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

[gurneyhalleck1]

That is your opinion. From very obvious evidence, hundreds and hundreds of years of popes making decisions unilaterally without consulting other bishops (and those bishops accepting their rulings), popes re-installing presbyters or bishops who had been defrocked in their own diocese, from all the many times popes led the charge against heresy and had the final word on deciding what was and was not truth, the opinion of folks like myself is different from yours. I could take the opposite pedestal and tell you that we do not need to “prove” infallibility becuase it has always existed and is an all-too-obvious theological fact of life. Of course it does not exist in the Orthodox now because you folks chose to sever yourselves from the papacy and the West. And “questionable actions” being the same as infallible ex cathedra statements in your eyes shows you don’t understand how Catholics view infallibility. “Rome has spoken. Case closed” says Augustine, but Mickey says “case still open?” I’ll take Augustine.

We do not need to disprove the “doctrine” of papal infallibility. It did not exist then…and it does not exist to the Orthodox now.

There are many other popes who committed many questionable actions…that would be a good thread to start. However, Honorius was the only one who was officially condemned as a heretic.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Fascinating how Tertullian also says:
“The Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, **not to the Church” **(Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
–Tertullian

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” --Augustine (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

“Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” --Augustine (Sermons 131, 10).

No.
Nowhere does sacred Scripture say this.
“Rock” is his confession of faith.

[Peter] is not the only one among the disciples who is worthy of pasturing the Lord’s sheep. If Christ speaks only to one, it is to emphasize unity. Indeed, so that you may know that it is the Church who has received the keys to the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord has said elsewhere to all the apostles: ’ Receive the Holy Spirit.’ And later, ‘Anyone whose sins you have forgiven, they are forgiven: anyone whose sins you retain, they are retained’ (Jn 20:22-23).
St Augustine**, Sermo 295, 2-8.**

Remember that the Lord left the keys to Peter, and through him to the Church, keys which each one carries with him if, when asked, he confesses the faith.
**Tertullian, Scorpiace, 10, PL 2, 142 **

 

[Mickey]

That is your opinion.

No. It’s the Tradition of the Holy Fathers.

Of course it does not exist in the Orthodox now because you folks chose to sever yourselves from the papacy and the West.

Rome separated from the others and then developed Supremacy/Infallibility.

you don’t understand how Catholics view infallibility.

There was no such thing as infallibility—that’s the whole point!

“Rome has spoken. Case closed” says Augustine.

I’m going to post something that an Orthodox friend of mine once wrote about your quote:

Yes, it comes from St. Augustine**'s Sermo 131. It’s a misquote of Augustine’s words… if I had a dollar for every time I have heard it misquoted! **

Here is what he really wrote:

Iam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem Apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est; utinam finiatur error!

“For already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts have come back from there. The case is ended; would that the error may end likewise!”

 

[josie_L]

You are reading something into history that did not exist. “Ex-cathedra” was invented in about 1870.

He was condemned as a heretic! What more do you need?

Silence = did not make any authoritative comment and/or definition of the faith, in other words, simple logic dictates that Honorius was condemned for being negligent, and it is in this capacity that he was a heretic. Moreover, it is said that (somewhat like Oriental Orthodox who have repudiated the Christology of Chalcedon, an ecumenical council), Honorius was not denying that Jesus had two wills but rather that each will was like one in that they were in complete harmony with each other, here is an explanation:

That left Honorius. Opponents of infallibility said that his case demolished any pretension of papal infallibility, for he was not only a heretic but was condemned as such by an ecumenical council, Constantinople III, in 680, which declared, 42 years after the Pope’s death, that Honorius be “expelled from the Church and anathematized . . . because we find in his letter to Sergius that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” [Quoted in Warren H. Carroll, The Building of Christendom: A History of Christendom, vol. 2 (Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom College Press, 1987), 253]
.

Sergius was another one of those stalwart patriarchs of Constantinople, anathematized in the same conciliar declaration for originating the Monothelite heresy. Monothelitism was one of a series of attempts to reconcile the Monophysites, who at that time were a huge portion of the Christian world, with the Catholic Church they had torn by schism more than two hundred years previously.

The Monophysites maintained that our Lord’s human nature had been absorbed into his divine nature. They could not accept the decree of the Council of Chalcedon (451) that “the only-begotten Son of God must be confessed in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably united . . . without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union.” “The Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon, 451,” in Colman J. Batty, O.S.B., Readings in Church History (Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, Inc., 1985), 104].

Sergius, the first Monothelite, tried to affect a compromise by teaching that our Lord had only one will, a divine will. Like many compromises, this one ultimately pleased no one. To the orthodox it was anathema, for it denied the fullness of Christ’s human nature. To Monophysites it was no more welcome, for this will-less but otherwise intact human nature which Monothelitism attached to Christ seemed to them to deny his unity.

None of this was clear in the palmy days of 634. Monothelitism had encountered some criticism from the prescient Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, but elsewhere it was more politely received. The Pope had not yet heard of it. With evident high hopes in his own inventiveness and craftiness, Sergius wrote to Honorius about his thoughts.

In his two letters Sergius warned that teaching two wills in Christ would lead to the idea that the human will of the Son of God was opposed to that of his Father. He advised the Pope that it was better to speak of only one will in our Lord. Sergius was trying a little sleight of hand: He was attempting to deny the existence of Christ’s human will by pointing out that our Lord never opposed the Father. Yet if two persons agree, they may be spoken of as being of “one will” this doesn’t mean, of course, that one of them has no will at all.

The Pope, with no idea of Sergius’ between-the-lines message, answered the Patriarch on the unthinkable subject of Christ’s “opposition” to the Father. “We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our (human) nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall.” [Quoted in Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 5 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896; AMS Reprint, 1972), 29]
. Since Christ’s human will is “faultless,” there can be no talk of opposing wills. (Christ hardly would have been faultless if he opposed his Father’s will.)

Monothelites, as they grew in numbers and influence over the ensuing years, seized upon Honorius’ confession of “one will of our Lord Jesus Christ” as confirmation that the Pope believed with them that Christ had no human will. Newman and other commentators have noted that Honorius’ letters to Sergius are not doctrinal definitions ex cathedra; thus they are outside the scope of infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council.

That is true, but, even more to the point, a look at Honorius’ exact words shows that while he did use a formula–“one will”–that was later declared heretical, he used it in a sense that implied the orthodox belief.

This was picked up as early as 640 by Pope John IV, Honorius’ successor, who pointed out that Sergius had asked only about the presence of two opposing wills. Honorius had answered accordingly, speaking, says Pope John, “only of the human and not also of the divine nature.” Pope John was right. Honorius assumed the existence of a human will in Christ by saying that his nature is like humanity’s before the Fall. No one would claim that before the Fall Adam had no will. Thus Honorius’s speaking of Christ’s assumption of a “faultless” human nature shows that he really did believe in the orthodox formula of two wills in Christ: one divine, one human, in perfect agreement.

to be continued. . . .

 

[josie_L]

**The Third Council of Constantinople was thus in error when it condemned Honorius for heresy. But a Council, of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope. The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” **[Carroll, 254]

This is a crucial distinction. Honorius probably should have known the implications of using the “one will” formula; he could have found out by writing a letter to Sophronius of Jerusalem. But he was no heretic.

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

Even, doctor of the Church, St. Maximus the Confessor defended Honorius against the claims that he was a heretic in that he espoused heresy.

 

[Mickey]

“The Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, **not to the Church” **(Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]). --Tertullian

And then he says they were given to the Church. What’s your point? And I fail to see where any of this proves that this was the beginning of a supreme infallible pope of Rome.

 

[Mickey]

Even, doctor of the Church, St. Maximus the Confessor defended Honorius against the claims that he was a heretic in that he espoused heresy.

Why is it so difficult for to accept that he was a heretic?

SESSION XVI. **
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1010.)
[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]
Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches!O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!
Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate!
To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!** To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul the heretic, anathema!
To Peter the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!
May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joe,

And when one group has gone back and retroactively proclaimed their patriarchs were infallible one heretic is enough.

The dogma of infallibility (for the Church, for the Pope, for an Ecumenical Council) states only that the divine teaching will be preserved by the Holy Spirit. In other words, infallibility prevents these entities from publicly proposing error/heresy as the divine teaching of God.

The issue of Honorius does not impugn the dogma of infallibility in any way, because Honorius did not publicly teach the heresy that he was accused of. He inadvertantly promoted it by not condemning it, but he in no way actually positively taught the heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

The issue of Honorius does not impugn the dogma of infallibility in any way, because Honorius did not publicly teach the heresy that he was accused of. He inadvertantly promoted it

Oh, I see—the old “inadvertant promotion” apologetic.

 

[josie_L]

Dear brother Joe,


The dogma of infallibility (for the Church, for the Pope, for an Ecumenical Council) states only that the divine teaching will be preserved by the Holy Spirit. In other words, infallibility prevents these entities from publicly proposing error/heresy as the divine teaching of God.

The issue of Honorius does not impugn the dogma of infallibility in any way, because Honorius did not publicly teach the heresy that he was accused of. He inadvertantly promoted it by not condemning it, but he in no way actually positively taught the heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, you might as well be teaching rocket science to them, they can’t seem to comprehend the difference between action and inaction so to speak.

God bless.

Josie

 

[josie_L]

Why is it so difficult for to accept that he was a heretic?

SESSION XVI. **
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1010.)
[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]
Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches!O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!
Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate!
To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!** To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul the heretic, anathema!
To Peter the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!
May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!

And I’ve already explained in what capacity he was accused as a heretic.

 

[excaliber]

Why is it that infalibility is so vague?
It has to be EXACTLY excathedra to work…but what then exactly is excathedra?

It seems open ended…like it was never figured out.

That dosent make sence, when your talking about something that IF TRUE, is older then our new testament scriptures.

Seems like we are saying that Christ gave St.Peter an ability, but did not tell him or any of the apostles HOW it worked.

Seriously think about it, in the council in acts…it makes no sence for the other apostles to speak on a matter when only one of them is guarded from saying anything wrong?

Why dose St.James say I JUDGE…you can’t JUDGE an infalible statement!!!

If St.Peter made an infalible statement, for the other apostles to say ANYTHING against it would have been out right apostasy!

So why did the other apostles add there say on the matter…when there is no say to be had after an infalible statement?

 

[josie_L]

They were all cowards–except for St John. St Peter added the verbal denial.

It doesn’t matter if it was a verbal denial, they had, all of them, disbelieved at one point or another:

The other apostles did not lose their faith? Why did all except John desert Jesus after his arrest? Why did they go into hiding? Why did they refuse to believe Mary Magdalene when she told them Jesus had been raised? Jesus said they lost their faith. When he appeared to the eleven at table, “he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen (Mark 16:14).”

Commenting on Luke 22:31-32, John Chrysostom explains that “God allowed [Peter] to fall, because he meant to make him ruler of the whole world, that remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future” (italics added). [Quoted by Chapman, 85.]
Other writings of Chrysostom make it clear that here he refers to the whole Christian world. This is only one of many acknowledgments of Petrine primacy by the outstanding Eastern Father of the fourth century.

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp

Jesus Christ knows that St Peter is about to deny Him thrice. He prays for him so that his faith may not fail–so that he does not fall into despair and hang himself like Judas. Then of course we see Jesus Christ restoring St Peter’s Apostolic standing at the end of St John’s Gospel–the triple affirmation for the triple denial–because St Peter wept and repented instead of falling into despair and suicide. This would serve as an example to the others–to strengthen them.
All the Apostles had the authority to loose and bind.

Excuse me, Mickey, Jesus simply said he would pray that Peter’s faith would not fail him, in other words, that prayer was not limited to this particular event (his denying Jesus) but extended throughout all of Peter’s life, i.e. he shall not divert from the true faith (and this is true of his successors as well because they had inherited his office). Moreover, St. Chrysostom had this to say about John 21:15-19

Look briefly at some of the comments John Chrysostom made on John 21. One should note that in the early centuries Chrysostom was the most popular of the Greek Fathers. He was also the most imitated. Sermons falsely attributed to him exceed in bulk all of the authentic writings of any other Greek Father. Chapman, 73. He is perhaps the most representative Eastern Catholic of the fourth century.

After quoting our Lord’s command to Peter to feed his sheep, Chrysostom asks, “Why does he pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren.” Quoted by Chapman, 80-81.

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

All had the keys of authority. Oftentimes St Peter was the spokesman for the others. You have not proven that St Peter had anything to do with the modern day Latin understanding of a supreme/infallible pontiff.

The proof is in the historical records; Here is one from sacred scripture;

Acts 15:7
4 After much debate had taken place,** Peter got up and said to them**, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

I don’t know Mickey, God himself gave Peter the heavenly vision to allow the gentiles in “the way”. God speaks infalliblly through the mouth of Peter. Any questions?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Oh, I see—the old “inadvertant promotion” apologetic.

Don’t you know that Honorius in his letter explicitly forbade the Patriarch, for the sake of peace in the Church, to speak of one or two wills? Doesn’t sound like a positive teaching on monothelitism to me.

Don’t you know that when the Sixth Ecumenical Council was first convened, Pope Honorius’ name was not on the original list of heretics? That is because Pope Honorius never taught monothelitism publicly for his name to be impugned in any way. It was only at a later session, after the monothelites appealed to Pope Honorius’ private letter to Sergius, that neither condemned nor supported monothelitism, that the Council Fathers discovered Pope Honorius’ hand in letting the heresy spread.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother excaliber,

Why dose St.James say I JUDGE…you can’t JUDGE an infalible statement!!!

St. James’s judgment was in regards to the judaizing practices that St. Paul and St. Barnabas were complaining about. He wasn’t judging St. Peter’s teaching in any sense at all. St. Peter had indeed decreed an infallible teaching that was not subject to judgment by any of the Apostles, for it was from God Himself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josie_L]

Why is it that infalibility is so vague?
It has to be EXACTLY excathedra to work…but what then exactly is excathedra?

It seems open ended…like it was never figured out.

That dosent make sence, when your talking about something that IF TRUE, is older then our new testament scriptures.

Seems like we are saying that Christ gave St.Peter an ability, but did not tell him or any of the apostles HOW it worked.

Seriously think about it, in the council in acts…it makes no sence for the other apostles to speak on a matter when only one of them is guarded from saying anything wrong?

Why dose St.James say I JUDGE…you can’t JUDGE an infalible statement!!!

If St.Peter made an infalible statement, for the other apostles to say ANYTHING against it would have been out right apostasy!

So why did the other apostles add there say on the matter…when there is no say to be had after an infalible statement?

Please read the following articles:

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

bringyou.to/apologetics/a122.htm

God bless

 

[josie_L]

Nowhere does sacred Scripture say this.

Oh my goodness, Mickey, how can you say this is not in scripture when Jesus separated Peter from the pack to give him the keys and the power to loose and bind before any other? Moreover, nowhere does it state in scripture that the keys were given to the other apostles (do not confuse the metaphor of the keys with the power of loosing and binding). You would relegate Jesus’s actions to nothing more than superficiality if you claim that there was nothing significant in his setting Peter apart. Jesus was conveying no less that Peter would be his steward/prime minister.

“Rock” is his confession of faith.

The literal interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is that Peter is the rock (I can’t understand how you can ignore the fact that Simon had his name changed) and only in a secondary/ spiritual sense is it his confession of faith. Either way, it is impossible to separate the confession from he who confessed it, i.e., Peter.

COLOR=darkred][Peter] is not the only one among the disciples who is worthy of pasturing the Lord’s sheep. If Christ speaks only to one, it is to emphasize unity. Indeed, so that you may know that it is the Church who has received the keys to the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord has said elsewhere to all the apostles: ’ Receive the Holy Spirit.’ And later, ‘Anyone whose sins you have forgiven, they are forgiven: anyone whose sins you retain, they are retained’ (Jn

20:22-23).

Yes, the Church did receive the (power of the) keys THROUGH PETER who received them from CHRIST, that is.

Remember that the Lord left the keys to Peter, and through him to the Church, keys which each one carries with him if, when asked, he confesses the faith.
**Tertullian, Scorpiace, 10, PL 2, 142 **

And it is THROUGH PETER (because of Jesus) that the keys (of right confession) are extended to the Church.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The issue of Honorius does not impugn the dogma of infallibility in any way, because Honorius did not publicly teach the heresy that he was accused of. He inadvertantly promoted it by not condemning it, but he in no way actually positively taught the heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’ve always wondered how the logistics of that works. God allowed Honorius to believe heresy but somehow prevented him from teaching it. Does God override a pope’s free will in preventing him from publicly teaching something that he actually believes?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well-said, Josie

**

Oh my goodness, Mickey, how can you say this is not in scripture when Jesus separated Peter from the pack to give him the keys and the power to loose and bind before any other? Moreover, nowhere does it state in scripture that the keys were given to the other apostles (do not confuse the metaphor of the keys with the power of loosing and binding). You would relegate Jesus’s actions to nothing more than superficiality if you claim that there was nothing significant in his setting Peter apart. Jesus was conveying no less that Peter would be his steward/prime minister.

The literal interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is that Peter is the rock (I can’t understand how you can ignore the fact that Simon had his name changed) and only in a secondary/ spiritual sense is it his confession of faith. Either way, it is impossible to separate the confession from he who confessed it, i.e., Peter.

Yes, the Church did receive the (power of the) keys THROUGH PETER who received them from CHRIST, that is.

And it is THROUGH PETER (because of Jesus) that the keys (of right confession) are extended to the Church.