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

[humble_maid]

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

Please excuse me, but do you not have eyes to see with? It is plain as white and black that the pope was not a believer of this heresy. He did not speak ex-cathedra. Is there something you can’t grasp here!!!

 

[humble_maid]

To Mickey and all others who share his disdain of the CC,

The Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome according to the teachings of St. Irenaeus(2nd century Church Father)

Chapter III.-A Refutation of the Heretics, from the Fact That, in the Various Churches, a Perpetual Succession of Bishops Was Kept Up.

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(6) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and **their traditions **before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the **Church in Rome **despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles,

studylight.org/his/ad/ecf/ant/irenaeus/view.cgi?file=anf01-60.htm

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Mickey,

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

From the Council:

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.

Pope Honorius’ letter did not only allow a heresy to expand but itself indicated a following of the false teachings of the heretics. His letter was hurtful to the soul, not just ambivalent in regards to Monothelitism.

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.

newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

Pope Honorius followed Sergius’ view and confirmed his impious doctrines in all respects.

Can** in all respects** lend to a nuanced understanding of limited culpability?

Perhaps the best thing for Pope Honorius was that, like Origen, he was long dead before being condemned a heretic.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

From the Council:

As already stated, and confirmed by your quote from the Council — Honorius never taught monothelitism to the Church, and that was not what the Council condemned him for. They condemned him for what they found in a private letter to Sergius, which was interpreted by the Council to have lent support to Sergius’ doctrines.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[blazerdave]

Well from a newbie poster and maker of man-made Protestant divisions, may we and all Christ’s Church have peace during Lent!

 

[Mickey]

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

St Peter’s triple denialis aptly recorded. Christ knew that St Peter was going to deny Him three times.

Jesus simply said he would pray that Peter’s faith would not fail him

Of course.

St. Chrysostom had this to say about John 21:15-19

LOL! St John always has wonderful things to say about the mouthpiece of the apostles. The apostle St Peter is greatly venerated in the Holy Orthodox Church… But he is surely not saying that St Peter set the stage for the the supreme infallible Popes of Rome as is viewed today in modern day Roman Catholicism. You are reading your 19th century doctrine into the St John’s writings. :nope:

 

[Mickey]

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.

St James was the head of that council.

 

[Mickey]

Don’t you know that when the Sixth Ecumenical Council was first convened, Pope Honorius’ name was not on the original list of heretics?

He was declared a heretic–plain and simple. No spin doctoring can change that.

 

[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?

All the apostles held the keys and the power to loose and bind.

(do not confuse the metaphor of the keys with the power of loosing and binding).

There is no confusion. The power to loose and bind is connected with the keys. We are told that the apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church. You try so hard to justify the doctine of papal supremacy, that you do not see this.

(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 loved and set apart all his apostles. St John is constantly referred to as “the one whom Jesus loved”. Does that mean that he did not love the others? Of course not.

Either way, it is impossible to separate the confession from he who confessed it, i.e., Peter.

His confession is the rock. And St Peter is rock because of the confession. And as Origen says, if you and I confess Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God, then you and I are rock.

But it has nothing to do with the supremacy/infallible leader of the universal Church.

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

Thank you. Now you are beginning to see. All the apostles, all the Church, received the keys—through Christ!

 

[Mickey]

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?

It was inadvertant promotion!

 

[Mickey]

Please excuse me, but do you not have eyes to see with? It is plain as white and black that the pope was not a believer of this heresy. He did not speak ex-cathedra. Is there something you can’t grasp here!!!

Ex-cathedra was invented somewhere around the 19th century.

 

[Mickey]

To Mickey and all others who share his disdain of the CC,

How sad that you must insult us. I was RC for almost 40 years and Eastern Catholic for eight more before I converted to the Holy Orthodox Church. Our Churches share much theology. But we do not share in the 19th century doctrine of Papal supremacy/infallibility. That does not mean that we disdain your Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joe,

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?

Good question. The Catholic position is generally that Honorius did not in fact believe in the heresy, as testified by St. Maximus. Thus, he would not - and in fact did not - ever teach it. But his action - or inaction, as it were - did enough to allow the heresy to spread that the Council condemned him.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

He was declared a heretic–plain and simple. No spin doctoring can change that.

My point is that Honorius never taught Monothelitism to the Church. That is why the dogma of infallibility is not impugned. No amount of spin-doctoring from EO apologists can change that.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

My point is that Honorius never taught Monothelitism to the Church.

His letter and his actions and/or inaction promoted a heresy. He was condemned as heretic many times over. HE WAS A HERETIC!

---

It is humorous how you try to spin things to exonerate Honorius for the sake of a non-existent doctrine.

That is why the dogma of infallibility is not impugned.

You are retroactively reading the 19th century doctrine of infallibility back into history. Sorry–no bananas.

 

[mardukm]

His letter and his actions and/or inaction promoted a heresy. He was condemned as heretic many times over. HE WAS A HERETIC!

---

It is humorous how you try to spin things to exonerate Honorius for the sake of a non-existent doctrine.

What is humorous is that you keep bringing up this straw man. First of all, you fail to refute- because you can’t - the fact that Honorius never taught Monothelitism to the Church. Read the Council documents yourself. Honorius was condemned for what they found in his private letter to Sergius, not for publicly teaching heresy. Second, I have not denied that he was condemned a heretic by the Council, but no Council is infallible in their judgment on persons - only in doctrine. This is clearly evident by how the Fifth Ecum did a 180 on the persons of Ibas and Theodoret. I think there was a political element in the condemnation of Honorius. Whatever the case, he was clearly in a different class than the other heretics condemned by the Council.

You are retroactively reading the 19th century doctrine of infallibility back into history. Sorry–no bananas.

Then you should tell your fellow EO apologists to stop using the example of Honorius in their futile attempts to refute the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GodSaves]

One thing that I find an amazing proof of infalibilty is that for 2000 years of church history and over 250 popes, that the biggest critics of Papal Infalibilty can only find three writings by popes that SEEM to contradict the faith! Of those three, all of them are extremely arguable that they disprove papal infalibity as defined by Vatican I. If the papacy was not especially protected from error by the Holy Spirit, wouldn’t you expect to easily find hundreds of examples with the inumerable volumes of papal writings!

God bless us and lead us all to Divine truth.

 

[Mickey]

What is humorous is that you keep bringing up this straw man.

I figured the old strawman comment was approaching.
It is not a strawman, it is historical fact.

First of all, you fail to refute-

How is this for a refutation:

**The Sixteenth Session of the Council of **Constantinople

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

Read the Council documents yourself.

I have. He was condemned as a heretic.

Honorius was condemned for what they found in his private letter to Sergius, not for publicly teaching heresy.

His letter publically served as an example to the whole Church regarding the heresy that he embraced.

Second, I have not denied that he was condemned a heretic by the Council

Exactly!

I think there was a political element in the condemnation of Honorius. Whatever the case, he was clearly in a different class than the other heretics condemned by the Council.

You go from the inadvertant promotion to the ol’ conspiracy theory. Sheesh!

He was condemned as a heretic. Plain and simple.

Then you should tell your fellow EO apologists to stop using the example of Honorius in their futile attempts to refute the doctrine of papal infallibility.

We cite Honorius to show you that the Pope was never a supreme/infallible pontiff.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

St James was the head of that council.

]

Bravo; we agree; I should hope St.James was head of the council, Jerusalem being his Episcopate, and St. James being the host who’s community was infected with the Gentile/Jewish relation problem. Peter carried the “Infallible” teaching from God, so that after Peter spoke “infallibly” “all fell silent” and obeyed the teaching, to which St. James gave the dietary prescriptions for his community to follow. Peter’s infallibile teaching from heaven became “rock” which remained in all of the Catholic “universal” Church communities, not just Jerusalem. In fact Peter’s infallible teaching from Acts 15… remains today.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=mardukm;6362234]Dear brother Joe,

Good question. The Catholic position is generally that Honorius did not in fact believe in the heresy, as testified by St. Maximus. Thus, he would not - and in fact did not - ever teach it. But his action - or inaction, as it were - did enough to allow the heresy to spread that the Council condemned him.
Blessings,
Marduk

I believe you close the case here of Honorius, who is condemned 40 years later after his death. The condemnation comes later from the council so that this Eastern church heresy could never use Honorius “inaction to defeat it publicly” to have reason to spread this Eastern heresy. Thus the council defeated this heresy from spreading, once and for all by the condemnation of any supporters from both the East and West Church’s in any capacity.

As you stated eloquently, Honorius NEVER taught this heresy (Monotheism) in the Church but communicated the subject matter through letters. The councils and the Popes thereafter were wise in removing any alleged support for the heresy. All thou Honorius championed against heretics and heresy’s in the west that tried to creep in, Honorius braved the Catholic Church, were he is condemned from the council, because Honorius tip toed around the Eastern Emperor who was a supporter of the Heresy infecting the Eastern Church, and did not defeat the heretics and heresy as he did in the West.

As you stated, this action from the council has NOTHING to do with apostolic faith in “infallibility” from any capacity.

P.S what the heck is Papal “SUPREMECY INFALLIBLITY?” I have never heard of such a teaching? is this another invention from anti-popes? What is it?
Thank you for you posts, very solid