Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Contarini]

Can you give a source for St. Maximus’s (a great defender of the papacy) comments

The citations I’ve found on the Internet reference this work:

Birchall, Christopher.
The Life of Our Holy Father Maximus the Confessor. Boston: Holy Transfiguration

Monastery, 1982. This

Life was translated from Russian and checked against the texts collected in

PG 90 and 91.

33 I think actually it uses volume 90 only. The texts flow into one another with little

indication of their source. The early part is a very brief paraphrase. Later parts, taken from

Relatio

Motionis

and Diputatio Bizyae, seem more exact, although they too include sections not found in the
Greek. But as far as I know, this is the closest thing in English to a translation of the Vita.

Unfortunately, I don’t have access to Migne right now.

I agree that this is not an ideal source. The paragraph above is taken from this excellent bibliography. If you look at p. 8 of the bibliography, which describes the *Relatio Motionis, *you will see that it is described as an eyewitness account of Maximus’s trial. Then look at the paragraph above–Birchall apparently relied closely on the Relatio. But this is a lot more indirect than I would like.

because it seems pretty odd considering that he did defend Pope Honorius during the Monothelite heresy?

It seems odd to you, not to me. Of course he would want to claim that Honorius was orthodox.

As for Pope St.Victor who guarded the faith from the Quatrodeciman heresy

Irenaeus didn’t think it was a heresy. Eusebius seemed to think that Irenaeus was right.

(by initiating many councils to denouce it until at Constantinople I it was universally condemned)

assuming that the Quartodecimans referred to at Constantinople 1 are the same as those spoken of in the second century, they were going against the consensus agreed on at 1 Nicea. So the situation was different.

the fact is that Eusebius reports Irenaeus citing Pope Anicetus for the legitimacy of the Quartodeciman practice as a local variation.

he was urged not forced by St. Irenaeus

How would Irenaeus force him to do anything? Eusebius says that Irenaeus rebuked Victor sharply.

not to excommunicate the Asian Church.

Apparently Irenaeus did not agree with you that it was heretical.

St. Augustine also had a high regard for the papacy, however, his disagreement with Pope St. Zosimus was on a superficial level in that the insincerity of Celestius and Pelagius led Pope St. Zosimus to believe (temporarily) that they were orthodox. This, of course, was later resolved by his eventual condemnation of said heretics, here is St. Augustine’s own words

Of course Augustine would put it in terms of the heretics deceiving the Pope, just as people claimed that Sergius had deceived Honorius. That’s the respectful way to refer to someone of great authority and prestige (I grant willingly that Rome had great authority and prestige from very early times). You assume that if they are wrong, it’s because they aren’t well-informed.

But at no point did any of these people show any signs of being willing to change their view if it turned out that Rome held a different position. Cyprian is an even better example of someone who used very strong language about Roman primacy and then stood up to the Pope when he thought he was wrong.

Find me Church Fathers who changed their minds just because Rome took a different view. You can find plenty of Catholics in more recent times who said things like, "I believe this, but if the Apostolic See says otherwise I will change my mind’; or, “I used to believe this, but the Apostolic See has ruled, so I must submit.” The Fathers didn’t talk that way. They defended what they believed to be orthodox. They were happy to get Rome on their side, and they consistently tried to minimize any disagreement between themselves and Rome. But the later conception of submitting will and intellect to the judgment of Rome did not exist–except insofar as Rome’s authority was invoked against views that the Fathers in question considered heretical anyway.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And the example(s) of this is where?

It’s all over. I know that’s frustrating, but just about any papal action demonstrates it.

Look for instance at Humanae Vitae. This is regardless of whether the position found there is right or wrong. The point is that the Pope issued the document on his own authority, and it’s binding on the whole Church, whether or not it’s infallible.

I know 500+ posts ago is a long time, and lots of water has gone under the bridge since then, but I gave you the following answer back on post #106 regarding Quartodecimans?

St. Irenæus, while condemning the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproaches Pope Victor (c. 189-99) with having excommunicated the Asiatics too precipitately

Where does Eusebius (or any other source of which you’re aware) say that his objection was to the Pope acting precipitately? You can read what Eusebius actually says here (chaps. 23-25). In fact, you could have looked it up for yourself before just dumping a standard bit of canned apologetics onto me.

and with not having followed the moderation of his predecessors. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the Holy Day of the Jews, the fourteenth of Nisan, which might occur on any day of the week. Those who kept Easter with the Jews were called Quartodecimans or terountes (observants); but even in the time of Pope Victor this usage hardly extended beyond the churches of Asia Minor. After the pope’s strong measures the Quartodecimans seem to have gradually dwindled away.

There’s no indication that the Pope’s actions had anything to do with it, since Irenaeus stopped him. Eusebius’s language is that the Pope attempted to cut them off. That implies that he couldn’t just do it on his own authority. Catholic apologists spin this desperately, of course.

Things don’t seem quite as you state them then or now…

Of course if you don’t bother looking at the sources for yourself, but rely on secondary sources that share your bias, you will always think that things are as you wish them to be.

Edwin

 

[PJM]

=josie L;6955954]There are three elements to the deposit of faith from my Catholic understanding, i.e., Scripture, Tradition, and the teachings of the magisterium (headed by the pope) via ecumenical councils, as such none of these components can conflict with one another (although Tradition includes Scripture, they are not one and the same). As to the determination of dogma, only bishops had the authority to development of doctrine via ecumenical councils, the laity did not have a say in this particular area, i.e., in the sense that they had no authority to determine dogma (in an informal manner perhaps but never that their say so depended upon the validity of the dogma in question), in fact, what validated all ecumenical decisions was the final consent of the bishop of Rome (please view the last page of “the Ratzinger Proposal” thread).

Not with respect to Catholic ecclesiology it doesn’t.

If by Western model you mean Protestantism, then you are correct.

Interesting dialog:thumbsup:

I might add that the laity influence is largely through Tradition in the past. But today laity have a much louder voice. For example look at the women now part of the Curia, and the voice they have in post Parish offcies.

 

[JohnVIII]

Birchall, Christopher.
The Life of Our Holy Father Maximus the Confessor. Boston: Holy Transfiguration

Monastery, 1982

I read this book when I was EO. I didn’t know then as I do now how bias it is. It’s amazing that so much could be found to write about Maximus the Confessor without any mention of how he trusted the Apostolic See! It even said at one point that the reason Maximus when to Rome was to try and make sure that Rome doesn’t fall into heresy like Constantinople did!

 

[Nine_Two]

It even said at one point that the reason Maximus when to Rome was to try and make sure that Rome doesn’t fall into heresy like Constantinople did!

Do you have a source on why he went to Rome, or are you dismissing this reasoning on the grounds that it leaves open the possibility Rome could go wrong?

And when I say why he went to Rome, I know he was fleeing, but why Rome? Why not take refuge in one of a million other cities?

 

[Contarini]

I read this book when I was EO. I didn’t know then as I do now how bias it is. It’s amazing that so much could be found to write about Maximus the Confessor without any mention of how he trusted the Apostolic See! !

John,

Thanks for that information. Do you have any reason to think that Birchall distorts through addition as well as through omission?

In other words, what we’re after here is the source for this commonly cited story about Maximus saying that he wouldn’t submit even if (hypothetically) Rome established communion with the Monothelites, and for the other quotation put in his mouth to the effect that the true Church was all those who hold the Orthodox Faith.

I can believe that a biased Orthodox author would play down Maximus’s views on the authority of Rome. But for the purposes of the present dispute, I’m interested in whether Birchall is likely to have fabricated the story.

Of course, since the Vita of Maximus was probably written several centuries later, it could have made up the story. I need to get a look at Migne at some point and see what the *Relatio Motionis says. *That would appear to be the relevant primary source.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

Do you have a source on why he went to Rome, or are you dismissing this reasoning on the grounds that it leaves open the possibility Rome could go wrong?

And when I say why he went to Rome, I know he was fleeing, but why Rome? Why not take refuge in one of a million other cities?

The West was not afflicted by Monthelitism (another reason to believe that Honorius was not a Monothelite), and perhaps St. Maximux wanted to make sure that it didn’t or wasn’t affected by Monothelitism.

 

[josie_L]

The West was not afflicted by Monthelitism (another reason to believe that Honorius was not a Monothelite), and perhaps St. Maximux wanted to make sure that it didn’t or wasn’t affected by Monothelitism.

I wanted to continue my post by relaying what I had read on a Orthodox website (of Australian origins) that St. Maximus went West to escape the heresies that were afflicting the East.

p.s. I will try to find that website again if I can (the one post in which I used it got deleted because the thread itself was deleted).

 

[josie_L]

Ok, I found this on an Orthodox Website highlighting why St. Maximus went to Rome:

In about 640, Maximus, still a simple monk (he was never ordained), began to take a public stand against the heretical compromise positions of the day: Monenergism and Monothelitism. In 645 in Carthage, he engaged in a famous debate with Pyrrhus, a Monothelite, who had been Patriarch of Constantinople but had been driven out after having taken the part of the losing side in a dynastic struggle. Maximus prevailed, and Pyrrhus was reconciled to the Church, received in Rome, and wrote a book confessing the true faith.

Maximus went to Rome in 646 bringing news of the condemnation of Monothelitism by several North African councils. As a result, Pope Theodore formally broke off communion with Paul, Patriarch of Constantinople. In 647, seeking to regain his lost patriarchal throne, Pyrrhus returned to Monothelitism and was excommunicated by Pope Theodore. The emperor Constans II tried to close the ongoing debate about Christ’s wills and energies by forbidding “any discussion of one will or one energy, two wills or two energies” in a decree known as the Typos.

Pope Theodore’s successor Pope Martin convened a council in 649 in Rome to affirm Orthodoxy against imperial heresy. Maximus attended along with 105 most western bishops. The council reaffirmed the doctrine of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon (Christ has two natures, human and divine, united in one person without confusion, without change, without division, without separation) and made explicit the doctrine of two energies and two wills in Christ as the necessary entailment of the doctrine of the two natures. The Typos and other compromise documents were condemned and a list of heretics anathematized. The emperor reacted by having Pope Martin secretly arrested in 653, tried on trumped up treasonous charges, mistreated, defrocked and sent into exile to Kherson in the Crimea, where he died in 655, a confessor of Orthodoxy.

Resistance to the heresy was now virtually reduced to one man, the monk Maximus. He was arrested in Rome in 655 and sent to Constantinople where he was accused of betraying Egypt to the Muslims and of theology error. Unable to prevail against Maximus’s defence, the Emperor had him banished to Bizye in Thrace. Some time later, the Emperor and Patriach made another attempt to win Maximus to their position, but he again prevailed. The Emperor was furious and had him brought back to Constantinople where he had another attempt made to bring Maximus into harmony with them. Failing, he had Maximus exiled a second time.

After five years in his second exile, Maximus and his two disciples were recalled to Constantinople. They were again tried and threatened, beaten and mocked, but they would not renounce the faith. Their persecutors in anger then cut out Maximus’s tongue and cut off his right hand to silence him and sent him off into his third exile to Lazica in Georgia, where he reposed in 662 at the age of 82.

Eighteen years later, the teaching for which he gave his life—the doctrine that the God-man Jesus Christ had two wills and energies to go with His two natures—was vindicated at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 680, though Maximus’s name was unmentioned in the official documents of the council.

stmaximus.org/who_is_st_maximus.html

 

[JohnVIII]

Do you have a source on why he went to Rome, or are you dismissing this reasoning on the grounds that it leaves open the possibility Rome could go wrong?

I have no source. I’d like to know the authors source for claiming Maximus entertained the idea that Rome could be wrong. Personally I’m not an absolutist; I do entertain the possibility that Rome might be wrong, although not likely, but I find it hard to believe that Maximus ever entertained such a thought.

I also don’t personally care much for Maximus. I’m ok with how he stood up for the supremacy of Rome, but he took such a hard stand against the Monophysite & Monothelite heresy that it overshadowed the correct orthodox Miaphysite & Miathelite view.

I don’t think St Maximus condemned the Miaphysite/Miathelite view but he also never tried to contrast it with the heretical version of Monophysite/Monophysite view.

The miaphysites focus on unity to the point of saying that there is one hypostasis, one nature, and one person. Hypostasis and nature are pretty much synonymous in their view. After the union there can be no division into two. The hypostasis in Christ is that of the Son of God and it took on human nature or a human hypostasis but this nature does not constitute a second nature in Christ.

Those who speak in terms of “two” do not thereby divide or separate. Those who speak in terms of “one” do not thereby commingle or confuse. Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute into the human nature, nor did the human nature transmute into the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to the Oneness of Nature.

As St Cyril of Alexandria taught:
“In his own will he became man, and without damage in any way he preserved the glory of his nature unchanged in himself, but took up manhood according to the economy. And he is understood one Son from two, a divine and human nature, which have run and come together to one, inexpressibly and in explicably composed to union, and in such a way that cannot be understood.” [St Cyril, Against Julian, quoted in H.S.M. p174]

Does the Lord Christ two wills and two actions, that is a Divine will and a human will, as well as two wills, that is, a divine will and a human will? I confess the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos, as St. Cyril called it, likewise I believe in One Will and One Act. Naturally, as long as we confess that this Nature is One, the Will and the Act must also each be one. As the proper name for an orthodox belief of One Nature is called “Miaphysite”, an orthodox belief in one composite will might be termed “Miathelite”. (Which, if this was in fact the view of Pope Honorius I (625-38) then he was not a heretic!).

I’m not trying to put St Cyril and St Maximus at odds with each other. Both held an orthodox view. But the extreme expression of Maximus in separating the human & divine natures in order to avoid the possibility that someone may confess one at the exclusion of the other led to an extreme expression later at Chalcedon and the division of the Catholic Church.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t think St Maximus condemned the Miaphysite/Miathelite view but he also never tried to contrast it with the heretical version of Monophysite/Monophysite view.

The miaphysites focus on unity to the point of saying that there is one hypostasis, one nature, and one person. Hypostasis and nature are pretty much synonymous in their view. After the union there can be no division into two. The hypostasis in Christ is that of the Son of God and it took on human nature or a human hypostasis but this nature does not constitute a second nature in Christ.

Those who speak in terms of “two” do not thereby divide or separate. Those who speak in terms of “one” do not thereby commingle or confuse. Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute into the human nature, nor did the human nature transmute into the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to the Oneness of Nature.

As St Cyril of Alexandria taught:
“In his own will he became man, and without damage in any way he preserved the glory of his nature unchanged in himself, but took up manhood according to the economy. And he is understood one Son from two, a divine and human nature, which have run and come together to one, inexpressibly and in explicably composed to union, and in such a way that cannot be understood.” [St Cyril, Against Julian, quoted in H.S.M. p174]

Does the Lord Christ two wills and two actions, that is a Divine will and a human will, as well as two wills, that is, a divine will and a human will? I confess the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos, as St. Cyril called it, likewise I believe in One Will and One Act. Naturally, as long as we confess that this Nature is One, the Will and the Act must also each be one. As the proper name for an orthodox belief of One Nature is called “Miaphysite”, an orthodox belief in one composite will might be termed “Miathelite”. (Which, if this was in fact the view of Pope Honorius I (625-38) then he was not a heretic!).

I’m not trying to put St Cyril and St Maximus at odds with each other. Both held an orthodox view. But the extreme expression of Maximus in separating the human & divine natures in order to avoid the possibility that someone may confess one at the exclusion of the other led to an extreme expression later at Chalcedon and the division of the Catholic Church.

John, in my opinion it was the Monophysites that brought about the divisions in the Church (although the Miaphysites were orthodox they too made much about words rather than theology). The Monophysites were wrong however because they denied the completeness of Christ’s human nature:

The Monothelite heresy is not in reality distinct from that of the Monophysites. The last few years have made us better acquainted with the writings of Timothy Ælurus, Severus of Antioch, and other Monophysites, and it is now plain that the chief points on which the various sections of Monophysites were agreed against Catholicism were the assertions that there is but one Will in the Incarnate Word, and that the operations (activities, energeiai) of Christ are not to be distinguished into two classes, the Divine and the human, but are to be considered as being the “theandric” (Divino-human) actions of the one Christ (see EUTYCHIANISM). Now these two formulæ, “one Will”, and “one theandric operation”, are characteristic of Monothelism. It was not perceived by the ancients that this Monothelism, when it arose, was no new heresy, but expressed the very essence of Monophysitism. This was because the war with the latter heresy had been a war of words. The Catholics, following St. Leo and the Council of Chalcedon, confessed two natures, physeis, in Christ, using the word nature to mean an essence without subject, i.e. as distinct from hypostasis; whereas the Monophysites, following St. Cyril, spoke of “one nature”, understanding the word of a subsistent nature or subject, and as equivalent to hypostasis. They consequently accused the Catholics of Nestorianism, and of teaching two Persons in Christ; while the Catholics supposed the Monophysites to hold that the human nature in Christ was so swallowed up in the Divine that it was non-existent. It does not appear that the Monophysite leaders really went so far as this; but they did undoubtedly diminish the completeness of the human nature of Christ, by referring both will and operation to the one Person and not to the two distinct natures. It followed that a human free will and a human power of action were wanting to Christ’s human nature. But this real error of the heretics was not clearly detected by many Catholic theologians, because they spent their force in attacking the imaginary error of denying all reality to the human nature. Our new knowledge of the Monophysite theology enables us to perceive why it was that Cyrus succeeded so easily in uniting the Monophysites to the Church: it was because his formula embodied their heresy, and because they had never held the error which he supposed they were renouncing. Both he and Sergius ought to have known better. But Sergius, at the end of his letter, gets very near to accuracy, when he says that “from one and the same Incarnate Word proceeds indivisibly every human and Divine operation”, for this does distinguish the human operations from the Divine operations, though it refers them rightly to a single subject; and Sergius proceeds to quote the famous words of St. Leo’s dogmatic letter to Flavian: “Agit utraque forma cum alterius communione quod proprium est”, which amount to a condemnation of “one energy”.

newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

 

[Nine_Two]

The West was not afflicted by Monthelitism (another reason to believe that Honorius was not a Monothelite), and perhaps St. Maximux wanted to make sure that it didn’t or wasn’t affected by Monothelitism.

So basically you’re saying the likely reason he went to Rome was for the exact reason the Orthodox writer proposed?

 

[Nine_Two]

I have no source. I’d like to know the authors source for claiming Maximus entertained the idea that Rome could be wrong. Personally I’m not an absolutist; I do entertain the possibility that Rome might be wrong, although not likely, but I find it hard to believe that Maximus ever entertained such a thought.

Wanting a source and accusing an author of unreasonable bias are two very different things.

I also don’t personally care much for Maximus. I’m ok with how he stood up for the supremacy of Rome, but he took such a hard stand against the Monophysite & Monothelite heresy that it overshadowed the correct orthodox Miaphysite & Miathelite view.

Monophysite and monothelite beliefs are two different things, by the way both the Catholic and Orthodox churches teach Dyophysitism.

 

[josie_L]

The citations I’ve found on the Internet reference this work:

Unfortunately, I don’t have access to Migne right now.

I agree that this is not an ideal source. The paragraph above is taken from this excellent bibliography. If you look at p. 8 of the bibliography, which describes the *Relatio Motionis, *you will see that it is described as an eyewitness account of Maximus’s trial. Then look at the paragraph above–Birchall apparently relied closely on the Relatio. But this is a lot more indirect than I would like.

If it’s not an ideal source than you should not have mentioned it as if it were, i.e., mentioning what you did without validating it first. Also, in a post I wrote directed to you (which you must have missed), I gave you a website where you could access Migne or the Fathers here: catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/

It seems odd to you, not to me. Of course he would want to claim that Honorius was orthodox.

Why would he want to claim Honorius was orthodox, i.e., it’s not like papal infallibility had been defined at this point?

Irenaeus didn’t think it was a heresy. Eusebius seemed to think that Irenaeus was right.

Irenaeus didn’t bellieve in the Quatrodeciman practice either, however, Pope Victor had the perspicacity to realize it was a heretical practice.

assuming that the Quartodecimans referred to at Constantinople 1 are the same as those spoken of in the second century, they were going against the consensus agreed on at 1 Nicea. So the situation was different.

I’m sorry you’re going to have to delineate here because I’m not sure what you’re refering to, i.e., the Quartodeciman practice which was denouced at Constantinople I was I believe no different than the one in the 2nd century. The fact that Quartodecimans do not exist any longer should be reason enough to believe that their practice was regarded as heretical, i.e…, it was a heretical practice much in the same way that Judaizers who still wished (and tried to enforce) to practice circumcision on Gentile Christians was heretical.

the fact is that Eusebius reports Irenaeus citing Pope Anicetus for the legitimacy of the Quartodeciman practice as a local variation.

Irenaues cites Pope Anicetus behaviour towards the Quartodecimans because he wished to convey to Pope St. Victor the need to avoid excommunication, i.e., he was hoping that Pope St. Victor would use other means (less severe than excommunication) by which to eliminate the Quartodeciman practice.

How would Irenaeus force him to do anything? Eusebius says that Irenaeus rebuked Victor sharply.

I think it was you who used the word “forced”, and if he rebuked Victor it would be for the reasons mentioned above.

Apparently Irenaeus did not agree with you that it was heretical.

Irenaeus did not see the practice as heretical (per se) but he did not abide by such practices either.

Of course Augustine would put it in terms of the heretics deceiving the Pope, just as people claimed that Sergius had deceived Honorius. That’s the respectful way to refer to someone of great authority and prestige (I grant willingly that Rome had great authority and prestige from very early times). You assume that if they are wrong, it’s because they aren’t well-informed.

Perhaps you didn’t read my article but they did in fact deceive Pope St. Zosimus.

LEFT]But at no point did any of these people show any signs of being willing to change their view if it turned out that Rome held a different position. Cyprian is an even better example of someone who used very strong language about Roman primacy and then stood up to the Pope when he thought he was wrong.

First, St. Cyprian did believe in the Roman primacy, second, his decision to rebaptize heretics (who were validly baptized in the Trinitarian form with water) was erroneous as Pope St. Stephen states when he refused to confirm the conciliar decision of the council of Carthage in 256 (which is what led to the altercation between St. Cyprian and the pope). Not to belabour the point much but Pope St. Stephen was safeguarding Tradition from innovations. Nevertheless, Edwin, it seems you think that every instance of defiance somehow means a denial of the Pope’s authority (or at least seems to put in question their authority), and I have to wonder about this because it’s quite clear from Scripture that even St. Paul, an apostle, had his authority questioned (heck he even exhorts St. Timothy that his authority would be questioned but to hold firm nevertheless).

 

[josie_L]

So basically you’re saying the likely reason he went to Rome was for the exact reason the Orthodox writer proposed?

Yeah, I made a mistake.

 

[josie_L]

The miaphysites focus on unity to the point of saying that there is one hypostasis, one nature, and one person. Hypostasis and nature are pretty much synonymous in their view. After the union there can be no division into two. The hypostasis in Christ is that of the Son of God and it took on human nature or a human hypostasis but this nature does not constitute a second nature in Christ.

Those who speak in terms of “two” do not thereby divide or separate. Those who speak in terms of “one” do not thereby commingle or confuse. Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute into the human nature, nor did the human nature transmute into the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to the Oneness of Nature.

As St Cyril of Alexandria taught:
“In his own will he became man, and without damage in any way he preserved the glory of his nature unchanged in himself, but took up manhood according to the economy. And he is understood one Son from two, a divine and human nature, which have run and come together to one, inexpressibly and in explicably composed to union, and in such a way that cannot be understood.” [St Cyril, Against Julian, quoted in H.S.M. p174]

Does the Lord Christ two wills and two actions, that is a Divine will and a human will, as well as two wills, that is, a divine will and a human will? I confess the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos, as St. Cyril called it, likewise I believe in One Will and One Act. Naturally, as long as we confess that this Nature is One, the Will and the Act must also each be one. As the proper name for an orthodox belief of One Nature is called “Miaphysite”, an orthodox belief in one composite will might be termed “Miathelite”. (Which, if this was in fact the view of Pope Honorius I (625-38) then he was not a heretic!).

I think for the understanding of those who are reading our posts we should delineate that they are two ways to understand the word “will” (and that operation is parallel to will):

The two wills

The Catholic doctrine is simple, at all events in its main lines. The faculty of willing is an integral part of human nature: therefore, our Lord had a human will, since He took a perfect human nature. His Divine will on the other hand is numerically one with that of the Father and the Holy Ghost. It is therefore necessary to acknowledge two wills in Christ.
But if the word will is taken to mean not the faculty but the decision taken by the will (the will willed, not the will willing), then it is true that the two wills always acted in harmony: there were two wills willing and two acts, but one object, one will willed; in the phrase of St. Maximus, there were duo thelemata though mia gnome. The word will is also used to mean not a decision of the will, but a mere velleity or wish, voluntas ut natura (thelesis) as opposed to voluntas ut ratio (boulesis). These are but two movements of the same faculty; both exist in Christ without any imperfection, and the natural movement of His human will is perfectly subject to its rational or free movement. Lastly, the sensitive appetite is also sometimes entitled will. It is an integral part of human nature, and therefore exists in the perfect human nature of Jesus Christ, but without any of the imperfection induced by original or actual sin: He can have no passions (in that sense of the word which implies a revolt against the reason), no concupiscence, no “will of the flesh”. Therefore this “lower will” is to be denied in Christ, in so far as it is called a will, because it resists the rational will (it was in this sense that Honorius was said by John IV to have denied that Christ had a lower will); but it is to be asserted in Him so far as it is called will, because it obeys the rational will, and so is voluntas per participationem: in fact in this latter sense the sensual appetite is less improperly called will in Christ than in us, for quo perfectior est volens, eo magis sensualitas in eo de voluntate habet. But the strict Sense of the word will (votuntas, thelema) is always the rational will, the free will. It is therefore correct to say that in Christ there are but two wills: the Divine will, which is the Divine nature, and the human rational will, which always acts in harmony with and in free subjection to the Divine will. The denial of more than one will in Christ by the heretics necessarily involved the incompleteness of His human nature. They confounded the will as faculty with the decision of the faculty. They argued that two wills must mean contrary wills, which shows that they could not conceive of two distinct faculties having the same object. Further, they saw rightly that the Divine will is the ultimate governing principle, to hegemonikon, but a free human will acting under its leadership seemed to them to be otiose. Yet this omission prevents our Lord’s actions from being free, from being human actions, from being meritorious, indeed makes His human nature nothing but an irrational, irresponsible instrument of the Divinity — a machine, of which the Divinity is the motive power. To Severus our Lord’s knowledge was similarly of one kind — He had only Divine knowledge and no human cognitive faculty. Such thoroughgoing conclusions were not contemplated by the inventors of Monothelitism, and Sergius merely denied two wills in order to assert that there was no repugnance in Christ’s human nature to the promptings of the Divine, and he certainly did not see the consequences of his own disastrous teaching.

newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm

 

[patricius79]

In my opinion the Ratzinger Proposal is the only course of action that has even the tiniest prayer of success. It requires both Churches to step back from their positions. I don’t know how likely it is that the Orthodox would ever stop regarding the second millennium developments as heretical but the course for the Catholic Church is much more difficult. The reason is it requires the Church to stop regarding as binding on all the faithful some of the basic (although later) dogmas of Catholicism. Since we haven’t formally defined any dogmas in the second millennium we don’t have that same issue.

In Christ
Joe

I don’t know. I do know that there are many on both sides with true faith and full devotion to Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit will find a way.

If I though the Orthodox position were more orthodox than the Catholic, and hence able to increase unity more, then I would become Orthodox.

I don’t see anything wrong with the Catholic understanding of the Papacy. But I don’t believe I have any superiority over the Orthodox either, and I don’t think Pope Benedict feels superior either.

In regard to the Trinity, I have learned about God through studying the Orthodox emphasis on the Father as the sole Personal cause of the Son and the Spirit, which is correct and beautiful.

 

[Hesychios]

I also don’t personally care much for Maximus. I’m ok with how he stood up for the supremacy of Rome, but he took such a hard stand against the Monophysite & Monothelite heresy that it overshadowed the correct orthodox Miaphysite & Miathelite view.

I don’t think St Maximus condemned the Miaphysite/Miathelite view but he also never tried to contrast it with the heretical version of Monophysite/Monophysite view.

Just curious John …

… are you still a miaphysite?

 

[JohnVIII]

JohnVIII;6995918:

I also don’t personally care much for Maximus. I’m ok with how he stood up for the supremacy of Rome, but he took such a hard stand against the Monophysite & Monothelite heresy that it overshadowed the correct orthodox Miaphysite & Miathelite view.

I don’t think St Maximus condemned the Miaphysite/Miathelite view but he also never tried to contrast it with the heretical version of Monophysite/Monophysite view.

Just curious John …

… are you still a miaphysite?

I just now see when you quoted me that I made a typo. I typed “…heretical version of Monophysite/Monophysite view”, I should have said “…heretical version of Monophysite/Monothelite view”.

Yes! I am Miaphysite and I am also Miathelite. This means that I do not confess that the divine nature is the one nature of Christ, nor that His human nature is the one nature of Christ, but rather that the one nature of Christ is a composite nature that is 100% human & 100% divine; but the 100% plus the other 100% do not equal 200%, they equal 100% still. But since there is but one composite nature, there too is but one composite will. A divine will and a human will that do not make up two wills, but rather one composite will that is 100% human will & 100% divine will that together do not make 200%, they make 100% still. The hypostatic union is just that a “union”, not a “harmony”.

Having said this though I can see the wisdom in the confession of Pope Leo saying that “in two natures” (as opposed to “from two natures”) Christ is both Man & God, but also adding that these two natures do not thereby divide or separate. The reason I say that it is wisdom is because there are some who try to confess this Maiphysite view but being unable to comprehend how only one nature could be both divine and human equally devolve into thinking the heresy that it really is the divine only at the exclusion of the human. A belief in two natures (as long as they also say that they do not divide nor separate) helps keep this heresy from accruing in some believers. And as long as either view holds that Christ is 100% human & 100% divine and is not divided nor separated, then either view is orthodox. I just wish that all the fuss about this in our history didn’t lead to so much division in the Church and bloodshed too!

 

[JohnVIII]

John,

Thanks for that information. Do you have any reason to think that Birchall distorts through addition as well as through omission? …I’m interested in whether Birchall is likely to have fabricated the story.

I really don’t know if Birchall fabricated anything or if he distorts via addition.

In other words, what we’re after here is the source for this commonly cited story about Maximus saying that he wouldn’t submit even if (hypothetically) Rome established communion with the Monothelites, and for the other quotation put in his mouth to the effect that the true Church was all those who hold the Orthodox Faith.

I wonder what St Maximus would do if he were around today! Right now Rome is in communion with Monothelites. Not the heretical sort of course, but I don’t know that St Maximus ever made the distinction. An agreement for communion was made a number of years ago between Rome and His Holiness Pope Shenouda. Pope Shenouda doesn’t even use the term “Miaphysite”, although that is what his faith is, but he just calls it “Monophysite”. And he has made it clear that just as there is one nature there must be but one will. As far as I know St Maximus never said that it was ok the believe in only one nature and/or one will so long as you confess that it is a composite nature & composite will. St Maximus said you must confess two natures & two wills, no exceptions. Does anyone think that if St Maximus was here now that he would at least do anything he could to try and get the Pope of Rome to break the communion agreement made with Pope Shenouda? And what if Rome would not, would St Maximus dare to call Rome semi-monophysites? You know, in spite of all the things St Maximus said in favor of the supremacy of Rome I bet you he would brake down and even dare to call Rome heretical! Of course we will never know.