Papal Primacy and the East

[jimmy]

did pope honorius declared a heresy? Nope he did not, He still the head of the church in his time. No worries, your loss.

He was condemned by an ecumenical council as a heretic. The bishops of Rome called him a heretic. The council called him ‘honorius the heretic’. Here is what Constantinople III says of Honorius,
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.

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
To Peter
To Macarius, the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen
To Polychronius
To Apergius of Perga
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema! …

The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity…

Therefore we declare that in him there are two natural wills and two natural operations, proceeding commonly and without division: but we cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous novelties as well as their inventors: to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius and Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter (who were archbishops of Constantinople), moreover Cyrus, who bore the priesthood of Alexandria, and with them Honorius, who was the ruler (proedron) of Rome, as he followed them in these things…

He was condemned as a heretic.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

He was condemned by an ecumenical council as a heretic.

Justly so?

THE TRUTH ABOUT POPE HONORIUS

 

[marlo]

he was condemed for the reason that he let the heresy to grow, but the Popes of Rome, maintained his Orthodoxy.

but if you check the documents now, it can be seen that the council did make a mistake.

Such as the council of chalcedon against dioscorus and the church of alexandria and antioch, on the “one incarnate” term and now that both catholic and oriental agreed that there was a mistake.

He was condemned by an ecumenical council as a heretic. The bishops of Rome called him a heretic. The council called him ‘honorius the heretic’. Here is what Constantinople III says of Honorius,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.

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
To Peter
To Macarius, the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen
To Polychronius
To Apergius of Perga
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema! …

The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity…

Therefore we declare that in him there are two natural wills and two natural operations, proceeding commonly and without division: but we cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous novelties as well as their inventors: to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius and Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter (who were archbishops of Constantinople), moreover Cyrus, who bore the priesthood of Alexandria, and with them Honorius, who was the ruler (proedron) of Rome, as he followed them in these things…

He was condemned as a heretic.

 

[jimmy]

Justly so?

THE TRUTH ABOUT POPE HONORIUS

It is a modern interpretation of Honorius which says it is unjust. But it is irrelevant. What this shows is that the pope of Rome is not supperior to the council in authority and that the rest of the Church(who were certainly orthodox in every sense of the word) did not view the bishop of Rome as impervious to error or heresy.

I find it strange that now you guys are claiming that an ecumenical council can be erroneous. Do you realize what this does to a council? It turns it into papal guidance rather than divine guidance. God does not guide the council, He only guides the pope to reject what is erroneous in a council. The popes rejected honorius as a heretic.
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.

He says one will but they interpret him as meaning two wills.

 

[marlo]

Nope sir, you’re certainly mistaken, it will take another Pope of Rome to assure the error made by another Pope of Rome, in this case, honorius, and not a council. The council might have found an error in him, but to approve that is by means of the Bishop of Rome, as he succeeded the prince of the Apostles.

Honorius did know Orthodoxy and certainly Orthodox indeed, however, we can say that because he did not want any conflict arising between the Monophysites, he wrote a very unclear letter or confused letter, subject to personal interpretation. in which cost him his responsibility of being the Head of the Church on earth, as if, he did not do his job correctly, and that is subject to of course, heresy, not of personal believe but failure to uphold and protect the Church in which his responsibility is to clear of all errors.

It is a modern interpretation of Honorius which says it is unjust. But it is irrelevant. What this shows is that the pope of Rome is not supperior to the council in authority and that the rest of the Church(who were certainly orthodox in every sense of the word) did not view the bishop of Rome as impervious to error or heresy.

I find it strange that now you guys are claiming that an ecumenical council can be erroneous. Do you realize what this does to a council? It turns it into papal guidance rather than divine guidance. God does not guide the council, He only guides the pope to reject what is erroneous in a council. The popes rejected honorius as a heretic. 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.

He says one will but they interpret him as meaning two wills.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

did pope honorius declared a heresy? Nope he did not, He still the head of the church in his time. No worries, your loss.

Yes, I think the Council definitely said we wanted to lose Honorius.

Your problem is with the Sixth Council, Pope Leo, and all those popes who anathematized Honorius upon their ascension.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Justly so?

THE TRUTH ABOUT POPE HONORIUS

So a thousand years latter we can judge better than the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Honorius’ contemporaries?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

he was condemed for the reason that he let the heresy to grow, but the Popes of Rome, maintained his Orthodoxy.

but if you check the documents now, it can be seen that the council did make a mistake.

Such as the council of chalcedon against dioscorus and the church of alexandria and antioch, on the “one incarnate” term and now that both catholic and oriental agreed that there was a mistake.

Then why didn’t Pope Leo say contradicitur, instead of anathema?

Note, they anathematized Honorius, not his writings.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Nope sir, you’re certainly mistaken, it will take another Pope of Rome to assure the error made by another Pope of Rome, in this case, honorius, and not a council. The council might have found an error in him, but to approve that is by means of the Bishop of Rome, as he succeeded the prince of the Apostles.

Honorius did know Orthodoxy and certainly Orthodox indeed, however, we can say that because he did not want any conflict arising between the Monophysites, he wrote a very unclear letter or confused letter, subject to personal interpretation. in which cost him his responsibility of being the Head of the Church on earth, as if, he did not do his job correctly, and that is subject to of course, heresy, not of personal believe but failure to uphold and protect the Church in which his responsibility is to clear of all errors.

Some confirmation of the brethren.

 

[jimmy]

Nope sir, you’re certainly mistaken, it will take another Pope of Rome to assure the error made by another Pope of Rome, in this case, honorius, and not a council. The council might have found an error in him, but to approve that is by means of the Bishop of Rome, as he succeeded the prince of the Apostles.

Honorius did know Orthodoxy and certainly Orthodox indeed, however, we can say that because he did not want any conflict arising between the Monophysites, he wrote a very unclear letter or confused letter, subject to personal interpretation. in which cost him his responsibility of being the Head of the Church on earth, as if, he did not do his job correctly, and that is subject to of course, heresy, not of personal believe but failure to uphold and protect the Church in which his responsibility is to clear of all errors.

The council is considered to be ecumenical and infallible. They had quite a bit of audacity if they really did not have the authority to condemn a pope. And these are the orthodox Catholic bishops.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

So a thousand years latter we can judge better than the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Honorius’ contemporaries?

Would that it were an article affirming your view, 1000 years later, Isa you would pounce on it like a hungry cat on a fat field mouse…

As enthusiasticly as certain apologists and polemicists want to point to this situation - a curious incident that conspiculously stands out, that has to be returned to regularly given its notable uniqueness… One wonders where are all the other examples. All things being equal, it is funny what a stunning exception this situation seems to be from the rule.

Isa if you want to, I would be happy to see this dicussed in Apologetics forum where it would be more appropriate betwen Catholics and non-Catholics. Since the ECF changed formats, this is, you will recall, a place for Eastern Catholics to discuss Eastern Christian issues with any wishing to ask about their particular churches. The issue of the papacy would fall under apologetics.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It is a modern interpretation of Honorius which says it is unjust. But it is irrelevant. What this shows is that the pope of Rome is not supperior to the council in authority and that the rest of the Church(who were certainly orthodox in every sense of the word) did not view the bishop of Rome as impervious to error or heresy.

That is a curious response - that our understanding in the article is a modern and curiously irrelevant. Yet you are comfortable using this singular episode to advance conciliarism.

 

[jimmy]

That is a curious response - that our understanding in the article is a modern and curiously irrelevant. Yet you are comfortable using this singular episode to advance conciliarism.

I think it is curious that you say that an ecumenical council was in error.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I think it is curious that you say that an ecumenical council was in error.

Presuming that was a legitimate canon. You shouldn’t think it all that curious - it should be obvious by now, I am not a proponent of concilarism (especially 7-only) as the singular guiding model as you seem to be.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Would that it were an article affirming your view, 1000 years later, Isa you would pounce on it like a hungry cat on a fat field mouse…

There are plenty of such articles. I don’t depend on them.

As enthusiasticly as certain apologists and polemicists want to point to this situation - a curious incident that conspiculously stands out, that has to be returned to regularly given its notable uniqueness… One wonders where are all the other examples.

There are plenty, it is just that the example of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo anathamatizing Honorius should be clear.

As you indicate that this not the place where to discuss it, well…

All things being equal, it is funny what a stunning exception this situation seems to be from the rule.

Not so exceptional.

Isa if you want to, I would be happy to see this dicussed in Apologetics forum where it would be more appropriate betwen Catholics and non-Catholics.

I remember a story in a paper about how Utah is the only place in the world where Jews are gentiles.

Feel free. There or Non Catholic religion. I spend more time there.

Since the ECF changed formats, this is, you will recall, a place for Eastern Catholics to discuss Eastern Christian issues with any wishing to ask about their particular churches. The issue of the papacy would fall under apologetics.

Given the OP was on the letter of a Pope to the ProtoMaronites, and the claim (how I got in) was the claim that they were in continoous communion with the Popes at Rome. And the fact is that Honorius was one of their Popes (at least some of them: anti-Maximus writings among the Maronites survive), and hence the post on the Maronite’s profession at your council of Florence. That’s an issue in a particular church’s history, and one that doesn’t have a corresponding Orthodox one (a loss I’m afraid on our side).

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I remember a story in a paper about how Utah is the only place in the world where Jews are gentiles.

Maybe you also recall the rules for this forum?

Isa I would welcome you to bring these claims up in the non-Catholics forum, the Utah forum, or apologetics. Please don’t insinuate your partisan thinking into this intra-Eastern Catholic discussion. It was made pretty clear immediately after the change-over to this new format what the purpose of it was.

 

[Ghosty]

What this shows is that the pope of Rome is not supperior to the council in authority

Actually it doesn’t show this. Honorius was convicted by a Council led by a later Pope, not in his own day. I say this simply as a point of historical fact, not to dismiss the gravity of a Council having to judge a previous Pope.

and that the rest of the Church (who were certainly orthodox in every sense of the word) did not view the bishop of Rome as impervious to error or heresy.

The Catholic Church doesn’t hold this view today, either. What the Catholic Church says is that the Pope can’t err in matters of Faith when speaking “ex cathedra” to/for the whole Church. The Pope can certainly be a heretic, even a public one, but since the Church can’t err, the one who can speak for the Church in certain (rare) circumstances can’t err at those times, either.

The case of Honorius simply doesn’t touch on Papal Infallibility at all, and therefore even the worst case scenario (a heretic really was the Pope of Rome) serves as no attack against the claims of the Catholic Church.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Maybe you also recall the rules for this forum?

Isa I would welcome you to bring these claims up in the non-Catholics forum, the Utah forum, or apologetics. Please don’t insinuate your partisan thinking into this intra-Eastern Catholic discussion. It was made pretty clear immediately after the change-over to this new format what the purpose of it was.

Done

 

[Isa_Almisry]

After viewing the debates on this subject I thought it might be useful to post documents about the Roman primacy as it relates to the Christian East.

The first entry is the correspondence between the monks of Syria Secunda and Pope St. Hormisdas in the early sixth century. The context is the severe persecution of the Orthodox during the period of the Henoticon of 482. Rome then acted to depose Acacius, the patriarch of Constantinople.

Persecution of the Orthodox continued throughout the East, but ended at Constantinople with the imposition of the formula of Pope Hormisdas in 519. This correspondence is between Pope Hormisdas and monks of Syria Secunda, of the Syro-Maronite tradition.

mari.org/JMS/october97/The_Correspondence_Between.htm

Up till now I have addressed only the global claims made here. Now the particulars:

About the details, however, the writings may instruct your blessedness, which were brought over by the venerable brothers, John and Sergius, whom we had sent to Constantinople, because we believed that revenge might take place for those things which had been committed. Yet he did not think them worth a word, but rather he expelled them with great mistreatment and he violently threatened those, who would present these (things). Therefore it is from here that we, perhaps (too) late, know that all the depravity and recklessness of such evil people, which is committed against the churches, is arranged through his incitation.

Why did they said them first to Constantinople, and only after rejection there, to Rome?

The Patriarch there btw, was Timothy I, who first ordered the recitation of the Creed at DL (which of course would later start the filioque controversy)

As to the claim that “Rome then acted to depose Acacius, the patriarch of Constantinople,” Acacius had been dead for years by then, a deposition of a diffrent sort. And when Rome did act, in 518-9, it was at the invitation of Patriarch John of Constantinople, and the Emperor Justin.

 

[jj2011]

As to the claim that “Rome then acted to depose Acacius, the patriarch of Constantinople,” Acacius had been dead for years by then, a deposition of a diffrent sort. And when Rome did act, in 518-9, it was at the invitation of Patriarch John of Constantinople, and the Emperor Justin.

The Henoticon was imposed in 482; Rome deposed and anathematized Acacius in 484. During this period the popes were being advised by John Talaia, Patriarch of Alexandria who had been ousted by the heretic Peter Mongus. Talaia appealed to Rome and wound up spending the rest of his life in Italy.

And when Rome did act, in 518-9, it was at the invitation of Patriarch John of Constantinople, and the Emperor Justin.

A few details are left here. When John II became patriarch, there were riots at the Divine Liturgy demanding that he restore the faith of Chalcedon and send synodical letters to Rome. Justin agreed to these demands, and the papal legates secured the signatures of the bishops and archimandrites for the formula of Pope Hormisdas. Part of this formula is that the bishops express their assent to the letters of Pope St. Leo. It’s all in the Collectio Avellana.