Orthodoxy and St peter

[mardukm]

And of course we also know that Rome was the capital city of Christianity

Oh! The usual non-Catholic argument is that Rome had the primacy/supremacy because she was the capital city of the EMPIRE. Your statement is a welcome change in the usual EO rhetoric.

and St Ignatius’ quote has nothing to do with any sort of supremacy of Rome.

She held the presidency of love. Not supremacy according to the Absolutist Petrine or EO secular understanding of supremacy, but according to the biblical understanding of supremacy - “he who is greatest is the one who serves.”

And yet Pope Honorius was declared to be a heretic.

Perhaps in personal belief, but not in teaching. Pope Honorius never taught the monothelite heresy as the public Faith of the Church. So the principle of “papal infallibility” is not damaged.

As many times as you set forth these new theological terms…they are still foreign to the ear.

That’s OK. It’s the ideas that matter, not the words.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Volodomyr,

As you can guess a discussion of insults and problems one millennium previous is very big problem - especially why you as Roman Catholic should feel burden of errors of Bishop of Rome, or I as Ukrainian Orthodox feel burden of errors of Patriarch Constantinopl. But I am finding it quite interesting that many ardent Catholics here believe that since St. Peter the authority of Bishop of Rome has always been recognized as infallible and universal. At least you recognize that that the Normans did not think so!!

It might also be a pleasant surprise for you to learn that there are many ardent Catholics who do not believe the Pope has or had absolute authority because that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches or ever taught.

But in any case, much problems on both sides - God will tell us what is our share of guilt! But for now we must work together to prevent world from returning to paganism. non-Christians look at Orthodox and Catholics thinking we are such stupid ones - as our moral laws and family standard are being forgotten, rejected and made even illegal - we are arguing about who was more to blame for such things 1,000 years ago. OK, God forgive us, we are not Catholics, God forgive you, you are not Orthodox. But together we must make all peoples know and come to believe in Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ.

WELL SAID!!!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

The usual non-Catholic argument is that Rome had the primacy/supremacy

The usual catholic (Holy Orthodox) understanding is that Rome never held a “supremacy” or “Universal jurisdiction”.

Not supremacy according to the Absolutist Petrine…

I 'm sorry. The term “Absolute Petrine” is foreign to all sources I can find…so your response does not make sense.

Perhaps in personal belief, but not in teaching. Pope Honorius never taught the monothelite heresy as the public Faith of the Church.

The Sixteenth Session of the Council of Constantinople

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

So the principle of “papal infallibility” is not damaged.

Of course it is.

It’s the ideas that matter

They are your innovative ideas…so I can see why you might say that.

Christos razdajetsja! Slavite jeho!

 

[Marybeloved]

I’ve read enough of mardukm’s posts given over several years regarding the papacy and his understanding is derived from the council documents of Vatican 1 where the papacy was definitively taught- he quotes them quite a bit in the older threads. What he means by Absolutist is exactly that-regardless of people pretending to have suddenly lost their understanding of the English language. It’s the kind of papacy that polemicists, both Protestant and Orthodox are fond of misrepresenting as Catholic teaching. Mardukm calls it Absolutist Petrine because of is exaggerations of the powers of the papacy, way beyond what the church has defined. You can always tell by the introduction of Pope Honorius into the discussion- something clearly indicative of the false presumption that the CC has ever taught that the Pope cannot err in his private beliefs- of course he can! He’s a sinner like any other.

In fact, what the CC teaches is that the Pope cannot teach error to the church (in faith and morals)- just like a valid ecumenical council cannot teach error to the church in matters of faith and morals. The same Bishops can err grievously in private beliefs who when assuming the teaching office of the church cannot. Just wanted to clear up those few things for people reading this and falling into the trap of believing a false presentation of church teaching, directly or indirectly.

 

[Mickey]

Mardukm calls it Absolutist Petrine because of is exaggerations of the powers of the papacy

It seems to be an innovative theology used for polemical purposes.

You can always tell by the introduction of Pope Honorius

Honorius was a heretic. This was repeated by successive councils by succesive Popes.

In the controversy between East and West…the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)

 

[Marybeloved]

It seems to be an innovative theology used for polemical purposes.
Honorius was a heretic. This was repeated by successive councils by succesive Popes.

He wasn’t tried- his documents were and they were not even clearly heretical- could be interpreted both ways, that’s why they were cited by both camps in opposition to each other. He failed to stop a growing heresy and encouraged the silence of those who would oppose it (as well as the heretics’) For this he was rightly condemned, for his failure to do his job- That’s my understanding of the matter. I don’t believe there is any evidence he was anything more than a coward- Even if he was a heretic, he did not teach the heresy, which is why I said his introduction is always used to slyly present the CC teaching as if the church held that Popes as individuals were protected. Only as teachers of the church on doctrine are they protected, so Honorius can be used to show nothing at all regarding this matter.

 

[Mickey]

Even if he was a heretic…

He was a heretic…period. There is nothing sly about it.

His condemnation is found in the Acts in the 13th Session, near the beginning.

His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session as being “hurtful to the soul.”

In the 16th Session the bishops exclaimed “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.”

In the decree of faith published at the 18th Session it is stated that “the originator of all evil… found a fit tool for his will in… Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.” Further, this Ecumenical Council said that Honorius taught the heretical doctrine. They said that Satan had “actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy …”

The Papal legates, representatives of Pope Agatho, made no attempt to stop the burning of the letters, and subscribed to every anathema placed upon Honorius, as well as to the statement that Satan himself had used the bishop of Rome as a “tool for his will.”

The report of the Council to the Emperor says that “Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome” they had “punished with exclusion and anathema” because he followed the monothelites.

In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says “We have destroyed the fort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Paran, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc.” Note that the Council believed its actions to be in full accord with Agatho’s wishes and Agatho’s letter!

The imperial decree speaks of the “unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed” and mentions among them “Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.” The Emperor goes on to anathematize “Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.”

Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius. So strong was Leo’s confirmation that Baronius rejected it, saying it had to have been spurious, and even Cardinal Bellarmine tried to say it had been corrupted. Neither saw in Leo’s words any softening of the Council’s act, though some modern Catholic apologists have attempted to find in Leo’s sentence a ray of hope: Leo anathematizes Honorius “who did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.”

That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the canons of the Council of Trullo which met less than two decades after Constantinople (Trullan Canons No. 1). This shows that the condemnation of Honorius was accepted by the wider church immediately after the Council, and amongst those who were familiar with Leo’s letter.

So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.

Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.) This means that in Rome* itself* the condemnation with anathema as a heretic was embraced and accepted.

The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope up to the eleventh century, states in no uncertain terms, “smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.” Every single Pope who took to the chair of Peter for three hundred years did so by anathematizing his predecessor, Honorius.

In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod, and the name remains there until the sixteenth century!

 

[Jacob50]

So have you personally seen these quotes in the context of the books from which they are cited (and if so how can I access them)?

Look, since the quotes of the ancients are precisely that (ancient) some cites have their books, some dont. Some number their epistles differently than others. Epistles on some websites are actually incomplete. Ill give u one example, just so u do the rest of the search.

Lets look at the following quote:

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Letters 59:14 [A.D. 253]).
-Cyprian of Carthage

Ok now did Cyprian really said this? Well at first if you go to the New advent page (which most people go to) you would go here:
newadvent.org/fathers/050659.htm

You will find that Cyprian’s epistle number 59 doesn’t say that at all…In fact its a very small letter only containing 4 paragraphs
However if you google “Letter 59 of Cyprian of Carthage” the first or second option will give u the link to the book called “The letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, Volume 3” which is here:

books.google.com.mx/books?id=7lZZBPSo9t4C&pg=PA68&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you scroll down to where it says “Epistle 59”, and u go to section 14, u will find the exact same writings quoted here. If fact that letter is a completely different letter than the one u find in New Advent, its a very long one…

So whos right and whos wrong? Well noone necesarily is wrong really. They just number the epistles differently. If you go to New Advent you will see that some of the letters of Augustine are not there. See:

newadvent.org/fathers/1102.htm
For example Letter 119 is missing.

I dont know why many people only go to:
ccel.org/

This is most likely a protestant website (or at least im assuming that, it says calvin on the right top corner…) but the point is their writings are just a part of the entire universe of the Church Father writings. You cannot base your beliefs on one website or book, u must search a lot of different ones (the bible an exception?).

As far as I know, The tracts cited on CAF (by Karl keating I suppose) are based on the book “Upon this Rock”: by Stephen K. Ray, a former evangelical, who is now an apologist of the Catholic Faith. See links:
amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1795130/posts

You could check his book online to check out the quotes.

God Bless.

 

[Marybeloved]

He was a heretic…period. There is nothing sly about it.

His condemnation is found in the Acts in the 13th Session, near the beginning.

His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session as being “hurtful to the soul.”

Look, I’ve seen and read this debate here at CAF many times before- I know it’s not as simple as you wish to make it. The Council did not try a person- it was 40 years after his death and his letters were used by both the Heretics and Orthodox believers to support their respective positions. The man was not called to explain himself/defend himself like other trials of heretics- he was dead- 40 years dead- and the version available today of what he said in the condemned letters says nothing more than that the man believed in the one will in the sense that Christ assumed our nature but not our sin (evil will), which had nothing at all to do with the actual heresy he was accused of. When the Heretics sought to use his letters, the Orthodox always defended him. It’s not even clear from the letters that he even knew the actual nature of the controversy (the heresy being proclaimed) and the patriarch who had sought his guidance on the true teaching was said by his servants to have deliberately mislead the Pope on the actual nature of the controversy. The Pope gave him no answer, only that both those who were later known to be Orthodox and the heretics desist from further debate on the issue.

Honorious was condemned because he ordered the patriarch to be silent about the Orthodox teaching (as well as the heretial one) rather than confirm the orthodox teaching unflinchingly- In that way, he confirmed the heresy rather than stop it dead in its tracks. He was a coward who wanted no trouble, rather than play his role as confirmer of the true faith- he became a person who acquiesced (by silence) in the Heresy and was the cause of it spreading to such a great level. That was a failure of an individual in carrying out his duty- and it caused grave scandal (heresy) in the church- And for that he was rightly counted with the heretics and condemned.

Absolutely nothing you’ve given there shows that he must have been a heretic but only that the church (40 years after his death) believed that he played a central role and was to be blamed for it. Councils are infallible in their teaching of faith and doctrine- not in their trials of individuals (especially dead ones who can’t defend themselves against the charges, like other heretics). What we have from his letter that supposedly showed heresy was vague enough to be cited by the opposing sides, and he was not alive at his trial to speak for himself as to just what he meant. You make it sound like no later popes defended him, but they did make it clear that it was his failures they condemned. I’ve seen many threads before (I used to read CAF before I joined it this year) where you and others hash this out and in no way can it be said as you try to say here - “He was a heretic- period!” I know it’s not as straightforward as you would prefer it to be.

 

[Mickey]

Look, I’ve seen and read this debate here at CAF many times before- I know it’s not as simple as you wish to make it.

Look, I’ve seen the same debate and it is indeed straightforward and easy to discern. He was a heretic. I have never seen anything on the Latin side that has proven otherwise. I surely understand that it became imperative, especially after 1870, to somehow trivialize his heresy in an attempt to protect the doctrine of infallibility…but for me…it just doesn’t pass the smell test.

I have seen it spun a hundred different ways…but in the end… the Council of Constantinople says it all:

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

 

[Mickey]

I dont know why many people only go to:
http://www.ccel.org/

Because the New Advent site has been shown to be unreliable on many ocassions.

 

[Marybeloved]

Look, I’ve seen the same debate and it is indeed straightforward and easy to discern. He was a heretic. I have never seen anything on the Latin side that has proven otherwise. I surely understand that it became imperative, especially after 1870, to somehow trivialize his heresy in an attempt to protect the doctrine of infallibility…but for me…it just doesn’t pass the smell test.

I have seen it spun a hundred different ways…but in the end… the Council of Constantinople says it all:

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

And I’ve never seen anything that shows he was a Heretic. The condemnation of the Council was a trial of a dead man and what we have does not show the heresy supposed but an ambiguous phrase that could be interpreted both heretically or in an orthodox way- The man did silence the orthodox voices, for that he deserved to be condemned. Nothing else can (or has) ever been shown beyond that.

And what you say about the need to disprove the heresy to protect papal infallibility is false. The Vatican I fathers debated Honorious (and they did consider him heretical- most, as I understand) and his case was found not to touch on the definition one bit. Like I said, people who bring it up slyly try to pass on the appearance that the Vatican I definition speaks of personal infallibility of the pope- it does not. A heretic could sit there and believe all the nonsense that heretics do, but he cannot declare it to the church as truth- That’s papal infallibility per Vatican I.

 

[Mickey]

And I’ve never seen anything that shows he was a Heretic. .

Really? Everything I have ever read shows that he was a heretic.

So you don’t believe the holy Councils?

Every single Pope, for three hundred years, anathematized his predecessor, Honorius.

Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition but by profane treachery tried to subvert its spotless faith" ~ Pope Leo II

Pope Leo II (682-3) even spoke of Honorius as the one who “instead of giving glory to this apostolic church [Rome] by teaching apostolic tradition, has tried to subvert the immaculate faith by impious treason.”

 

[Marybeloved]

Really? Everything I have ever read shows that he was a heretic.

So you don’t believe the holy Councils?

Every single Pope, for three hundred years, anathematized his predecessor, Honorius.

Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition but by profane treachery tried to subvert its spotless faith" ~ Pope Leo II

Pope Leo II (682-3) even spoke of Honorius as the one who “instead of giving glory to this apostolic church [Rome] by teaching apostolic tradition, has tried to subvert the immaculate faith by impious treason.”

All those quotations show he failed to protect the faith and acquiesced with the heretics by silencing the debate instead of proclaiming the truth. I’ve said, third time now- for this he was condemned (and rightly so). Absolutely nothing shows that he was believed to have himself believed or taught the heresy. Just co-operated in its spreading by silencing the debate (including the orthodox voices).

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Look, since the quotes of the ancients are precisely that (ancient) some sites have their books, some dont. Some number their epistles differently than others. Epistles on some websites are actually incomplete. Ill give u one example, just so u do the rest of the search.

Lets look at the following quote:

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Letters 59:14 [A.D. 253]).
-Cyprian of Carthage

Ok now did Cyprian really said this? Well at first if you go to the New advent page (which most people go to) you would go here:
newadvent.org/fathers/050659.htm

You will find that Cyprian’s epistle number 59 doesn’t say that at all…In fact its a very small letter only containing 4 paragraphs
However if you google “Letter 59 of Cyprian of Carthage” the first or second option will give u the link to the book called “The letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, Volume 3” which is here:

books.google.com.mx/books?id=7lZZBPSo9t4C&pg=PA68&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you scroll down to where it says “Epistle 59”, and u go to section 14, u will find the exact same writings quoted here. If fact that letter is a completely different letter than the one u find in New Advent, its a very long one…

So whos right and whos wrong? Well noone necesarily is wrong really. They just number the epistles differently. If you go to New Advent you will see that some of the letters of Augustine are not there. See:

newadvent.org/fathers/1102.htm
For example Letter 119 is missing.

I dont know why many people only go to:
ccel.org/

This is most likely a protestant website (or at least im assuming that, it says calvin on the right top corner…) but the point is their writings are just a part of the entire universe of the Church Father writings. You cannot base your beliefs on one website or book, u must search a lot of different ones (the bible an exception?).

As far as I know, The tracts cited on CAF (by Karl keating I suppose) are based on the book “Upon this Rock”: by Stephen K. Ray, a former evangelical, who is now an apologist of the Catholic Faith. See links:
amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1795130/posts

You could check his book online to check out the quotes.

God Bless.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Look, since the quotes of the ancients are precisely that (ancient) some cites have their books, some dont. Some number their epistles differently than others. Epistles on some websites are actually incomplete. Ill give u one example, just so u do the rest of the search.

Yes in fact The Poem Against the Marcionites and The Poem Against the Marcionites are not in New Advent, I had to look on other sites to get the quotes.

Because the New Advent site has been shown to be unreliable on many ocassions.

True but ccel.org/fathers.html
is not necessarily better. It lacks many books/letters. Just as a comment.

 

[Mickey]

All those quotations show he failed to protect the faith and acquiesced with the heretics by silencing the debate instead of proclaiming the truth.

All those quotes proclaim him to be a heretic over and over again for centuries…by Popes and Councils. You can continue to deny it…but it is a sad fact. :sad_yes:

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Yes in fact The Poem Against the Marcionites and The Poem Against the Marcionites are not in New Advent, I had to look on other sites to get the quotes.

I ment to say The Schism of the Donatists and The poem of Marcionites.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Straight from the fathers of Constantinople III:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.viii.html
The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. 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. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches.