Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Peter the Rock

[Rohzek]

Actually, many of your passages in your link actually strengthen the Catholic argument. I would be happy to discuss every one of them with you in private messaging, if you are so disposed.

You do realize the Hilary of Poiters passage says that the Apostles were rewarded with keys because of Peter?

Your passages do not address the Catholic argument of universal jurisdiction. Did Christ limit the powers He gave Peter? In matters of Church governance, can Peter, and his successors exercise alone (Mt. 16), what the others can do collectively with Peter (Mt.18)? There is no doubt that Peter receives the power to bind and loose by himself in Mt. 16. It is my understanding the binding and loosing in Mt.18, in the Greek, is not an individual you, but a collective you. This understanding seems to be borne out by Chrysostom, when he says:

Is Luke 12:35-48 a message to, and a warning to the successors of Peter?

Sure, I’ll contact you via pm.

 

[Rohzek]

And how do you know they were “incorrect traditions” (specifically: Matthew was originally written in Aramaic - no no no - that’s incorrect!!!)

Scholars two thousand years after the fact said so? We have the same argument for SSM, and other heresies.

There is a healthy historical debate as to whether the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, Hebrew, or in Greek. There is no sense in trying to beat someone over their head for taking a different position from yours. Most scholars agree with truthseekers position, but a few agree with yours. Trying to compare this to the gay marriage situation is unfair and a non sequitur.

books.google.com/books?id=Zkla5Gl_66oC&pg=PA280#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[jcrichton]

I agree that John Chrysostom had many nice things to say of Peter. Did he ever say that these attributes were passed on to the Bishops of Rome?

Chrysostom does refer to Simon-Peter as “rock.” However he says that the church is built on his confession of faith.
In his homily on this portion of the book of Matthew he writes:
“3. What then says Christ? You are Simon, the son of Jonas; you shall be called Cephas. Thus since you have proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begot you; all but saying, As you are son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father. Else it were superfluous to say, You are Son of Jonas; but since he had said, Son of God, to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begot Him, therefore He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because you are shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.”
newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm

Chrysostom says many wonderful compliments of Peter and refers to him as a rock. No one denies that Simon’s name was changed to Rock. However, Chrysostom does not state that the church is built on Peter/Rock the person. And he (as to my knowledge) doesn’t transfer the many wonderful statements about the Rock to the Bishops in Rome.

Hi, Susan!
…first issue was that there was a claim that none referred to Cephas as the rock–it seems that at least one does and not only that but augments the understanding of the man not the rock-faith… still, as those who believe that when a tree falls in the forest unless man is there to witness it it makes no sound… those who wish to interpolate faith, faith, faith, or confession of faith, confession, confession… well there’s nothing to be done but to allow them to follow where that leads them.

…as for transference of Delegation, we must either agree that the Founding of the Church was not happenstance (shoot an arrow into the air…) but that there was a determinate Design or we must believe that, as the game of hopscotch, it was left up to the players and regions to determine its value and function. If the latter, then Christ really failed since He would’ve made a big to do about His Delegation and the Church’s permanence… we would also must reject Christ Word when He attests that He will send another Paraclete that would bring the Church to the Fullness of Truth and that He and the Paraclete would abide in the Church till the end of times.

Conversely, we would have to ignore Church History, which includes all issues of Doctrine and heresy, we would have to embrace schism as the Holy Spirit’s contribution to the Mystical Body of Christ, and we would have to find verification that the Twelve took turns in Officiating the Office formed on the Confession of Faith–coincidentally, when the school of Bishops expanded, it would have to be demonstrated that each new Bishop also took turns in Officiating the Office… can you provide such proof?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

So Eusebius of Cesarea just lied about the original Gospel of Matthew being in Aramaic? As well as St. Jerome? The contents of the Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima were well known to both men.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_Library_of_Caesarea_Maritima

And did I forget to post this?
hebrewgospel.com/Matthew%20Two%20Gospels%20Main%20Evidence.php

Seems those scholars you cite missed some key evidence.

Hi, Bob!
…that’s the problem with scholars… too many times scholars and their followers are not interested in the Truth but to hold the apex of intellectualism–even if they have to ignore/reject everything that may disprove their theories. :doh2::doh2::doh2:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[truthseeker32]

Hi, Bob!
…that’s the problem with scholars… too many times scholars and their followers are not interested in the Truth but to hold the apex of intellectualism–even if they have to ignore/reject everything that may disprove their theories. :doh2::doh2::doh2:

Maran atha!

Angel

And you think it is good and honest to dismiss scholars without taking the time to read why they have reached the conclusions they do? All you are doing is rejecting that which is inconvenient for your personal worldview. Keep in mind that many of these biblical scholars who reject the “Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew” theory are devout Catholics. They are smart enough to realize that whether or not the Gospel of Matthew was initially written in Aramaic is of little importance to their Christian faith.

"Some few have held that the gospel was first composed in Hebrew, but this view has largely been discounted. In other words, the most common view held today is that Matthew was originally written in Greek. A few hold that it was written in Aramaic. A very tiny number hold that it was written in Hebrew. The two latter views are held in large part on the basis of Papias’s statement. The majority, however, find insurmountable problems with that understanding of the statement from Papias quoted last week.

The first argument against an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew is his use of Old Testament quotations. Some of Matthew’s citations of the Old Testament are certainly from the Septuagint (LXX), since they agree with it word for word. Some of his citations seem to have been translated from a Semitic original, while others are unclear as to their origin. If the gospel were first written in Aramaic, the argument goes, the reader would have expected greater consistency in the character of Matthew’s citations. Either the Greek version of Matthew would consistently reflect the translator’s rendering of Matthew’s Aramaic, or the translator would have consistently used the LXX for all of his citations, on the basis that his reader’s would have familiarity with the LXX.

The second argument against an originally Aramaic Matthew depends on the supposition that much of Matthew is dependent on Mark. The view commonly held today is that the three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke developed in this fashion. Mark was written first. Matthew and Luke depended on Mark for the material that they have in common with Mark. The material that Matthew and Luke have in common, but which is lacking in Mark, they drew from a source that has not been preserved, commonly called Q, from the German Quelle, which means “source.” This view is not, however, unanimous, and other views of the origins of the synoptic gospels are held. Eta Linnemann, in her 1992 book, Is There a Synoptic Problem?: Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels, argues vigorously against the whole modern common view and in favor of an independent origin for the synoptics. Others, such as Donald Guthrie in his, New Testament Introduction (1990), presents both the modern view and the independent origin view as still legitimate possibilities to explain the origin of the gospels. For those unconvinced by the commonly held view of gospel origins, this argument will hold no weight. As D. A. Carson says in his Introduction to the New Testament (1992, p. 68-9), “the detailed verbal connections between Matthew and Mark make it extremely unlikely that Matthew was first written in Aramaic. Of course, those who do not accept the priority of Mark or who propose that an Aramaic edition of Matthew preceded the publication of Mark, which then served as the heart of our Greek Matthew, will perceive no problem here.”"

 

[jcrichton]

As St John Chrysostom spent most of his life not in communion with Rome, and in all that time wrote nothing suggesting he believed communion with Rome was something necessary, it is pretty obvious he didn’t see the bishops of Rome as Rome today claims.

Hi!
…this, again, goes to acceptance (interpretation and rejection) of the actual facts:

On this second banishment from Alexandria, Athanasius came to Rome, and was recognised as a regular bishop by the synod presided over by Julius in 342. Julius sent a letter to the Eastern bishops that is an early instance of the claims of primacy for the bishop of Rome. Even if Athanasius and his companions were somewhat to blame, the letter runs, the Alexandrian Church should first have written to the pope. “Can you be ignorant,” writes Julius, **“that this is the custom, that we should be written to first, so that from here what is just may be defined” (**Epistle of Julius to Antioch, c. xxii).[1] (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Julius_I)

Why would the Pope of Rome write to anyone outside of his own direct diocese that it is the custom (the practice) to first contact Rome so that matters of Faith may be defined?

…then there’s the fact that he overruled the 85% of Eastern Bishops in the matter of Jesus’s Divinity…

…then there’s the Council of Nicaea where over 300 Eastern Bishops presided and the document was signed first by a Western Bishop, Hosius of Córdoba, followed by the two Presbyters (Priests), delegates of St. Sylvester, the Pope at the time–unless Priests are accommodated “special circumstance” recognition during critical Church issue, a reasonable person must conclude that Western representatives were allotted special commendations–would this not be due to Rome’s Primacy?

Apostolic Succession is nothing new!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

So are you gonna actually speak to the arguments or just say I’m wrong and you’re right? Because you didn’t list a specific counter-point listed in the link.

Hi!
…I seldom follow links; I quote from open sources–most of the times wiki; I never state “I’m right;” not because I don’t believe that I am right but because it is not a matter of being right as much a matter of obeying Christ’s Word.

Splintering the Body of Christ is not conductive to Christian Fellowship; any argument that is not made to foment Unity (even if on the surface it may seem abrasive to the reader/listener) is flawed and uncharitable to the Body.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

And you think it is good and honest to dismiss scholars without taking the time to read why they have reached the conclusions they do? All you are doing is rejecting that which is inconvenient for your personal worldview. Keep in mind that many of these biblical scholars who reject the “Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew” theory are devout Catholics. They are smart enough to realize that whether or not the Gospel of Matthew was initially written in Aramaic is of little importance to their Christian faith.

"Some few have held that the gospel was first composed in Hebrew, but this view has largely been discounted. In other words, the most common view held today is that Matthew was originally written in Greek. A few hold that it was written in Aramaic. A very tiny number hold that it was written in Hebrew. The two latter views are held in large part on the basis of Papias’s statement. The majority, however, find insurmountable problems with that understanding of the statement from Papias quoted last week.

The first argument against an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew is his use of Old Testament quotations. Some of Matthew’s citations of the Old Testament are certainly from the Septuagint (LXX), since they agree with it word for word. Some of his citations seem to have been translated from a Semitic original, while others are unclear as to their origin. If the gospel were first written in Aramaic, the argument goes, the reader would have expected greater consistency in the character of Matthew’s citations. Either the Greek version of Matthew would consistently reflect the translator’s rendering of Matthew’s Aramaic, or the translator would have consistently used the LXX for all of his citations, on the basis that his reader’s would have familiarity with the LXX.

The second argument against an originally Aramaic Matthew** depends on the supposition that much of Matthew is dependent on Mark. The view commonly held today is that the three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke developed in this fashion. Mark was written first. Matthew and Luke depended on Mark for the material that they have in common with Mark. The material that Matthew and Luke have in common, but which is lacking in Mark, they drew from a source that has not been preserved, commonly called Q**, from the German Quelle, which means “source.” This view is not, however, unanimous, and other views of the origins of the synoptic gospels are held. Eta Linnemann, in her 1992 book, Is There a Synoptic Problem?: Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels, argues vigorously against the whole modern common view and in favor of an independent origin for the synoptics. Others, such as Donald Guthrie in his, New Testament Introduction (1990), presents both the modern view and the independent origin view as still legitimate possibilities to explain the origin of the gospels. For those unconvinced by the commonly held view of gospel origins, this argument will hold no weight. As D. A. Carson says in his Introduction to the New Testament (1992, p. 68-9), “the detailed verbal connections between Matthew and Mark make it extremely unlikely that Matthew was first written in Aramaic. Of course, those who do not accept the priority of Mark or who propose that an Aramaic edition of Matthew preceded the publication of Mark, which then served as the heart of our Greek Matthew, will perceive no problem here.”"

Hi!
…the highlighted statements make my argument. Is not that I consider myself intelligent or that I dismiss intellectualism as much as that I check what “scholars” purport against their conclusions: a) must be that they copied from Mark; yet, that which is not copied from Mark must be copied from no longer accessible source/s, let’s say “Q.”

Do you see my point: they cover both front and back with “educated” guesses.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Rohzek]

Hi!
…I seldom follow links; I quote from open sources–most of the times wiki; I never state “I’m right;” not because I don’t believe that I am right but because it is not a matter of being right as much a matter of obeying Christ’s Word.

Splintering the Body of Christ is not conductive to Christian Fellowship; any argument that is not made to foment Unity (even if on the surface it may seem abrasive to the reader/listener) is flawed and uncharitable to the Body.

Maran atha!

Angel

So you’d rather hear yourself talk then, than to engage me and perhaps convince me. I see…

 

[MySaviorLives]

Jimmy Akin jimmyakin.com/why-i-am-not-eastern-orthodox

I’m not particularly impressed with his response (though i’m sure he has a much better one in his books).

In the end his basic argument is that because the Catholic Church is bigger and has the pope it must be the right one.

Even in his argument about the differences around the Pope, his basic argument is that Catholics have the Pope so they are right. However it misses the argument that recognizing the Papal Primacy is not the issue, and that Papal Supremacy is.

I’m actually at a very similar path that Jimmy was on, and I’ve come to the exact opposite conclusion on this issue (I can’t ignore the abuses of an unchecked Pope in the past).

 

[Peter_J]

So are you gonna actually speak to the arguments or just say I’m wrong and you’re right? .

Doesn’t everybody already know that you’re wrong and we’re right?

kidding. But seriously, nowadays Internet debates often cause me to yawn rather than argue. (I’m hanging on to this thread to see where it will head.)

 

[Duane1966]

This writing does not mention Matthew 16:18, the rock or the keys anywhere. But it does talk about succession of the apostles. When you look at Chapter 1 you see that he is talking about the fact that there are no hidden secrets that the apostles gave to certain people (specifically Marcion and Valentius) that the apostles did not give to church. Marcion and Valentius who he names directly are 2 Gnostic/heretical teachers that were teaching specifically in Rome, so it would make sense for him to specifically mention this Roman church. He also in Chapter 4 mentions Polycarp of Smyrna and his succession from the apostles. He briefly mentions the church in Ephesus, but he doesn’t mention any of the other successions because as it says in chapter 2 that you provided that it would be too long and tedious to do so. But clearly he thinks that all of the apostolic churches have the same tradition from the apostles.
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Yes, and clearly, which church must all the other churches agree with?

 

[Duane1966]

We can see more of what Cyprian understands of unity (in a writing that actually mentions the rock and the keys) coming from one source in his Treatise, On the Unity of the Church.

“4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her. Song of Songs 6:9 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? Ephesians 4:4”
newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm

So Cyprian does understand Rome to have a symbolic unity, but an equal authority. This is best noted in his disagreements with Bishop of Rome Stephen who Cyprian disagreed with regarding re-baptism of heretics. Cyprian and 87 Bishops gathered to oppose Stephen and all agreed that:
“**For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.”
**newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

I have not heard of Optatus before. This is the first thing that I read from him. I see that he is writing against the Donatist heretics who had separated from the church. I don’t see anything that would make me think that he is doing anything more that echoing Cyprian in symbolizing unity in the cathedra of Peter.

You missed Cyprian’s, Optatus’, and my point. Why was **there only ONE **chair, instead of twelve? They all have equal power in binding and loosing, but quite clearly, with only one chair, there is not equal authority. And Cyprian clearly says that authority, and the unity begins from one.

I believe you might find this article about Cyprian and Stephen interesting. catholic.com/magazine/articles/will-the-real-st-cyprian-please-stand

And how did the re-baptism issue end up?

 

[Duane1966]

I have not studied many writings from this time in history. I have read about these writings briefly. I understand that the authenticity of these quotes is questioned because they are in Latin and not in Greek. Also, the content seems peculiar given the timing of the 6th ecumenical council of Constantinople in 678 and the fact that Maximus was a contemporary of Honorius. The issue of Honorius is another topic that could get away from the original topic of the interpretation of Matthew 16:18. However even if these quotes are actually authentic, they contradict the statements of the 6th Council of Constantinople.

The Bible you read is in English correct? Since it is not in Greek, should it’s authenticity be questioned? Maximus was fluent in both Latin and Greek.

I was not aware that there were six councils held at Constantinople in the first 1000 years. But if there was, which part of this letter contradicts the statements made at that council?

 

[prodromos]

The Bible you read is in English correct? Since it is not in Greek, should it’s authenticity be questioned? Maximus was fluent in both Latin and Greek.

Where do you find evidence that he was fluent in Latin?

I was not aware that there were six councils held at Constantinople in the first 1000 years. But if there was, which part of this letter contradicts the statements made at that council?

The sixth ecumenical council was the third council held in Constantinople.

 

[susanlo]

The Bible you read is in English correct? Since it is not in Greek, should it’s authenticity be questioned? Maximus was fluent in both Latin and Greek.
I was not aware that there were six councils held at Constantinople in the first 1000 years. But if there was, which part of this letter contradicts the statements made at that council?

I am speaking of the 6th ecumenical council of the church which was the 3rd Council of Constantinople. Sorry for the confusion.

You stated that Maximus of Constantinople wrote the following statements including that the church in Rome alone is the base and foundation for all churches and “has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith.” And that the Bishop of Rome “is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents” and “has universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.”

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

**How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. **(Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the **blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. **(Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

However in 680-681 at the council in Constantinople representatives from the entire church gathered about the topic of monothelitism. In the proceedings of the council, instead of recognizing that Honorius I (previous Bishop or Rome) was not subject to synods and had dominion over the whole church as the holder of the keys to the orthodox faith, they condemned Honorius as a heretic because of a letter written by him. If the Bishops in Rome had the power and authority as stated in the Maximus’ quotes you gave, would the council have judged Honorius I and declared him to be a heretic?

I have read articles by Roman Catholics that state that Honorius did not teach heresy, but that he didn’t correct heresy - therefore this does not interfere with papal infallibility. But the men at the council in 680-681 declared:
“Session XIII - The Sentence Against the Monothelites
The holy council said:…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.”
newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

Whether we today think he actually taught heresy in his official capacity as Bishop of Rome has been debated. But I wonder if those at the council would have had an understanding of the current papal infallibility or of what is stated in Maximus’ statements you quoted if they would have actually judged Honorius at all?

Were Maximus’ statements you give genuine, but a unique understanding to him and not the sentiment of the church as a whole at that time? Were they forged at some time later? I don’t know.

 

[Duane1966]

Where do you find evidence that he was fluent in Latin?

I would think being as well educated as he was said to, and having spent years in Rome and at a monastery at Carthage, Latin would have become second nature for him. This, is of course an assumption on my part that should not have been made.
prodomos; 14283448:

The sixth ecumenical council was the third council held in Constantinople.

This is true, but I am not sure this is the council she is talking about, as she said the Sixth Council of Constantinople.

 

[Peter_J]

Some of y’all may have seen this before, but some (you perhaps, Susan lo?) may not have. In any case, I think it’s bears repeating because it captures my feelings remarkably well:

 

[Duane1966]

I am speaking of the 6th ecumenical council of the church which was the 3rd Council of Constantinople. Sorry for the confusion.

You stated that Maximus of Constantinople wrote the following statements including that the church in Rome alone is the base and foundation for all churches and “has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith.” And that the Bishop of Rome “is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents” and “has universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.”

However in 680-681 at the council in Constantinople representatives from the entire church gathered about the topic of monothelitism. In the proceedings of the council, instead of recognizing that Honorius I (previous Bishop or Rome) was not subject to synods and had dominion over the whole church as the holder of the keys to the orthodox faith, they condemned Honorius as a heretic because of a letter written by him. If the Bishops in Rome had the power and authority as stated in the Maximus’ quotes you gave, would the council have judged Honorius I and declared him to be a heretic?

I have read articles by Roman Catholics that state that Honorius did not teach heresy, but that he didn’t correct heresy - therefore this does not interfere with papal infallibility. But the men at the council in 680-681 declared:
“Session XIII - The Sentence Against the Monothelites
The holy council said:…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.”
newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

Whether we today think he actually taught heresy in his official capacity as Bishop of Rome has been debated. But I wonder if those at the council would have had an understanding of the current papal infallibility or of what is stated in Maximus’ statements you quoted if they would have actually judged Honorius at all?

Were Maximus’ statements you give genuine, but a unique understanding to him and not the sentiment of the church as a whole at that time? Were they forged at some time later? I don’t know.

Notice, while he lived, was he subject to the council? Seemingly not, as they judged him posthumously.

During the First Vatican Council, the Deputation of the Faith confronted the problem by setting out a series of rules of a general character, which are applied not only in the case of Honorius, but in all problems, past or future that may be presented. It is not enough for the Pope to pronounce on a question of faith or customs regarding the universal Church, it is necessary that the decree by the Roman Pontiff is conceived in such a manner as to appear as a solemn and definitive judgment, with the intention of obliging all the faithful to believe (Mansi, LII, coll. 1204-1232). There are, therefore, non-infallible acts of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, since they are devoid of the necessary defining character: quod ad formam seu modum attinet.

Pope Honorius’ letters are devoid of these characteristics. They are undoubtedly Magisterial acts, but in the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium there may be errors and even, in exceptional cases, heretical formulations. The Pope can fall into heresy, but cannot ever pronounce a heresy ex- cathedra.** In Honorius’ case, as the Benedictine patrologist, Dom John Chapman OSB, observes, it cannot be affirmed that he intended to formulate a sentence ex cathedra, defining and binding: «Honorius was fallible, was wrong, was a heretic, precisely because he did not, as he should have done, declare authoritatively the Petrine tradition of the Roman Church» (The Condemnation of Pope Honorius (1907), Reprint Forgotten Books, London 2013, p. 110). His letters to Sergius, even if they were about the faith, did not promulgate any anathema and do not correspond to the conditions required by the dogma of infallibility.** Promulgated by the First Vatican Council, the principle of infallibility is saved, contrary to what the Protestants and the Gallicans thought. Further, if Honorius was anathematized, explained Pope Hadrian II, in the Roman Synod of 869, “the reason is that Honorius was accused of heresy, the only cause for which it is licit to inferiors to resist their superiors and to repel their perverse sentiments” (Mansi, XVI, col. 126).

Specifically based on these words, after having examined the case of Pope Honorius, the great Dominican theologian, Melchior Cano, sums up the safest doctrine in these terms:** “It must not be denied that the Supreme Pontiff can be a heretic, of which one or two examples may be offered. However, that (a Pope) in judgments on the faith has defined something against the faith, not even one can be demonstrated”** De Locis Theologicis, l. VI, tr. spagnola, BAC, Madrid 2006, p. 409).

Good luck finding any decree of Honorius binding the Church to hold heretical views.

 

[Duane1966]

I am speaking of the 6th ecumenical council of the church which was the 3rd Council of Constantinople. Sorry for the confusion.

You stated that Maximus of Constantinople wrote the following statements including that the church in Rome alone is the base and foundation for all churches and “has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith.” And that the Bishop of Rome “is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents” and “has universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.”

However in 680-681 at the council in Constantinople representatives from the entire church gathered about the topic of monothelitism. In the proceedings of the council, instead of recognizing that Honorius I (previous Bishop or Rome) was not subject to synods and had dominion over the whole church as the holder of the keys to the orthodox faith, they condemned Honorius as a heretic because of a letter written by him. If the Bishops in Rome had the power and authority as stated in the Maximus’ quotes you gave, would the council have judged Honorius I and declared him to be a heretic?

I have read articles by Roman Catholics that state that Honorius did not teach heresy, but that he didn’t correct heresy - therefore this does not interfere with papal infallibility. But the men at the council in 680-681 declared:
“Session XIII - The Sentence Against the Monothelites
The holy council said:…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.”
newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

Whether we today think he actually taught heresy in his official capacity as Bishop of Rome has been debated. But I wonder if those at the council would have had an understanding of the current papal infallibility or of what is stated in Maximus’ statements you quoted if they would have actually judged Honorius at all?

Were Maximus’ statements you give genuine, but a unique understanding to him and not the sentiment of the church as a whole at that time? Were they forged at some time later? I don’t know.

Taken from this website: ronconte.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/was-pope-honorius-i-a-heretic//

Over 40 years after his death, the Council excommunicated Honorius I and declared him a heretic.

The situation faced by Honorius I was complex. The eventual decision of the Church, infallibly taught by the Third Council of Constantinople, was that Christ has two wills, one for each of His two natures: human and Divine. But during the time of Honorius, the Magisterium had not yet decided the question of whether Christ has one will or two. And though every Pope can exercise the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church), every Pope is also subject to that teaching. At that time, it was an open question. The Pope was unsure of the correct doctrine, as is clear from his private letters to some Bishops. But he never exercised the Magisterium to teach either way.

The Church has two types of authority: the teaching authority (doctrine) and the temporal authority (discipline). The teaching authority, or Magisterium, can teach infallibly (no possibility of error) or non-infallibly (limited possibility of error). Each Ecumenical Council has the full authority of the Church over both doctrine and discipline. A Council can teach infallibly or teach non-infallibly, or decide matters of discipline (rules and rulings). A Council can do some or all of these things. Of the 21 Ecumenical Councils so far, some only exercised authority over discipline and did not teach at all.

Moreover, not every teaching of every Council is infallible. The Second Vatican Council, for example, issued many non-infallible teachings. But the decision of an Ecumenical Council to excommunicate someone and/or to declare someone a heretic is of the temporal authority of the Church. Such a decision is of the fallible temporal authority; it is neither infallible, nor non-infallible. Was the decision of the Council, to call Honorius I a heretic and to excommunicate him, infallible? No, it was not. So the Council could have erred in that regard.

The next Pope to reign after the Third Council of Constantinople was Leo II (682 to 683). Pope Leo II condemned Pope Honorius I, not for teaching any heresy, but for failing to decide the question and failing to refute the false idea that Christ has only one will. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, about this decision of Pope Leo:

• “At the same time he was at pains to make it clear that in condemning his predecessor Honorius I, he did so, not because he taught heresy, but because he was not active enough in opposing it.”*

**The problem with the Council’s claim that Honorius I was a heretic is that the question of Christ’s wills was undecided by the Magisterium at the time. Honorius can be blamed for not doing more to stem the spread of this error, but since the Magisterium at the time had no infallible teaching on the subject, he is not properly accused or convicted of heresy. So the Council erred in calling Honorius I a heretic, as the subsequent decision of Pope Leo II makes clear.

Pope Honorius I never taught the heresy that Christ only has one will. He also was personally undecided on the question, as is clear from his letters to Bishops. By not deciding the question against those who believed in only one will for Christ, he harmed the Faith by his negligence.**