Orthodoxy? Catholic? Or stay where I am?

[Rohzek]

With reference to my post #123,
The shallowness and naiveté exists with those who do not know or deny the mandate of Christ in installing His Supreme Vicar, St Peter. The universal jurisdiction existed from the beginning – from Christ (post #123).

Actually that is hardly believed by any Late Antique or Medieval historians. The papacy actually remained very weak in the early eighth century. And it didn’t really project itself outside the newly formed papal states in terms of jurisdictional authority until Pope Nicholas I. Most historians follow the model that Leo I proclaimed an idea of papal supreme jurisdiction, and that it did not reach its full fulfillment until the Gregorian Reform. This model was originally proposed by Johannes Haller in Das Papsttum: Idea und Wirklichkeit. Haller was indeed a Protestant, but his model has even been adopted by Catholic historians in their own works, such as those by Walter Ullmann. Going over all the historiography and the consensus of professional historians is too long for these forums, but I recommend you read the following article despite it being 20 years old now: Noble, Thomas F. X. “Morbidity and Vitality in the History of the Early Medieval Papacy.” The Catholic Historical Review 81, no. 4 (Oct. 1995), 505-540.

Note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1) This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

And yet, what is completely lacking is any cultural context for interpreting these rulings and examples of papal actions. Do you honestly think Orthodox ignore these? Nope. In order to interpret said events, you must also take into account the cultural context that surrounds these events. Orthodox largely interpret this as Clement speaking with moral authority from the Holy Spirit. It does nothing to explicitly point out supreme jurisdiction by virtue of his office. Keep in mind that it is from the same attitude and spirit that Pope Honorius I was deposed for heresy.

The fidelity shown at the Council of Chalcedon was later discarded:
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the Orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are Orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
See: The Papacy
What did the Early Church Fathers Say?
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

The supreme and universal jurisdiction which originated with Christ is thus acknowledged and accepted until the fateful schism which has resulted in the false teaching and errors below.

Again, understand the cultural context. They only regarded Leo’s tome as orthodox after it had been read. Their claim does not acknowledge that Leo is the supreme head. It merely acknowledges the fact that Leo was speaking orthodox faith, as though he were Peter himself. Therefore, anyone who denied orthodox faith would be in heresy.

While the Orthodox to their credit have validly ordained priests and bishops, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the seven sacraments, they have fallen into false beliefs and practices in that they explicitly have the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, allowing contraception, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, and rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

You have a rather poor historical understanding about the development of the ideas of marriage and divorce within the early church in East and West. The divergence is not a consequence over the separation from Rome. I suggest you read the following, as it talks specifically about the issue: Gallagher, Clarence. “Diversity in Unity: Approaches to Church Order in Rome and Byzantium.” Ecclesiastical Law Journal: The Journal of the Ecclesiastical Law Society 6, no. 30 (2002): 208-238.

I will not discuss contraception here.

I talked about the third one above to some degree already.

How can you possibly expect the Orthodox Church to have a formal position on the Immaculate Conception? It’s true, most Orthodox theologians reject it. However, the immaculate conception was not even conceived of as an idea until the 12th or 13th century. While the Catholic Church has continued to have ecumenical councils and the expediency of papal decrees, the Orthodox Church has no luxery of the latter and has not had an ecumenical council since before 1000 AD. How can you possibly expect them then to formally proclaim a dogma that did not exist in the form of a mere idea at the time of its last gathering?

 

[Denise1957]

I don’t think the text goes that far. The only thing Peter exhorts his readers to do is to look to the prophecies. The rest of the text regarding inspiration and no individual interpretation has to do with how the prophets received the message and passed it on. There just doesn’t seem to be any idea of “here’s how you should read prophecy” in this passage.

Where in this passage, or in this section of scripture, is there an indication that Peter is only exhorting his readers to look to the prophesies? What prophesies? I don’t see that any mention is made of the OT prophets or prophesies at all.

Here is what Peter himself says just before the part about “there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of private interpretation”:

“Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your heart.” (2 Peter 19)

It would seem that Peter is talking about the prophesies as are related to truth of Christ as preached, taught, and especially written by the Apostles under the inspiration of God.

Here’s the Douay-Rheims Challoner version (with commentary at the bottom) on this section of scripture (I used the NAB for parts of scripture that I quoted):

drbo.org/chapter/68001.htm

 

[Abu]

Rohzek #141
Orthodox largely interpret this as Clement speaking with moral authority from the Holy Spirit. It does nothing to explicitly point out supreme jurisdiction by virtue of his office. Keep in mind that it is from the same attitude and spirit that Pope Honorius I was deposed for heresy.

False.

Answer by Warren H. Carroll, Ph.D (EWTN) on Dec-27-1999:
Later Pope St. Leo II, on confirming the acts of the Council of Constantinople in 858, specifically declared that Pope Honorius was not guilty of heresy, but only of lack of action against heresy, “permitting the immaculate faith to be subverted.” [My emphasis].

“Likewise, Pope Leo II (682-683) faulted Honorius because he “did not endeavor to preserve” the faith and for having “permitted” it to be assaulted, but not for having either invented, taught, or adhered to the heretical doctrine (Paul Bottalla, S.J., Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and History, 111-112). Elsewhere, Leo blames “Honorius, who did not, as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence” (Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispanie in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:455; emphasis added). In sum, Honorius failed to teach.

“With regard to the papal oath, it stated only that Honorius was condemned because he had “added fuel to their [the monothelites’] wicked assertions” (Liber diurnus, ibid., 455)—a charge which does not substantially differ from earlier statements that Honorius had fostered heresy by his negligence.”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301

It’s true, most Orthodox theologians reject it. However, the immaculate conception was not even conceived of as an idea until the 12th or 13th century.

On the contrary, the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., points out that “the sinlessness of Christ’s Mother had been recognised from the beginning……in the writings of the Greek and Latin Fathers when they described her perfect holiness….they spoke of her as ‘holy, innocent, most pure, inviolate , undefiled, immaculate’, in a way that left no doubt they considered her as absolutely without sin.’ ” The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 151].

 

[Rohzek]

False.

I misspoke in that I said he was deposed, but rather the man was posthumously declared a heretic.

Answer by Warren H. Carroll, Ph.D (EWTN) on Dec-27-1999:
Later Pope St. Leo II, on confirming the acts of the Council of Constantinople in 858, specifically declared that Pope Honorius was not guilty of heresy, but only of lack of action against heresy, “permitting the immaculate faith to be subverted.” [My emphasis].

“Likewise, Pope Leo II (682-683) faulted Honorius because he “did not endeavor to preserve” the faith and for having “permitted” it to be assaulted, but not for having either invented, taught, or adhered to the heretical doctrine (Paul Bottalla, S.J., Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and History, 111-112). Elsewhere, Leo blames “Honorius, who did not, as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence” (Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispanie in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:455; emphasis added). In sum, Honorius failed to teach.

I honestly don’t care what Pope Leo II thought on the issue. It’s pretty clear that the Third Council of Constantinople denounced Honorius I as a heretic. Vatican I even acknowledges this, but is quick to point out Honorius I never spoke ex cathedra.

“With regard to the papal oath, it stated only that Honorius was condemned because he had “added fuel to their [the monothelites’] wicked assertions” (Liber diurnus, ibid., 455)—a charge which does not substantially differ from earlier statements that Honorius had fostered heresy by his negligence.”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301

Who the heck is Steven O’Reilly? Is this guy even a credible source? Let’s cut to the chase and actually look at what Honorius I said:

“Unde et unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quia profecto a divinitate assumpta est nostra natura, non culpa, illa profecto quae ante peccatum creata est, non quae post praevaricationem vitiata.” - Patrologia Latina 80: col 0472A, EPISTOLA IV. AD SERGIUM CONSTANTINOPOLITANUM EPISCOPUM.

“And whence I confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, because truly he assumed our nature from divinity, without guilt, therein truly he who is made before sin, not after the corrupt transgression [Fall of Man].” Ibid., Pope Honorius I to Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople

Now to be fair, if you read further in the letter, it becomes clear that Honorius I is concerned about the idea of Christ’s two wills diverging. This is a rather poor understanding of dithelism on Honorius I’s part. However, it is undeniable that he proclaimed a personal belief in monothelitism. If you mean negligence by teaching error, then yeah you are correct. But it was not a negligence of silence or failure to teach.

On the contrary, the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., points out that “the sinlessness of Christ’s Mother had been recognised from the beginning……in the writings of the Greek and Latin Fathers when they described her perfect holiness….they spoke of her as ‘holy, innocent, most pure, inviolate , undefiled, immaculate’, in a way that left no doubt they considered her as absolutely without sin.’ ” The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 151].

Free from personal sin and free from original sin are two different things. The latter was not discussed until the High Middle Ages.

 

[Abu]

1. Rohzek #144 is wrong on Honorius

**Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 05-29-2002: **
Pope Zosimus had cancelled a previous Pope’s condemnation of a man (Celestius, a Pelagian heretic) but he later renewed it after being convinced that Celestius’ pretended repudiation of Pelagius’ heresy was not sincere. When Pope St. Leo II affirmed a council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius, he specifically declared that Pope Honorius had not taught heresy, but had been condemned for failing to denounce it soon enough. The full documented story of both cases is given in my book THE BUILDING OF CHRISTENDOM. [Vol 2 of *A History of Christendom, Christendom Press, 1987].
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=321706&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2001&Author=&Keyword=Ecumenical&pgnu=4&groupnum=2&record_bookmark=693

Guilty Only of Failure To Teach
This Rock, Catholic Answers, by Steven O’Reilly
Catholic Answers, Inc., October 2000
Extracts:
“The council professed its agreement with Agatho’s letter anathematized any who rejected it, and said its condemnations were in accordance with it. Therefore, any conciliar condemnation of Honorius must be understood in light of such agreement. Consequently, since Agatho counted Honorius among his orthodox predecessors, so too did the council.

“Though Agatho asserted the orthodoxy of all his predecessors and the infallibility of the apostolic see, he explicitly left open the possibility that a pope is nonetheless liable to judgment should he “neglect to preach the truth” to the faithful. Agatho thereby provided the tacit basis for the condemnation of Honorius on these grounds: that by neglecting to preach the truth, Honorius left the Lord’s flock exposed to ravaging wolves, as indeed the monothelite Eastern Patriarchs were and under whom the faithful suffered for many years.

“The council’s judgment is consistent with Agatho’s letter. It made a distinction between the fault of Sergius and Cyrus on the one hand and that of Honorius on the other. A reading of the condemnation reveals Honorius is neither grouped with nor shares the same fault of those “whose doctrines” were execrated—i.e., Sergius, Cyrus, etc. While Honorius is anathematized “with them”—that is, sharing a similar punishment—it is not because of any doctrine attributable to him. Honorius is condemned because of what the council “found written by him to Sergius;” in which letters Honorius “followed his [Sergius’s] view” about keeping silent and thus “confirmed his [Sergius’s] impious doctrines” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 343).
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301

1. Rohzek #144 is wrong on Mary and Original Sin.

The latter was not discussed until the High Middle Ages

.
That Mary and Original Sin was not discussed until the high Middle Ages merely refers to the mistaken attitudes of many theologians who never realised that she had been free from sin from her conception

MARY WAS CONCEIVED WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIN
Pope John Paul II
Extracts:
Bishop Theoteknos of Livias in Palestine, who lived between 550 and 650, seems to have moved in the direction of this original purity. In presenting Mary as “holy and all-fair”, “pure and stainless”, he referred to her birth in these words: “She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay” (Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5-6).

Greek and Eastern Fathers had acknowledged a purification brought about by grace in Mary, either before the Incarnation (St Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 38, 16) or at the very moment of the Incarnation (St Ephrem, Severian of Gabala, James of Sarug). Theoteknos of Livias seems to have required of Mary an absolute purity from the beginning of her life. Indeed, she who was destined to become the Saviour’s Mother had to have had a perfectly holy, completely stainless origin.

1. In the eighth century, Andrew of Crete is the first theologian to see a new creation in Mary’s birth. This is how he reasons: “Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation” (Serm. I on the Birth of Mary).
   Mary’s pure and immaculate conception is thus seen as the beginning of the new creation. It is a question of a personal privilege granted to the woman chosen to be Christ’s Mother, who ushers in the time of abundant grace willed by God for all humanity.

This doctrine, taken up again in the eighth century by St Germanus of Constantinople and St John Damascene, sheds light on the value of Mary’s original holiness, presented as the beginning of the world’s Redemption.
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm20.htm

 

[Rohzek]

1. Rohzek #144 is wrong on Mary and Original Sin.
   That Mary and Original Sin was not discussed until the high Middle Ages merely refers to the mistaken attitudes of many theologians who never realised that she had been free from sin from her conception

MARY WAS CONCEIVED WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIN
Pope John Paul II
Extracts:
Bishop Theoteknos of Livias in Palestine, who lived between 550 and 650, seems to have moved in the direction of this original purity. In presenting Mary as “holy and all-fair”, “pure and stainless”, he referred to her birth in these words: “She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay” (Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5-6).

Greek and Eastern Fathers had acknowledged a purification brought about by grace in Mary, either before the Incarnation (St Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 38, 16) or at the very moment of the Incarnation (St Ephrem, Severian of Gabala, James of Sarug). Theoteknos of Livias seems to have required of Mary an absolute purity from the beginning of her life. Indeed, she who was destined to become the Saviour’s Mother had to have had a perfectly holy, completely stainless origin.

1. In the eighth century, Andrew of Crete is the first theologian to see a new creation in Mary’s birth. This is how he reasons: “Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation” (Serm. I on the Birth of Mary).
   Mary’s pure and immaculate conception is thus seen as the beginning of the new creation. It is a question of a personal privilege granted to the woman chosen to be Christ’s Mother, who ushers in the time of abundant grace willed by God for all humanity.

This doctrine, taken up again in the eighth century by St Germanus of Constantinople and St John Damascene, sheds light on the value of Mary’s original holiness, presented as the beginning of the world’s Redemption.

All of those Eastern Fathers have a completely different understanding of Original Sin. What they understand is Ancestral Sin. Once this is understood, when reading the Eastern Fathers, the connotations take on a different light.

1. Rohzek #144 is wrong on Honorius

Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 05-29-2002:
Pope Zosimus had cancelled a previous Pope’s condemnation of a man (Celestius, a Pelagian heretic) but he later renewed it after being convinced that Celestius’ pretended repudiation of Pelagius’ heresy was not sincere. When Pope St. Leo II affirmed a council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius, he specifically declared that Pope Honorius had not taught heresy, but had been condemned for failing to denounce it soon enough. The full documented story of both cases is given in my book THE BUILDING OF CHRISTENDOM. [Vol 2 of A History of Christendom, Christendom Press, 1987].
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=321706&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2001&Author=&Keyword=Ecumenical&pgnu=4&groupnum=2&record_bookmark=693

Guilty Only of Failure To Teach
This Rock, Catholic Answers, by Steven O’Reilly
Catholic Answers, Inc., October 2000
Extracts:
“The council professed its agreement with Agatho’s letter anathematized any who rejected it, and said its condemnations were in accordance with it. Therefore, any conciliar condemnation of Honorius must be understood in light of such agreement. Consequently, since Agatho counted Honorius among his orthodox predecessors, so too did the council.

“Though Agatho asserted the orthodoxy of all his predecessors and the infallibility of the apostolic see, he explicitly left open the possibility that a pope is nonetheless liable to judgment should he “neglect to preach the truth” to the faithful. Agatho thereby provided the tacit basis for the condemnation of Honorius on these grounds: that by neglecting to preach the truth, Honorius left the Lord’s flock exposed to ravaging wolves, as indeed the monothelite Eastern Patriarchs were and under whom the faithful suffered for many years.

“The council’s judgment is consistent with Agatho’s letter. It made a distinction between the fault of Sergius and Cyrus on the one hand and that of Honorius on the other. A reading of the condemnation reveals Honorius is neither grouped with nor shares the same fault of those “whose doctrines” were execrated—i.e., Sergius, Cyrus, etc. While Honorius is anathematized “with them”—that is, sharing a similar punishment—it is not because of any doctrine attributable to him. Honorius is condemned because of what the council “found written by him to Sergius;” in which letters Honorius “followed his [Sergius’s] view” about keeping silent and thus “confirmed his [Sergius’s] impious doctrines” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 343).
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301

Uhhh…how does this at all explain away what Honorius I actually said? Like I said before, what Leo II and others have argued doesn’t matter. I just gave you Honorius I’s words right there in the original Latin that he composed nearly 1400 years ago. And then I translated them for you. What do those words say? They say, “I confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ.” That is monothelitism.

If you object to this, then I must make one simple request. What are the principles behind your argument? What do they explain that hasn’t already been said before? If these simple requests cannot be met, then I suggest recourse to David Hume’s advice in similar circumstances.

 

[Darryl_B]

I am really conflicted right now between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Both seem wonderful, but I am finding the differences quite a challenge to understand. I love the Orthodox emphasis on the love of God. Both facets of the Faith have affection for the Mother of God, but I love the Catholic Rosary. I can’t easily get to either a Divine Liturgy or a Mass, so that’s kind of a bind. I’m also not entirely convinced by papal supremacy, even though I have really liked the past three popes.

Oh, I’m just so confused. My protestant friends think I’m out of my mind anyway to be looking seriously at either, and I know no Catholics or Orthodox in real life. The internet and the telly go so far, but I know I need to take further steps and really am conflicted because Orthodoxy and Catholicism, for all their similarities, are also at odds with each other.

I’m going to my Anglican church with my family at the moment and will continue with that until I get the opportunity to do something else (I am disabled and held back from many things) I’ve probably said this before, but I feel a bit like the man Jesus asked ‘Do you want to be healed?’ I want to follow God where He leads me, and feel He has led me to the precipice and I’m not certain at all which direction to take.

Sorry to be boring, I know I have been wrestling with this for a long time, thank you for your patience in reading this.

A question for you my friend. Is a protestant protesting against the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church?

Is the Anglican Church protesting against the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church?

 

[Abu]

“Honorius was condemned for negligence. Whether two or two thousand subsequent councils ratify that sentence is immaterial, since such a sentence is not incompatible with the doctrine of papal infallibility. With regard to the papal oath, it stated only that Honorius was condemned because he had “added fuel to their [the monothelites’] wicked assertions” (Liber diurnus, ibid., 455) – a charge which does not substantially differ from earlier statements that Honorius had fostered heresy by his negligence.”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301

THE SUPPOSED FALL OF HONORIUS AND HIS CONDEMNATION
by J. H. R.
American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.7, 1882, pp.162-8
“If, therefore, Honorius is called a heretic, and is anathematized and cast out, it is not for heresy, but for connivance towards heretics. And expressly in this sense was the intention of the Council interpreted by the Emperor Constantine, who was not only present at the Council, but took part in it. In the same sense did St. Leo interpret it, who, having carefully examined the Acts of the Council and conferred with the legates who presided over it, approved them and translated them into Latin. Both Constantine and Leo say that Honorius was condemned, not because he taught error, but because he had favored and strengthened heretics, and had, not stained the Church himself, but suffered it to be distained by others.”
mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm

 

[Koineman]

Where in this passage, or in this section of scripture, is there an indication that Peter is only exhorting his readers to look to the prophesies? What prophesies? I don’t see that any mention is made of the OT prophets or prophesies at all.

See the boldfaced portions below:

19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

After he tells them to pay attention to the prophetic word, he goes on with his explanation of how the prophecies of Scripture came about. There is nothing even hinted here about how to read Scripture.

 

[Koineman]

Where in this passage, or in this section of scripture, is there an indication that Peter is only exhorting his readers to look to the prophesies? What prophesies? I don’t see that any mention is made of the OT prophets or prophesies at all.

I can’t edit my previous post, so I have to update here.

19 So we have the prophetic word strongly confirmed. You will do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp shining in a dismal place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all, you should know this: No **prophecy of Scripture **comes from one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

It’s interesting to read the variety of ways v. 20 is translated. Note here it emphasizes the source of prophecy: “No prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation,” thus conveying the idea that St. Peter’s point is about the source of prophecy and how it was delivered by prophets, not how individual believers should read it. Prophets did not interpret the message before passing it on but spoke it directly from God, as they were “moved by the Holy Spirit.”

The Douay-Rheims version conveys the same idea:

“Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.”

The ESV conveys the same:

“no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.”

Other translations, however, seem to emphasize the recipient of prophecy rather than the prophet, i.e., the people to whom the prophet delivers the word–or at best leave it rather unclear. For example, the RSV renders it thus:

“no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.”

This passage is frequently quoted by Catholic apologists to refute Protestants, but as the above shows, it is not as supportive of their position as they think.

 

[Koineman]

A question for you my friend. Is a protestant protesting against the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church?

My understanding has always been that Protestants are protesting against papal authority. During the Reformation, Protestants were not reacting to the EOC.

 

[Peter_J]

My understanding has always been that Protestants are protesting against papal authority.

That has generally been my understanding as well. Fr. Robert Hart has a different explanation of it (see e.g. Pro and Con testantism), but he seems to be in a small minority.

 

[Rohzek]

This post is in three parts due to character limits. This is Part 1 of 3.

“Honorius was condemned for negligence. Whether two or two thousand subsequent councils ratify that sentence is immaterial, since such a sentence is not incompatible with the doctrine of papal infallibility. With regard to the papal oath, it stated only that Honorius was condemned because he had “added fuel to their [the monothelites’] wicked assertions” (Liber diurnus, ibid., 455) – a charge which does not substantially differ from earlier statements that Honorius had fostered heresy by his negligence.”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301

Like I said before, it does differ significantly from what Honorius had said. He proclaimed monothelitism as his personal belief, but said it should not be a public concern. This what he said:

“Unde et unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quia profecto a divinitate assumpta est nostra natura, non culpa, illa profecto quae ante peccatum creata est, non quae post praevaricationem vitiata.” - Patrologia Latina 80: col 0472A, EPISTOLA IV. AD SERGIUM CONSTANTINOPOLITANUM EPISCOPUM.

“And whence I confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, because truly he assumed our nature from divinity, without guilt, therein truly he who is made before sin, not after the corrupt transgression [Fall of Man].” Ibid., Pope Honorius I to Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople

This is a proclamation of monothelitism. This is not just simple neglect like you claim.

 

[Rohzek]

This is Part 2 of 3.

THE SUPPOSED FALL OF HONORIUS AND HIS CONDEMNATION
by J. H. R.
American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.7, 1882, pp.162-8
“If, therefore, Honorius is called a heretic, and is anathematized and cast out, it is not for heresy, but for connivance towards heretics. And expressly in this sense was the intention of the Council interpreted by the Emperor Constantine, who was not only present at the Council, but took part in it. In the same sense did St. Leo interpret it, who, having carefully examined the Acts of the Council and conferred with the legates who presided over it, approved them and translated them into Latin. Both Constantine and Leo say that Honorius was condemned, not because he taught error, but because he had favored and strengthened heretics, and had, not stained the Church himself, but suffered it to be distained by others.”
mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm

The council did not agree in the same sense. This is what the council said:

“This pious and orthodox creed of the divine favour was enough for a complete knowledge of the orthodox faith and a complete assurance therein. But since from the first, the contriver of evil did not rest, finding an accomplice in the serpent and through him bringing upon human nature the poisoned dart of death, so too now he has found instruments suited to his own purpose—namely Theodore, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this imperial city, and further Honorius, who was pope of elder Rome, Cyrus, who held the see of Alexandria, and Macarius, who was recently bishop of Antioch, and his disciple Stephen — and has not been idle in raising through them obstacles of error against the full body of the church sowing with novel speech among the orthodox people the heresy of a single will and a single principle of action in the two natures of the one member of the holy Trinity Christ our true God, a heresy in harmony with the evil belief, ruinous to the mind, of the impious Apollinarius, Severus and Themistius, and one intent on removing the perfection of the becoming man of the same one lord Jesus Christ our God, through a certain guileful device, leading from there to the blasphemous conclusion that his rationally animate flesh is without a will and a principle of action.” - legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM06.HTM

Honorius is condemned in the same exact manner as the other bishops. There is no distinction in the acta of the Third Council of Constantinople.

 

[Rohzek]

Part 3 of 3.

THE SUPPOSED FALL OF HONORIUS AND HIS CONDEMNATION
by J. H. R.
American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.7, 1882, pp.162-8
“If, therefore, Honorius is called a heretic, and is anathematized and cast out, it is not for heresy, but for connivance towards heretics. And expressly in this sense was the intention of the Council interpreted by the Emperor Constantine, who was not only present at the Council, but took part in it. In the same sense did St. Leo interpret it, who, having carefully examined the Acts of the Council and conferred with the legates who presided over it, approved them and translated them into Latin. Both Constantine and Leo say that Honorius was condemned, not because he taught error, but because he had favored and strengthened heretics, and had, not stained the Church himself, but suffered it to be distained by others.”
mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm

But since you can’t free yourself from Leo’s statements, let’s look at what Leo actually said:

“Pariterque anathematizamus novi erroris inventores, id est, Theodorum Pharanitanum episcopum, Cyrum Alexandrinum, Sergium, Pyrrhum, Paulum, Petrum, Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae successores [subsessores, id est, insidiatores magis quam praesides] magis quam praesules, nec non et Honorium, qui hanc apostolicam Ecclesiam non apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed persana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est [G., immaculatam maculari permisit].”

“Verum piissimus imperator gratia sancti Spiritus animatus, et laborem pro Christianae fidei puritate sponte perpessus, ecclesiam Dei catholicam ab erroris haeretici macula summis nisibus purificare molitus est, et quidquid offensionem Christianis populis poterat generare, de medio Dei ecclesiae fecit auferri, omnesque haereticae assertionis auctores, venerando censente concilio condemnati, de catholicae ecclesiae adunatione projecti sunt, id est, Theodorus Pharanitanus episcopus, Cyrus Alexandrinus, Sergius, Paulus, Pyrrhus et Petrus, quondam Constantinopolitani praesules, et una cum eis Honorius Romanus, qui immaculatam apostolicae traditionis regulam, quam a praedecessoribus suis accepit, maculari consensit;” - Patrologia Latina 96, Pope Leo II to the Emperor of Constantinople

“Equally we anathemize the authors of new errors, that is, Bishop Theodorus of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Paul, Peter the successors of the Church of Constantinople; [enemies, that is, instigators as governors in greatness] as bishops in greatness, and also Honorius, who did not illustrate this apostolic church of apostolic tradition in doctrine, but in resounding treachery it was endeavored to subvert the immaculate faith [G., he permitted the immaculate to be stained].”

“Truly most pious emperor in the grace of the Holy Spirit, and (who) endured the work before the pure will of the Christian faith, who struggled to purify the catholic church of God from the upmost erroneous efforts of heretics in sin, and whoever was able to generate offense to the Christian people, are made removed from the midst of the church of God, and all authors of heretical assertions, they are condemned by the consensual council for venerating [errors], they are thrown out from the union of the catholic church, that is, Bishop Theodorus of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Paul, Phyrrhus and Peter, those bishops of Constantinople,** and one with these the Roman Honorius, who consented to have stained the immaculate rule of apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors;”**

Now, does Leo II say that Honorius is guilty of neglect? If you look at the just the first excerpt, you can certainly read it that way because of the ambiguous passive voice. But if you look at the second excerpt of the letter, it says “who consented to have stained.” This comes from the Latin, “consensit.” What does “consentio” mean? Well according to almost every Latin dictionary it means “to agree, accord, harmonize with a person or thing; to assert unitedly, determine in common, decree, to unite upon something accordingly.” Not only that, but Leo makes it even more clear by saying “and one with these the Roman Honorius.” So if you look at the Latin, Leo II clearly condemns Honorius for neglecting the apostolic tradition, AND for teaching heresy. Therefore, those secondary sources you cite, are completely wrong. They completely misunderstand Leo II. Steven O’Reilly is not a historian. He does not read Latin, as far as I can see. And he has not read the primary sources. The article by J. H. R. is over 120 years old. His arguments are dated and invalid.

 

[Abu]

Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers to Modern Critics
"Appendix 1: Errors in Church Teaching?"
In the seventh century, Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, was also trying to reconcile the heretical Monophysites. Sergius spoke of “one energy” or “one mode of operation in Christ.” This was ambiguous because it could mean either (a) there was never a conflict between the human and the divine will in Jesus, or (b) there was no human will at all in Jesus. The second meaning would be heretical, but the first would be fully true.

Pope Honorius seemed not to fully grasp the maneuverings of Sergius. Hence, in 634 he wrote two letters to Sergius that were not heretical, but were ambiguous. Not long after, Pope John IV, in 641, wrote a letter to Emperor Constantius III defending Honorius from a charge of heresy. He said Honorius just meant that Jesus “never had two contrary wills.”

But the Council of Constantinople in 681 A.D. wanted to go farther. It voted to call Pope Honorius a heretic. However, as in the case of Pope Vigilius, a Council acting without the Pope has no doctrinal force. Pope Agatho was on the verge of giving formal approval to that conciliar false teaching. But God provided. Pope Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. His successor, Pope Leo II, followed the guidance of Divine Providence and stated the matter precisely: "Pope Honorius … failed to add luster to this Apostolic Church by teaching the Apostolic tradition, but on the contrary, permitted the spotless [faith] to be defiled."

So Pope Honorius was not charged with heresy-he was not guilty of that. He was charged, rightly, with carelessness by letting true doctrine become ambiguous.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=212&ChapNum=25

 

[Rohzek]

Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers to Modern Critics
"Appendix 1: Errors in Church Teaching?"
In the seventh century, Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, was also trying to reconcile the heretical Monophysites. Sergius spoke of “one energy” or “one mode of operation in Christ.” This was ambiguous because it could mean either (a) there was never a conflict between the human and the divine will in Jesus, or (b) there was no human will at all in Jesus. The second meaning would be heretical, but the first would be fully true.

Pope Honorius seemed not to fully grasp the maneuverings of Sergius. Hence, in 634 he wrote two letters to Sergius that were not heretical, but were ambiguous. Not long after, Pope John IV, in 641, wrote a letter to Emperor Constantius III defending Honorius from a charge of heresy. He said Honorius just meant that Jesus “never had two contrary wills.”

But the Council of Constantinople in 681 A.D. wanted to go farther. It voted to call Pope Honorius a heretic. However, as in the case of Pope Vigilius, a Council acting without the Pope has no doctrinal force. Pope Agatho was on the verge of giving formal approval to that conciliar false teaching. But God provided. Pope Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. His successor, Pope Leo II, followed the guidance of Divine Providence and stated the matter precisely: "Pope Honorius … failed to add luster to this Apostolic Church by teaching the Apostolic tradition, but on the contrary, permitted the spotless [faith] to be defiled."

So Pope Honorius was not charged with heresy-he was not guilty of that. He was charged, rightly, with carelessness by letting true doctrine become ambiguous.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=212&ChapNum=25

This isn’t a primary source. It is a secondary source, which doesn’t give any citations for its arguments about Honorius. Not a single citation. Something tells me the author never read any of the letters himself/herself. Primary sources trump secondary sources. That’s the rule for academic and professional historians.

Also, notice how “conveniently” it ignored to include the latter section of the exact same letter of Leo II, which I translated above. The latter section clearly shows Leo II condemning Honorius for teaching heresy. In addition to that, now you are changing your story without any explanation. You first argued with secondary sources that stated that the Third Council of Constantinople did not condemn Honorius for teaching heresy. Now you have changed it, and said that Honorius was condemned for teaching heresy. Here are the facts: 1.) Honorius taught heresy. He clearly said Christ had one single will and two natures. 2.) Honorius was condemned for heresy by the council. 3.) Leo II approved of the condemnation on the grounds of failing to teach, AND for teaching heresy.

You can cite these really weak sources all day long. And I can keep pulling up the actual letters and presenting them to you all day long.

 

[Abu]

Rohzek #157
you are changing your story without any explanation. You first argued with secondary sources that stated that the Third Council of Constantinople did not condemn Honorius for teaching heresy. Now you have changed it, and said that Honorius was condemned for teaching heresy.

The reality from post #156:
“The Council of Constantinople in 681 A.D…. voted to call Pope Honorius a heretic.” “a Council acting without the Pope has no doctrinal force."

So Pope Honorius was not charged with heresy legitimately because the Council charge was not approved. Simple.

 

[Rohzek]

The reality from post #156:
“The Council of Constantinople in 681 A.D…. voted to call Pope Honorius a heretic.” “a Council acting without the Pope has no doctrinal force."

That is a Catholic doctrine that I obviously don’t believe nor have supported for quite some time now. So obviously we will have to agree to disagree on that doctrinal point.

So Pope Honorius was not charged with heresy legitimately because the Council charge was not approved. Simple.

And yet, Pope Leo II did approve the council’s charge. I quoted him above in post #155. He clearly condemns Honorius for both heresy and for failing to teach the apostolic faith.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The reality from post #156:
“The Council of Constantinople in 681 A.D…. voted to call Pope Honorius a heretic.” “a Council acting without the Pope has no doctrinal force."

So Pope Honorius was not charged with heresy legitimately because the Council charge was not approved. Simple.

St. Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI