Papal Problems...:(

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alexius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexius
I think his point is that at one time, the West and the East held the same teachings, those which the Orthodox still profess to maintain.

may I ask you what are these teachings?
 
wisdomseeker said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexius
I think his point is that at one time, the West and the East held the same teachings, those which the Orthodox still profess to maintain.

may I ask you what are these teachings?
Click to expand...
For one, “et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre procedit.”
 
Allyson said:
As a Catholic I take offense to the direction that this thread has taken. The list of heresies that seeks to show, as I read it, that the East has always been the problem child of the Church and unable to stay on the path of right doctrine. This is A) absurd and B), if I have read the intention correctly, in poor taste. The presence of more heresies in the East than West - if indeed there are more - was due to the fact that in the time in question, in general, there was more education (specifically Classical) available in the East than in the West {for example - the Academy was open until Justinian closed it I believe}, and with that more speculative thinking was present leading both to the development of heterodoxy and the orthodox responses to it. This is not really a bad thing.

Moving on…

The filioque was NOT an excuse for anyone to break away form anything. I am too tired to go into any details. This is an inaccurate statement which will never help to engender unity of communion!

BTW the list of heresies is a poor polemical tool that purposely seeks to distort history in favor of a skewed view of the Church. There have been plenty of heresies in the West, another poster noted the rise of Protestantism.

Also suggesting, as a blanket statement, that the Holy Patriarchs of the East were all power hungry is not a good apologetic tool, etc. They were are all human yes, but not all power seekers, so why pick about being human.

Side Point: Even if you hold to Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility, you must acknowledge the humanity of each man who is Pope. Being Pope does not come with some sort of supernatural perfection in EVERY THING that you do as Pope. Infallibility - as it has been defined - is very limited!!!

God Bless,
R.

I am tired, so I will return when I am fresher in mind.
Click to expand...
The list of heresies was NOT to show the East as a problem child. It was to show the necessity of being in communion with Rome. I’m not sure why you’d be offended, are you not Catholic??
It was to show that heresy was taught at the Patriarch level in the East many times. Heresy was not taught to the Faithful by any Pope. NO not Honorius either! That is the point. That is why the Fathers said to stick with the Chair of Peter in Rome. That’s not to say there was not heresies that cropped up in the West. That was NOT the point. Your seem to be pinning ever heresy that cropped up in the West on the Pope. Also, I NEVER said Popes were impeccable. Infallibility is very limited, as you said, and has kept Popes from teaching Heresy. What’s the problem? You won’t defend our Church but chastise me for doing so??
Why do you stay silent about the Orthodox that attack YOUR Church??
I will not feel guilty for defending Christ’s Church! Sorry.

Btw, are you suggesting Protestantism was also the result of a Pope teaching heresy from his office as successor to Peter? I’m not sure what it really has to do with the argument.
 
Mickey said:
Let the Council speak for itself.

“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.” (Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III, 680-681; Session XIII)
Click to expand...
Thank you for showing everyone that Honorius did not teach heresy to be held by all the Faithful from his office of Pope, but wrote only a letter to Sergius. 👍
 
Isa_Almisry said:
For one, “et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre procedit.”
Click to expand...
ok. reading the council on the Filioque, it says that no other creed is to be created. the catholic church did not created another creed. did she?
 
wisdomseeker said:
ok. reading the council on the Filioque, it says that no other creed is to be created. the catholic church did not created another creed. did she?
Click to expand...
She changed the meaning of that part of the creed from the meaning given by the Council in Constantinople.

John
 
prodromos said:
She changed the meaning of that part of the creed from the meaning given by the Council in Constantinople.

John
Click to expand...
she has not violated the council for she has not created another creed. arent we in danger here for putting the council desisions before the name of Jesus. to the point of separation of the church. wether it is right or wrong, i am on side line on this one. for i will not question who Jesus really is.
 
Originally Posted by Alexius
I think his point is that at one time, the West and the East held the same teachings, those which the Orthodox still profess to maintain.
Click to expand...
wisdomseeker said:
may I ask you what are these teachings?
Click to expand...
Isa_Almisry said:
For one, “et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre procedit.”
Click to expand...
wisdomseeker said:
ok. reading the council on the Filioque, it says that no other creed is to be created. the catholic church did not created another creed. did she?
Click to expand...
wisdomseeker said:
she has not violated the council for she has not created another creed.
Click to expand...
You seem to be answering your own question here.

Adding words changes the Creed. It is like adding words to the Bible.

Never to be done.
wisdomseeker said:
arent we in danger here for putting the council desisions before the name of Jesus.
Click to expand...
No.
 
The final (Roman) Catholic position of all the filioque arguments, as well as I can discern, is that the West is just expressing the same thing as the East, and Latin/Greek ambiguities are the root of the issue.
 
jam070406 said:
The list of heresies was NOT to show the East as a problem child. It was to show the necessity of being in communion with Rome. I’m not sure why you’d be offended, are you not Catholic??
It was to show that heresy was taught at the Patriarch level in the East many times. Heresy was not taught to the Faithful by any Pope. NO not Honorius either! That is the point. That is why the Fathers said to stick with the Chair of Peter in Rome. That’s not to say there was not heresies that cropped up in the West. That was NOT the point. Your seem to be pinning ever heresy that cropped up in the West on the Pope. Also, I NEVER said Popes were impeccable. Infallibility is very limited, as you said, and has kept Popes from teaching Heresy. What’s the problem? You won’t defend our Church but chastise me for doing so??
Why do you stay silent about the Orthodox that attack YOUR Church??
I will not feel guilty for defending Christ’s Church! Sorry.

Btw, are you suggesting Protestantism was also the result of a Pope teaching heresy from his office as successor to Peter? I’m not sure what it really has to do with the argument.
Click to expand...
Hello,

First, I never said that the Pope was responsible for any heresy in the West.

What I was doing was expressing frustration with the tone this thread has taken, of which, the list was an example. The list and the statistics following do very little to advance the cause of unity in the Church. I am sorry that it seemed that it seemed that I was chastising anyone. As I said, I found that the tone of the thread has gone south. I am not the only poster to have indicated such a sentiment.
Goth_Catholic said:
Okay guys, your going too far now. We’ve had popes who’ve been heretical and heresies are the great burden of the West, lest we forget that Protestantism was born in the bosom of the West.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a problem with defending the role of the Papacy. What I have a problem with is discussions which are not conducive to engendering unity in the Church. I would like to see the reestablishment of communion with all the Orthodox. A bold hope, I know.

God Bless,
R.
 
jam070406 said:
Thank you for showing everyone that Honorius did not teach heresy to be held by all the Faithful from his office of Pope, but wrote only a letter to Sergius. 👍
Click to expand...
Hmmm. One of your proof texts is about St. Peter confirming the brethren. Is this what you meant?
 
jam070406 said:
A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

Patriarchal See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy

Antioch Serapion 190-203 Docetic
Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius 341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius 342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul “the Black” c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite

Brief Summary:

These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642. At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate (277 years, or 53% from 190 to 715). Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively. Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least 42 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 190 and 711.
Click to expand...
BTW, What is your source (are your sources) for this list. I assumed that it comes from somewhere else, or that it is something you worked up long ago. Just wondering, because I like to follow paper trails. I am a nerd!

God Bless,
Rosemary
 
jam070406 said:
Thank you for showing everyone that Honorius did not teach heresy to be held by all the Faithful from his office of Pope, but wrote only a letter to Sergius. 👍
Click to expand...
**The Sixteenth Session of the Third Council of **Constantinople

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”
 
Hello Wisdomseeker,
I still would like to know where this quote is from and if you could a description of its original context.
Thanks and God Bless,
R.
wisdomseeker said:
"The patriarch often attempted to bolster his position in the universal Church to give himself more leverage in dealing with the emperor, and this usually brought him into conflict with Rome.

During the years of conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff remained firm, defending the Catholic faith against heresies and unruly or immoral secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor. The first conflict came when Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic as patriarch. Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.

Ironically, in the Church’s eighth-century struggle against the Iconoclastic heresy (which sought to eliminate all sacred images), it was the pope and the Western bishops mainly who fought for the Catholic practice of venerating icons, which is still very much a part of Orthodox liturgy and spirituality. The patriarch of Constantinople sided with the heretical, iconoclastic emperors."

the Filioque is not the real reason for the break of the Church.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top