Orthodoxy makes the most sence. protestantism is just man made division. the question is latin or eastern Church?

[gurneyhalleck1]

What is “a bit more” to you, Nine? Explain…

To actually be anathematised by a council requires a bit more than simply privately holding beliefs.

 

[Nine_Two]

What is “a bit more” to you, Nine? Explain…

I’m unaware of anyone who has been anathematized for lack of action, as it is claimed is the case with Honorius. It would seem odd that there would only be the one example.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Name the explicit action that he was anathamized for…

I’m unaware of anyone who has been anathematized for lack of action, as it is claimed is the case with Honorius. It would seem odd that there would only be the one example.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

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…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.
Here is the text of the anathema. Nowhere does it condemn him for teaching but for what he wrote in letters and his private opinions. Right?

I’m unaware of anyone who has been anathematized for lack of action, as it is claimed is the case with Honorius. It would seem odd that there would only be the one example.

 

[Hesychios]

I cannot say for sure, but my first guess is that these were not private letters as we normally assume the post is today. Perhaps they were intended to be circulars, or instructive “pastorals” (I don’t know ).

Apperently they were published, and may have been intended for, or expected to be for circulation in the first place. Obviously by the time of the condemnation everyone had read them.

The question then, is why had they read them.

It is interesting that at this time, the Maronites embraced Monothelitism as well. However while the Sees of Rome and Constantinople were no longer occupied by Monothelites shortly afterward, the Maronites continued with it for a longer period.

 

[Nine_Two]

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…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.
Here is the text of the anathema. Nowhere does it condemn him for teaching but for what he wrote in letters and his private opinions. Right?

As Hesychios says, where is the implication that we’re talking about private opinions? The fact that these letters came to the attention of the council, in a time when not everyone was a scribe, and letters could easily be kept from being known to the world. Had these been letters meant to be private they would have easily been destroyed or suppressed, however they apparently weren’t, and in fact preserved for long enough after his death that he could be postumously anathematised.

 

[Nine_Two]

Name the explicit action that he was anathamized for…

Accepting the monothelite heresy and spreading its teachings through his letters.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Accepting the Monothelite heresy yes. But I don’t see where he was guilty of spreading it through the letters. The letters were between he and sergius. Do we really know if there was an expectation of privacy or he was exploited or he intended them for mass reading? That’s all speculation. So to say with any certitude whatsoever that he spread this teaching is irresponsible IMO…we can’t prove it?

Accepting the monothelite heresy and spreading its teachings through his letters.

 

[Nine_Two]

Accepting the Monothelite heresy yes. But I don’t see where he was guilty of spreading it through the letters. The letters were between he and sergius. Do we really know if there was an expectation of privacy or he was exploited or he intended them for mass reading? That’s all speculation. So to say with any certitude whatsoever that he spread this teaching is irresponsible IMO…we can’t prove it?

That a council actually took the time to deal with the issue specifically seems to suggest as much.

As I said, few enough people could read at that point that there are few channels for getting the message spread around.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Michael, you hit the nail on the head…“my first guess.” I seriously doubt they were circulars. And I doubt there was the intention they be read by the masses. Sergius was an opportunist and a hot-head. It’s hard telling. But speculation like what you put here, though fascinating, doesn’t prove anything as far as the teaching office or ex cathedra intentions. If I could know that for certain, then you’d have something here.

I cannot say for sure, but my first guess is that these were not private letters as we normally assume the post is today. Perhaps they were intended to be circulars, or instructive “pastorals” (I don’t know ).

Apperently they were published, and may have been intended for, or expected to be for circulation in the first place. Obviously by the time of the condemnation everyone had read them.

The question then, is why had they read them.

It is interesting that at this time, the Maronites embraced Monothelitism as well. However while the Sees of Rome and Constantinople were no longer occupied by Monothelites shortly afterward, the Maronites continued with it for a longer period.

 

[steve_b]

Peter never called Peter a hegemon.

I think you meant Jesus.
N:

For starters the “you” in that verse is always in the plural, never in the singular.

Yes it’s plural. That doesn’t change my point. Explained later
N:

Second, “Hegemon” is a verb in the participle form, and is not being used as an adjective. Third, it is in the present tense, not future tense, thus it is not declaring that Peter will be a leader.

The word I quoted is hegeomai

1. 
   *]yes it’s a verb
   *]yes it’s present tense
   *]it is active voice
   *]it is a participle which means it can be used like a verb or noun
   
   Jesus is going to reveal something about this that the apostles weren’t aware of.
   N:
   

   Using your interpretation you would have to say Peter is above Christ himself.

   The apostles were arguing about who was greatest among THEM, (each other).
   N:
   

   Even if it was ἡγέομαι it wouldn’t quite convey the meaning you seem to be attaching to it. ἡγέση would be the form used if Jesus was saying that St. Peter “will be leader.”

   Jesus says
   
   “but he that is greatest among you (plural) let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that serves.” Who is Jesus talking about? He’s surely not having to justify Himself at this point. The apostles already know who He is. So who is Jesus refering to?
   
   Since they were arguing who among THEM (the apostles) was the greatest, is Jesus denying that one of them is not the greatest? No. Is Jesus denying that one of them is not chief? No. The very next individual Jesus names, is the one Jesus is talking about as chief, leader, etc. . If there is any confusion among the apostles at this point, Jesus will end that confusion by naming the apostle and what he is to do. Among all the other things Jesus gave this apostle, this too will be his role.
   
   “Simon Simon, Satan has asked to sift you ( ὑμᾶς hymas plural) like wheat. But I have prayed for you σοῦsou, 2nd person singular]”
   
   Think about THAT epiphany. They will be sifted like wheat by Satan (sifting assumes a seperation, division etc) and Jesus prays especially for Peter that his faith won’t fail? Which means Satan has permission to attack them all but Jesus is praying specially for Peter because it’s Peter who will strengthen the others .
   
   If you’re in the room arguing who is the greatest, and you hear Jesus say this, and you aren’t Peter, do you still have doubts who is the leader? I hope not.
   
   Even if one was thinking, hey what about praying for me too? What am I chopped liver!!! They’ll know without doubt who it is to confirm them. It is Peter. Do you think Satan will ever stop sifting? No WAY.
   
   One thing is for sure, the argument is over. It is Peter who is to strengthen and confirm his brothers from Satan’s sifting.
   
   Peter’s trials are coming, but there is no suprise here. Jesus told him and everyone within ear shot knows in advance, Peter would deny Him. But that doesn’t change what Jesus does for Peter. After the resurrection and before the ascension, Jesus again in front of all the apostles, singles Peter out again and says to him directly, feed and rule [poimaino] my sheep.[Jn 21:16…]

 

[Mickey]

Moreover, our conversation on contraceptives was never dealt with in a satisfactory manner

Perhaps not for you. But I think it has been dealt with aptly. But then you are accusing me of mocking your faith. That is a terrible thing to say. I have done no such thing. I am simply pointing out areas in which I disagree with the Latin Church. I will summarize the contraception issue one more time–and then I am going to limit my conversations with you. Charity level has dropped drastically and you have been no exception.

As a Roman Catholic, my wife and I took the NFP classes. They definitely teach how to avoid preganancy–that is contraception. NFP is more effective in preventing conception than condom use–which means condom use is more open to conception than NFP!

The Holy Orthodox Church may permit condom use for extra-ordinary circumstances (as per your spiritual father). But She **never **condones any abortifacient methods (of course NFP is permitted also).

Interestingly, I have recently read where Pope Benedict has commissioned a study on whether to permit condom use between married couples if one of the partners has AIDS.

I hope this has helped you to better understand the Holy Orthodox Church.

Peace and blessings,
Mickey

 

[Mickey]

The fact of the matter is that an annulment is not the equivalent of an ecclesiastical divorce because the former negates the fact that a valid marriage took place.

Yes. That is a difficulty I always had with the annulment process. It retroactively negates the sacrament of marriage for a variety of reasons.

 

[Mickey]

But we can agree to disagree about these things in a kind way. I hope you’ll agree that neither of us has been kind. We’ve both been unwilling to really dialogue but instead jab and jab.

I can’t be bitter toward Orthodoxy seeing as how I never have been Orthodox, have never had a serious run-in with one, and rarely encounter them in my daily life. I haven’t had a bad experience with one or hold any malice.

Dear gurneyhalleck,

This post was brought to my attention. I forgive you as I hope you will forgive me. I often get caught up in the forum format and my charity level declines. I am a wretched sinner. I can often sound more harsh than I mean to be. I apologize. As you are aware, I am very committed to the Holy Orthodox faith and I am convinced that it is the fulness of truth. I did not come to that decision lightly–it took years of prayer, study, and discernment.

You must believe me that I am not bitter toward Catholicism. Catholicism was the path that led me to where I am today–and as I said earlier–I have many devout friends and family who are in the Catholic Church (Latin and Eastern).

I just want to say from the bottom of my heart:

You are truly my brother in Christ!

That sinner,
Mickey

 

[AMDGtoo]

Extended talk about Honorius? Pope from 625-638? And the Orthodox didn’t break off from the Church until 1054? Yet now there are complaints? (Shakes head.)

Perhaps New Advent on Honorius will help bring light to the Honorius issue. newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

It seems that accoring to the Council, "they affirmed that the pope had spoke with the voice of Peter, and that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monotheist (I think that belongs to the Monothelite Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius.) According to the website, “the fault of Honorius lay precisely in … that he had not issued a definition ex-cathedra.” It also appears that there was some confusion, due to death of major participants, and so the new Pope quickly saw the matter finished.

 

[steve_b]

I am sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention.

Nevertheless, there have been Popes of every type I mentioned in my post, and it is unfortunately true that there is no way to remove one once he gets in there.

Peter to Benedict XVI = 266 popes. You pick a few and trash the entire papacy with your rant?

Have you looked at your own history? I think you should put your sword away.

 

[steve_b]

Some people think that by pointing out Infallibility does not equal impeccability, that makes what Honorius did excusable.

The Catholic Church didn’t/doesn’t excuse Honorius.
H:

The response to those ecclesial crimes should be to throw the bum out. But if the miscreant is a Pope of the Catholic church, this cannot be done without his own consent.

We are expected to believe that Jesus himself wanted this when He gave the keys to Peter? That’s the kind of ecclesiastical set up He anticipated the church developing into?

It’s excusable and defendable because the Pope never claimed to be impeccable?

Have you looked into your own history? You DON’T want to go here.

c’mon, put your sword down.

 

[steve_b]

You are wrong in your response to me, perhaps because you misunderstood.

The Primus inter Pares for Orthodox Catholic Christianity was in Rome until 1054AD. Then Rome abandoned the communion and went off on it’s own, leaving Holy Orthodoxy behind.

the term 1st among equals is handled here

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

As far as who is responsible for the split, BOTH sides had a hand in the issue.
H:

Afterward, the Primus inter Pares for the remaining church fell to Constantinople, as next in honor and dignity. If you look please note that the bishops of Constantinople never exercised the types of powers that Latin Catholicism claims are the Pope’s prerogative.

In fact, no one had seen these powers exercised by any Primus inter Pares in the first millenium. Look for yourself.

What honor of dignity did Constantinople have to put itself ahead in dignity over Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria?
H:

If these things were being done for the church by Popes, the Patriarchs of Constantinople would have had to (and most assuredly would have wanted to) take them up and do them for the church after the schism.

I specifically mentioned the canonization of saints as merely one example. In the year 1200AD (almost 150 years after the schism) the bishops of Rome took that prerogative upon themselves not because their perennial powers were being attacked! History is very clear that the canonization of saints was always a local matter in the east and in the west, and every Catholic source will point this out to you, so your argument does not stand.

Here is how the history is discribed
newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks, Micky. I think it’d be a great idea if we pray for each other the rest of Lent and pray for God to bless both of us. We are indeed sinners, you’re right. Probably me more than you. Yes, we both feel strongly about our respective communions but we can do better in how we debate. I have a lot of room for growth…

We both don’t know each other’s full stories so we make assumptions. I don’t know your story and how/why you became Orthodox and my story is a crazy one you don’t know. Maybe we can share sometime.

No matter what, God knows we both have sincere reasons for our beliefs and the only thing you and I both want is to do the right thing and serve The Lord.

I definitely don’t think you entered into Orthodoxy lightly so don’t worry. I don’t think most of us in here do anything lightly. I know my wife and I have a tendency to overthink things to the point we’re brain-hemoraging! LOL…

I hope you have a blessed Lent and keep me in your prayers as I will you. You’re a good man with a good heart. We’ll all just try to show our best sides, especially yours truly. God bless you!

Dear gurneyhalleck,

This post was brought to my attention. I forgive you as I hope you will forgive me. I often get caught up in the forum format and my charity level declines. I am a wretched sinner. I can often sound more harsh than I mean to be. I apologize. As you are aware, I am very committed to the Holy Orthodox faith and I am convinced that it is the fulness of truth. I did not come to that decision lightly–it took years of prayer, study, and discernment.

You must believe me that I am not bitter toward Catholicism. Catholicism was the path that led me to where I am today–and as I said earlier–I have many devout friends and family who are in the Catholic Church (Latin and Eastern).

I just want to say from the bottom of my heart:

You are truly my brother in Christ!

That sinner,
Mickey

 

[josie_L]

I don’t think that’s what Josie is saying at all. She hasn’t said that his behavior was excusable. If anything she made the point a few pages back that Honorius was guilty of inaction, bad judgment, and foolhardiness. I agree with her. The argument she and many other Catholics are making, me included, is that Honorius’s poor judgment in recommending silence and inaction with Monothelitism had nothing to do with infallibility. Pope’s can have private opinions that are idiotic or heretical, it’s the official teaching and dogma that they teach that is protected by infallibility. And since he never officially proclaimed it to the masses and issued edicts or public recommendations to accept and extoll Monothelitism, it’s not a breach of his infallibility, just lousy private judgment. And with the little Honorius was told by Sergius, the Lombards being Honorius’s preoccupation, and the poor communication between Rome and Constantinople that was well-known at that time, it didn’t help Honorius to make wise choices personally anyway. The reason Josie keeps bringing up impeccability vs. infallibility is because Orthodox arguments seem to keep focusing on Honorius and his private sins, his private missteps, not his official dogma, which would lead a Catholic to feel an Orthodox must not understand the difference…otherwise, why would an informed person make the argument?

Thank you Scott.