F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Which of the monasteries in the south had any problem shifting over to the Nicene Easter?
http://f2.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/gGRwQY...fpDiqst0N_e5G5O_Utfwrnma/Monasteries650AD.gif
- Status
http://f2.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/gGRwQY...fpDiqst0N_e5G5O_Utfwrnma/Monasteries650AD.gif
M
Myhrr
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
c202: death of Irenaeus: 2nd bishop of Lyons, supported Quartodecimans in Easter controversy versus Pope Victor in 190, wrote “Against Heresies” in Greek (lost), extant Latin; “… they have apostatized in their opinions from Him who is God, & imagined that they have themselves discovered more than the apostles, by finding out another god; & that the apostles preached the Gospel still somewhat under the influence of Jewish opinions, but that they themselves are purer, & more intelligent, than the apostles.” [AH3.12.12,ANF,v.1]
ministries.tliquest.net/theology/apocryphas/nt/chron2.htm
Nah, apart from the fact that this process was part and parcel of Rome’s determination to get control of us and that Honorius is a heretic, so what have we to do with his work?, we go back a bit before that:Calm downYou know as well as I do that most of Ireland had accepted the Nicene (popularly and mistakenly called Roman) calculation for Caisc several decades before the Council/Witan of Whitby in 664.
Ireland was quite right to go onto the system mandated by an Ecumenical Council. People in their anti-Roman fervour tend to forget that it was not in fact a matter of Ireland and Britain accepting the “Roman calculation” for Easter but of accepting the Nicene calculation which Rome had herself adopted.
The Irish were being perfectly “Orthodox” in their change to the Nicean calculation.
c202: death of Irenaeus: 2nd bishop of Lyons, supported Quartodecimans in Easter controversy versus Pope Victor in 190, wrote “Against Heresies” in Greek (lost), extant Latin; “… they have apostatized in their opinions from Him who is God, & imagined that they have themselves discovered more than the apostles, by finding out another god; & that the apostles preached the Gospel still somewhat under the influence of Jewish opinions, but that they themselves are purer, & more intelligent, than the apostles.” [AH3.12.12,ANF,v.1]
ministries.tliquest.net/theology/apocryphas/nt/chron2.htm
M
Myhrr
Guest
This is Colman terrritory here, there’s also a ROCOR St Colman’s over the border …
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I’m fascinated, totally. This means that you and your priest do not celebrate Easter with the Orthodox? But on the older pre-Nicene Augustaline system from the 3rd century? Interestingly enough, this ssytem came to Ireland from Rome
What was the date of your Caisc this year? Next year?
M
Myhrr
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
We’re in the Red, oh alright, South East.
M
Myhrr
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
…there’s only me at the moment…, and I had to ask when I should be celebrating Pascha next year, remember?
p.s. I have said several times that I’m not an apologist for the “Eastern Orthodox”…
Oh no! Please don’t start the rumour that ROCOR is quartodeciman!!! I simply meant that there is a ROCOR church St Colman’s in the next county!I’m fascinated, totally. This means that you and your priest do not celebrate Easter with the Orthodox? But on the older pre-Nicene Augustaline system from the 3rd century? Interestingly enough, this ssytem came to Ireland from Rome
What’s Caisc? Pascha?
…there’s only me at the moment…, and I had to ask when I should be celebrating Pascha next year, remember?
p.s. I have said several times that I’m not an apologist for the “Eastern Orthodox”…
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
As I understand it, the Irish were not really quartodecimans, all rumours to the contrary notwithstanding. They always had Easter on a Sunday.Oh no! Please don’t start the rumour that ROCOR is quartodeciman!!! I simply meant that there is a ROCOR church St Colman’s in the next county!
It is. Caisc comes about through the P–>K consonantal shift in insular Celtic languages. So “Pasch” becomes “Caisc”.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Which is your Saint Colman? The Irish martyrology names about 300 saints with the name Colman.
In fact, it is said that when Saint Carthage cried out to his monks working by a stream, “Colman, get into the water!” 12 monks jumped in.
I have a few of them listed in the Celtic Saints’ Lives
groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints
Colman 20 November
Colman McRoi 16 June
Colman Mac Ui Cluasigh of Cork 6 May
Colman of Armagh 5 March
Colman of Cloyne 24 November
Colman of Dromore 7 June
Colman of Glendalough 12 December
Colman of Kilmacduagh 29 October
Colman of Kilmacduagh 3 February
Colman of Kilroot 17 October
Colman of Lann Elo 26 September
Colman of Lindisfarne & Mayo 18 February
Colman of Lismore 23 January
Colman of Melk 13 October
Colman of Oughaval 15 May (the ROCA one)
Colman of Senboth-Fola 27 October
Colman, Kilian and Totnan 8 July
M
Myhrr
Guest
St Colman of Oughaval was one of Columba of Iona’s so perhaps the ROCA church could be saying something about the calendar issue… ?
Columba’s well remembered here, when I finished posting last night I remembered being invited to an annual service held during Easter at his well near Thomastown, couldn’t go at the time, but visited a week or so later. I’ll try and find out more about this, but the woman who sent out the invites died last year and I’m not sure if it was something she organised herself or was part of something else, I think it was a pilgrimage with a priest, I’ll ask her daughter next time I pass that way.
As for the number of Colmans …Here’s the ROCOR one:
ireland.ru/orthodoxchurch/Life_Colmans.html
St Kevin was also one of Columcille’s men and one of his is St Molings whose well is not far from here too. When I went to drink from it I then climbed the hill to his small cave - I sat myself down on a rock shelf and immediately jumped up again impelled in some strange way by the thought that this was ‘his place’ and feeling very uncomfortable and intrusive I was about to leave when I saw a another shelf and the feeling of peace I had at the well returned, so I sat down ‘to sit and think’.
The story told of St Kevin, for those that don’t know, is that while sitting in a tree meditating, as one does… , a blackbird came and laid an egg in his outstretched hand, taking it as a sign from God he stayed there as he was until the egg hatched and young bird flew away.
Columba’s well remembered here, when I finished posting last night I remembered being invited to an annual service held during Easter at his well near Thomastown, couldn’t go at the time, but visited a week or so later. I’ll try and find out more about this, but the woman who sent out the invites died last year and I’m not sure if it was something she organised herself or was part of something else, I think it was a pilgrimage with a priest, I’ll ask her daughter next time I pass that way.
As for the number of Colmans …Here’s the ROCOR one:
ireland.ru/orthodoxchurch/Life_Colmans.html
St Kevin was also one of Columcille’s men and one of his is St Molings whose well is not far from here too. When I went to drink from it I then climbed the hill to his small cave - I sat myself down on a rock shelf and immediately jumped up again impelled in some strange way by the thought that this was ‘his place’ and feeling very uncomfortable and intrusive I was about to leave when I saw a another shelf and the feeling of peace I had at the well returned, so I sat down ‘to sit and think’.
The story told of St Kevin, for those that don’t know, is that while sitting in a tree meditating, as one does…
, a blackbird came and laid an egg in his outstretched hand, taking it as a sign from God he stayed there as he was until the egg hatched and young bird flew away.
M
Myhrr
Guest
How did Ireland come to celebrate Easter on a Sunday?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Pascha in 2005 falls on 1st May.and I had to ask when I should be celebrating Pascha next year, remember?
Catholic Easter is earlier, 27th March.
S
steve_b
Guest
It wasn’t a strike.
So let’s focus, CCC 882 overrules anything the RCPC claims is the definition of infallibility. Thus a pope can teach heresy unhindered by anyone. However, Honorius taught and promoted heresy, the analysis of this by subsequent pontiffs is on record, therefore, you have an Infallible Vicar of Christ teaching heresy.
BTW, what do you mean by RCPC?
- #882 is not meant to be taken in isolation. And if one runs wild with hyptheticals about #882, it could be twisted to mean just about anything. That’s why I said, let’s not wander off into hypotheticals.
- The record shows Honorius didn’t teach heresy. .
Myhrr:
*be cast out of the holy Church of God", that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, **Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to **the pious and great emperor, “and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary **to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema. And in addition **to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them **cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we **have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and **confirmed his wicked dogmas”. ***
**
I’ve posted it several times already, what Pope Leo II put as qualifications to that language of the council.
Myhrr:
However, the letter shows Honorius requested Sergius to keep this subject quiet.Holding a view is one thing, teaching that view is something he didn’t do.
M
Myhrr
Guest
steve b:
The record shows he did. He actively promoted it and that promotion fits all criteria for infallibility from petrine chair etc.
- #882 is not meant to be taken in isolation. And if one runs wild with hyptheticals about #882, it could be twisted to mean just about anything. That’s why I said, let’s not wander off into hypotheticals.
heresy. .
The record shows he did. He actively promoted it and that promotion fits all criteria for infallibility from petrine chair etc.
Roman Catholic Petrine Church.
And some other pope in the future could simply state that he wasn’t a heretic…, but he was by your infallibility rules and that makes him, an Infallible Pope, a teacher of Infallible Heresy.
They burned the other letters. Their summary is clear and is based on all the evidence they had which is a lot more than you’re working on. The pronouncement on him is INFALLIBLE, why are you quibbling about it?
G
Ghosty
Guest
Wrong.
The “doctrine” would have had to be given to the whole Church for it to be infallible. This is and always has been the case. As we’ve seen, Honorius specifically tried to prevent the Church from finding out his leanings, so that absolutely invalidates your argument.
M
Myhrr
Guest
That’s not what they thought at the time they condemned him as a heretic, the letters they burned were because he was actively promoting it, supporting Sergius. He was condemned for “confirming” the heresy, he is counted as one of the leaders of this heresy:
[Answer of the Monothelites made at the Emperor’s bidding:]
We have brought out no new method of speech, but have taught
whatever we have received from the holy Ecumenical Synods, and from
the holy approved Fathers, as well as from the archbishops of this
imperial city, to wit: Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, as also
from Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, and from Cyrus who was Pope
of Alexandria, that is to say with reference to will and operation,
and so we have believed, and so we believe, so we preach; and
further we are ready to stand by, and defend this faith.
Honorius is numbered with the patriarchs who authorised them to teach this heresy - hardly successful then at keeping the Church from finding out his leanings…
“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.”
I can’t see any wriggle room for you here. He taught from the ‘throne of Peter’, confirming the church in faith, that’s ex cathedra, that’s infallible. As it was a heresy that makes it infallible heresy.
newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm
M
Myhrr
Guest
P.S
[As mentioned before:
“…also Honorius, who did not illuminate the Apostolic See with the doctrines of the Apostolic tradition, **but by profane prodition attempted to subvert the immaculate faith; and all, who died in his error…”
Profane - irreverent showing of disrespect for God
Prodition - incitement to action
He was judged to be positively confirming and encouraging this heresy.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=212421&postcount=26
It can’t be clearer than that.
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
i wouldn’t count wikipedia as an authoritative source since anyone can post and edit there.
Apparently, it must have been oficically closed since Vatican II was lawfully convoked.
Maybe someone with a little more knowledge on this can chime in.
S
Sarah_Jane
Guest
No, he didn’t teach from the throne of Peter. He didn’t speak ex cathedra.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Myrrh: Unless he specifically taught the heresy to all the faithful, and specifically so it would be held by all the faithful, it’s not ex cathedra. Even if the Pope confirms with absolute assurance that a heresy is truth while in private audience, it is not an ex cathedra teaching under the definitions of Papal Infallibility. This is the way that it’s always been understood, and it’s the way that all Papal declarations in history have been measured for Infallibility since the formal declaration of the Doctrine. I’m afraid you’re quite simply in total error here, and gravely misunderstanding Papal Infalibility and its definition.
S
steve_b
Guest
The record shows he did. He actively promoted it and that promotion fits all criteria for infallibility from petrine chair etc.
The record shows that Leo added an important qualification to the condemnation, that Honorius wasn’t condemned for teaching heresy but that he failed to end a heresy that was allowed to continue.
There is a sense where Honorius view could be considered “orthodox”. And that is to say that Jesus had 2 wills, human and Divine. He just didn’t “do” His human will but only “did” or in otherwords only exercised one will, His Divine will.
John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
And we know that whatever Jesus did, He did perfectly!!! Correct?
Therefore if one is not absolutely precise with their language, it could LOOK like one would be saying that Jesus only had one will when in fact He has 2 wills, it’s just that He didn’t come here to do His own. Either way, Honorius having not thought this one through, and didn’t get the language down correctly, requested of Sergius in the letter, that the subject of Jesus 2 wills, be tabled.
That alone, as I’ve said before, disqualifies this as a teaching issue.
The subject matter of this thread is infallibility of a pope. Those who attack the Catholic position, usually do so by following their own explanation of what they think infallibility should be, then attack the mischaracterization… That’s a strawman. Here is how it is explained by the Catholic Church.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB And I reiterate, while Honorius was condemned, Leo II said as a qualification to the condemnation, that Honorius didn’t teach heresy.
So what is it that we are quibbling about?
- Status