such as John Meyendorff and Kallistos Ware and even Catholic anti-Catholics such as Hans Kng and Richard McBrien have pitched in to make Honorius the favorite pope of everyone who disparages the papacy.

While Alexander VI Borgia and other notorious Renaissance popes rate high among pope-haters, Honorius trumps his colleagues in that his problem was dogmatic, not merely behavioral. By all contemporary accounts Honorius’ personal conduct was beyond reproach, but his sincere attempts to resolve a controversy resulted in one brief sentence that many see as the destruction of the idea of papal infallibility and even of papal supremacy.

I was reading John Henry Newman and Karl Adam, all Brown equal time to answer the Catholic claims. I also picked up Meyendorff and Ware on the Orthodox Church, and books like Hans Kng’s Infallible? An Inquiry, thinking it would be an explanation and defense of the doctrine.

Cardinal Newman explained masterfully, in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, that an ongoing, infallible authority in the Church was necessary to preserve the integrity of revealed truth. Whatever the confusion in the Church, a Christian always had recourse to this sure repository of the actual content of revealed truth. Without such a repository, the content of revelation would be subject to mere human conjecture and opinion, thus essentially ceasing to be revelation at all.

The truth, of course, is one. If the papal office really were its repository, then the popes never had contradicted themselves on matters of faith and morals. As I studied Church history, I saw that this seemed to be so. When compared with the other great ancient see of the Church, the patriarchate of Constantinople, the papacy possessed monumental purity. Among the patriarchs of Constantinople were the arch-heretic Nestorius, a collection of grubby Iconoclasts and fellow travelers, and even a Calvinist, Cyril Loukaris! In Rome, on the contrary, was the saint Newman called “the majestic Leo,” who stood virtually alone against the Monophysite heresy; Julius I, who faced down the Arian bullies chasing after Athanasius; Gregory VII Hildebrand, whose last words were “I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore I die in exile” and others who, without compromising one iota of the faith, outlasted Diocletian and Julian the Apostate, Henry V and Philip the Fair, Napoleon and Bismarck, Hitler and Stalin.

part 1

 

[byzgirl]

part 2

Yet the comparison of Constantinople with Rome would be unfair without looking at the papal black sheep or, perhaps, the papal wolves. Most of these were dissolute scoundrels who were too busy drinking and whoring to occupy themselves with doctrine; thus for a consideration of papal infallibility they were irrelevant. Three names, though, kept popping up in all the sources, whether Protestant, Orthodox, or liberal Catholic: Liberius (352-366), Vigilius (537-555), and Honorius. I disposed of the first two quickly. They had been made to sign questionable statements of faith while under duress. That doesn’t count: Papal infallibility applies only to free acts of the pope, not to acts under torture. No contract signed under duress is binding; thus Liberius and Vigilius, whatever their failings, were excused.

That left Honorius. Opponents of infallibility said that his case demolished any pretension of papal infallibility, for he was not only a heretic but was condemned as such by an ecumenical council, Constantinople III, in 680, which declared, 42 years after the Pope’s death, that Honorius be “expelled from the Church and anathematized . . . because we find in his letter to Sergius that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” [Quoted in Warren H. Carroll, The Building of Christendom: A History of Christendom, vol. 2 (Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom College Press, 1987), 253].

Sergius was another one of those stalwart patriarchs of Constantinople, anathematized in the same conciliar declaration for originating the Monothelite heresy. Monothelitism was one of a series of attempts to reconcile the Monophysites, who at that time were a huge portion of the Christian world, with the Catholic Church they had torn by schism more than two hundred years previously.

The Monophysites maintained that our Lord’s human nature had been absorbed into his divine nature. They could not accept the decree of the Council of Chalcedon (451) that “the only-begotten Son of God must be confessed in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably united . . . without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union.” “The Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon, 451,” in Colman J. Batty, O.S.B., Readings in Church History (Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, Inc., 1985), 104].

Sergius, the first Monothelite, tried to affect a compromise by teaching that our Lord had only one will, a divine will. Like many compromises, this one ultimately pleased no one. To the orthodox it was anathema, for it denied the fullness of Christ’s human nature. To Monophysites it was no more welcome, for this will-less but otherwise intact human nature which Monothelitism attached to Christ seemed to them to deny his unity.

None of this was clear in the palmy days of 634. Monothelitism had encountered some criticism from the prescient Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, but elsewhere it was more politely received. The Pope had not yet heard of it. With evident high hopes in his own inventiveness and craftiness, Sergius wrote to Honorius about his thoughts.

In his two letters Sergius warned that teaching two wills in Christ would lead to the idea that the human will of the Son of God was opposed to that of his Father. He advised the Pope that it was better to speak of only one will in our Lord. Sergius was trying a little sleight of hand: He was attempting to deny the existence of Christ’s human will by pointing out that our Lord never opposed the Father. Yet if two persons agree, they may be spoken of as being of “one will” this doesn’t mean, of course, that one of them has no will at all.

The Pope, with no idea of Sergius’ between-the-lines message, answered the Patriarch on the unthinkable subject of Christ’s “opposition” to the Father. “We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our (human) nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall.” [Quoted in Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 5 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896; AMS Reprint, 1972), 29]. Since Christ’s human will is “faultless,” there can be no talk of opposing wills. (Christ hardly would have been faultless if he opposed his Father’s will.)

Monothelites, as they grew in numbers and influence over the ensuing years, seized upon Honorius’ confession of “one will of our Lord Jesus Christ” as confirmation that the Pope believed with them that Christ had no human will. Newman and other commentators have noted that Honorius’ letters to Sergius are not doctrinal definitions ex cathedra; thus they are outside the scope of infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council.

That is true, but, even more to the point, a look at Honorius’ exact words shows that while he did use a formula–“one will”–that was later declared heretical, he used it in a sense that implied the orthodox belief.

This was picked up as early as 640 by Pope John IV, Honorius’ successor, who pointed out that Sergius had asked only about the presence of two opposing wills. Honorius had answered accordingly, speaking, says Pope John, “only of the human and not also of the divine nature.” Pope John was right. Honorius assumed the existence of a human will in Christ by saying that his nature is like humanity’s before the Fall. No one would claim that before the Fall Adam had no will. Thus Honorius’s speaking of Christ’s assumption of a “faultless” human nature shows that he really did believe in the orthodox formula of two wills in Christ: one divine, one human, in perfect agreement.

The Third Council of Constantinople was thus in error when it condemned Honorius for heresy. But a Council, of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope. The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” [Carroll, 254]

This is a crucial distinction. Honorius probably should have known the implications of using the “one will” formula; he could have found out by writing a letter to Sophronius of Jerusalem. But he was no heretic.

The anti-papists got the wrong guy. It seems incredible that so many readers of Honorius’s letters, from Patriarch Sergius to Hans Kng, see only what they want to see in Honorius’s “one will” formula. We should thank God that this poor old pope saw fit to explain himself. Rarely outside of the homoousios/homoiousios controversy at the First Council of Nicaea has so much hinged on so few words.

Since this case seemed to be the best one the anti-infallibilists could turn to, I became an infallibilist, a Catholic with faith in the pope as the Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter. The Church will live beyond the trials of these days as it did those of Honorius’s day. That bare fact may seem abstract and impenetrable in the convulsions of our age, yet it is our unshakable guarantee.

 

[Nicholas82]

No, because it’s their ‘opinion’, and always in response to their denial of the Papacy. As you can see, no Pope (of the Roman See) has ever TAUGHT heresy (officially).

No response to that big list? You just shift it back to me?

I shift it back to you because just as any of those listed were heretics, so the Orthodox Church would consider many Popes the same. Whether or not that is just “opinion” rests on your belief that no Pope can teach error, which although I would object, you would disregard. “I am never wrong because I say so.” Ok, now consider that I really believe that and can cite my own instances to “prove” my point, and continue to believe and state that this is so despite your claims to the contrary, do you think you’re ever going to convince me otherwise? I shift it back to you because we’re not playing a numbers game, and showing e a list of Eastern heretics is no proof of your claim whatsoever.

Regarding my decision to become Orthodox, it had nothing whatsoever with going against the grain or rebelling or any such thing. After much study and prayer I was convinced of the truth of the Orthodox position and of the singularly true nature of the Orthodox Church, and felt called to it. There is little more to it than that, and if anything it was anything but an easy decision to make on my part exactly because my whole family is Roman Catholic.