Papal Primacy and the East

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

In other words, Rome deposed no one.

I don’t have the time now, but Acacius consecrated the Patriarch of Antioch (not his prerogative) which Pope Simplicus went along with.

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.

Sorry, at the time I was trying to post, my connection was not up to speed, and now the boys and I are leaving for lunch.

Yes, the Faithful had no abandoned Chalcedon and forced the emperor and new patriarch to accept it. (That sensum fidelorum, can’t beat it. It operated after Florence too). John was going to write a full confession, but in the end just wrote an introduction to Pope Hormisdas letter, which he incorporated and signed.

 

[jj2011]

In other words, Rome deposed no one.

I’ll content myself here with letting everyone make up his own mind, provided that they understand what the bishops and archimandrites of the east signed in 519. This is my translation of the formula of Pope Hormisdas, taken directly from the Collectio Avellana:

The first salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith, and to deviate in no way from the tradition of the fathers. And because the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be set aside, which says: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” these things which have been said are proven by the course of events, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished…

Not wanting to fall away from this faith, and following the constitutions of the fathers in every respect, we anathematize all heresies, especially the heretic Nestorius, formerly bishop of the city of Constantinople, who was condemned at the Council of Ephesus by Celestine, pope of the city of Rome, and by the holy Cyril, bishop of Alexandria.

Along with him we anathematize Eutyches and Dioscorus of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy council of Chalcedon, which we follow and embrace. We anathematize with them Timothy the parricide [the Cat], surnamed Elurus, and his disciple and follower in all things, Peter [Mongus] of Alexandria. In like manner we condemn and anathematize Acacius, who was once bishop of the city of Constantinople, their accomplice and follower, and those who persevered in their communion, for anyone who embraces the communion of individuals receives a similar judgment at their condemnation. We also condemn Peter of Antioch [the Fuller], along with his followers…

Wherefore, as we have already said, following in all matters the Apostolic See and preaching all its constitutions, I hope that I may merit to be in one communion with you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which is the integral and true solidity of the Christian religion.

I also promise that during the celebration of the sacred mysteries, I will not recite the names of those who were separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who do not agree in every respect with the Apostolic See. This profession I have signed with my own hand, and offered it to you, Hormisdas, holy and venerable pope of the city of Rome. [CSEL 35: 520-22]

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’ll content myself here with letting everyone make up his own mind, provided that they understand what the bishops and archimandrites of the east signed in 519. This is my translation of the formula of Pope Hormisdas, taken directly from the Collectio Avellana:

The first salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith, and to deviate in no way from the tradition of the fathers. And because the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be set aside, which says: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” these things which have been said are proven by the course of events, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished…

Not wanting to fall away from this faith, and following the constitutions of the fathers in every respect, we anathematize all heresies, especially the heretic Nestorius, formerly bishop of the city of Constantinople, who was condemned at the Council of Ephesus by Celestine, pope of the city of Rome, and by the holy Cyril, bishop of Alexandria.

Along with him we anathematize Eutyches and Dioscorus of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy council of Chalcedon, which we follow and embrace. We anathematize with them Timothy the parricide [the Cat], surnamed Elurus, and his disciple and follower in all things, Peter [Mongus] of Alexandria. In like manner we condemn and anathematize Acacius, who was once bishop of the city of Constantinople, their accomplice and follower, and those who persevered in their communion, for anyone who embraces the communion of individuals receives a similar judgment at their condemnation. We also condemn Peter of Antioch [the Fuller], along with his followers…

Wherefore, as we have already said, following in all matters the Apostolic See and preaching all its constitutions, I hope that I may merit to be in one communion with you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which is the integral and true solidity of the Christian religion.

I also promise that during the celebration of the sacred mysteries, I will not recite the names of those who were separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who do not agree in every respect with the Apostolic See. This profession I have signed with my own hand, and offered it to you, Hormisdas, holy and venerable pope of the city of Rome. [CSEL 35: 520-22]

As I said, Patriarch John wrote an introduction:

The patriarch of Constantinople, John II of Cappadocia (518-20), signed only after affixing his own preamble to the text: “Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see.”

Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica, tore the Formula of Hormisdas in two in front of the people. He was brought to Constantinople for trial, exiled to Heraclea while his case was being considered, but then restored to his see in Thessalonica without ever signing the Formula. The emperor Justin wrote to Hormisdas that many found it difficult to sign the libellus: they “esteem life harder than death, if they should condemn those, when dead, whose life, when they were alive, was the glory of their people.” In reply, Pope Hormisdas urged the emperor to use force to compel them to sign.

According to Denny’s Papalism (referenced in Moss’s The Old Catholic Movement) the other patriarchates of the East refused to sign this statement, and were reconciled through a different agreement. Patriarch John was succeeded by Epiphanius in 520. Patriarch Epiphanius (520-35) wrote to the pope to explain that "very many of the holy bishops of Pontus and Asia and, above all, those referred to as of the Orient, found it to be difficult and even impossible to expunge the names of their former bishops … they were prepared to brave any danger rather than commit such a deed.” Pope Hormisdas wrote to Patriarch Epiphanius and gave him authority to act on his behalf in the East. In this letter, Hormisdas made restoration of communion dependent on agreeing to a declaration of faith that left unmentioned the claimed prerogatives of the bishop of Rome.
geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chron6.htm

 

[marlo]

its easy, because honorius did not perform him job as head of the church in which Leo did, nevertheless, honorius is still the head of the church on earth in this time as Pope.

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

Note, they anathematized Honorius, not his writings.

 

[marlo]

because they dont want to be like Honorius, but whatever you say, it always shows that it was viewed even in the East as proved by the OP that the Pope was the head of the church on earth.

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.

 

[kitkatty]

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.

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!

Important clarification and a good basis to the understanding of papal infallibility. Thanks Ghosty.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

because they dont want to be like Honorius, but whatever you say, it always shows that it was viewed even in the East as proved by the OP that the Pope was the head of the church on earth.

Then why, as I have already posted, did they go to Constantinople?

Or that they followed Honorius into heresy? good confirmation of the brethren.

I’m not quite sure from your syntax (I rush too) what you are saying: That the Sixth anathematized Honorius is proof that they saw him as head of the Church? They anathematized plenty of others, including the EP. Were they all heads of the Church too?

That the oath the popes took anathematizing Honorius at their ascension proves he was the head of the Church? That has nothing to do with the East. It is an internal Western patriarchate matter.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Should this thread simply be moved over to apologetics or non-Catholic forum.

Following the posts, I can’t see how it is specifically about Eastern Catholic churches at all.

 

[jj2011]

Should this thread simply be moved over to apologetics or non-Catholic forum.

Following the posts, I can’t see how it is specifically about Eastern Catholic churches at all.

Simple,

The thread was meant to be about historical facts. The existence of the formula of Pope Hormisdas, for example, is an historical fact just as the condemnation of Pope Honorius is a fact. Meyendorff talked about both in such works as Imperial Unity.

I think it is possible to separate factual posts from polemics, and I hope the mods will allow threads like this one to continue, without being hijacked.

 

[Claudius]

The history of the Popes is a very interesting read if you have the time. There were all kinds of Popes. Very Good and popular Popes and some very bad Popes. The Orthodox focus on this one Pope because one of the councils that they hold higher then the Bible supposidly condenms him. They don’t look at the history of the Popes to see that this one Pope was not the worst that we ever had. There is a very big difference between this one Pope and all of the bad Popes and what has happened to orthodoxy. The bad Popes may not have done their jobs right, and one was even kind of a serial killer if you believe some of what was written about him, but in all of that, Papal Primacy going all the way back to the very begining, no Pope, good or bad has ever changed the faith of the Church. The same can not be said of the eastern orthodox.

When we look at the various institutions of God’s Church, we see that humans of all walks of life fail and sin. How many patriarchs of orthodoxy were deposed as heretics by one council, synod or basilaios only to be put back into his job later when the political situation cooled off even though they still clung to heresy? How many times has the orthodox side had to edit the cannons of the councils to put them in line with this or that new faith or dogma that the orthodox believed in? How many time has orthodoxy had to drop entire councils by saying that they just weren’t ecumenical, not really even though for the previous 200 years there were held to be so? I know the answers to these questions and they are disturbing. I also know the answer to how many times the orthodox actually had to add, that is right people, ADD cannons to a council so as to try to make it look like their new heresy was what the orthodox had always believed but it is really a lie.

Every single truelly ecumenical council needed the approval of the Pope and the Pope had a line item veto on all the cannons comming from any council. He still does by the way. That one time when the orthodox added cannons to two councils that had closed many years earlier, they actually had to get permission from the Pope and the Pope refused but allowed the orthodox to follow the disciplinary rules only, and only if it was of the local church’s own choosing. Once the orthodox had gone too far down the road of heresy that reunion with Rome was just not practically possible anymore, they did even more tinkering with the cannons of the councils to put up a concrete wall to force themselves out of communion with God’s Church so much that they have to convert in order to get back in. This is not to even mention the great number of times that the muslims got hold of the cannons of the orthodox and started dictating what they should really have been. All in all, I would be surprised if half of the true cannons of the true ecumenical councils still held by Rome and the cannons of the orthodox were the same or even similar.

But, on the other hand, God can do all things. God brought the Berlin wall down and God can bring down the wall that seperates the orthodox from Christianity. There are some beliefs that they will have to give up, like divorce, and some new obligations they will have to live up to, like listening to the Pope and respecting the Pope by not refering to him as the Anti-Christ and Going to Liturgy on Sunday the way Christians are supposed to do.

I pray for unity with the orthodox everyday but it needs to be a real unity that truelly hold firm to the faith of the Holy Apostles who were taught by Jesus. We must follow the teachings of Jesus, believing that Jesus died for us and that is it is not enough. Surely the orthodox can understand that.

 

[theweeper]

Thank God for Ghosty. i was beginning to get very depressed reading this thread. i did notice not one of the “big” posters responded to Ghosty. it seems some very intelligent people sometimes miss the simplest of points.
also, ISA
i laughed so hard when i read this i almost fell out of my chair:
I remember a story in a paper about how Utah is the only place in the world where Jews are gentiles.
i dont know about these other folks but you are most definitely not in Utah with me.

 

[Alexios]

I was about to say!

Thank goodness Ghosty came in; I was planning to say the exact same thing just now.

Let’s assume that Isa Almisry et al. are completely right: Pope Honorius was a heretic, plain and simple, and was condemned for being so by future Popes and Ecumenical Councils.

So what? This causes no problem at all for the Catholic Church, and there are differing (legitimate) views in the Church concerning Honorius’ orthodoxy. It matters not a wit whether he was or wasn’t because he didn’t declare any heterodoxy ex cathedra.

The entire debate is rendered moot. I just don’t see what all the fuss is about.