Papal Problems...:(

[Lazerlike42]

There you go again–projecting disbelief of the Holy Mysteries onto me. Please try to refrain from insulting people when you become frustrated. It is not a pleasant way to converse.

As you know, the Holy Orthodox Church recognizes the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church. When I read that Honorius is
anathematized as a heretic, I take it at face value. I see Roman Catholic apologists attempting to jump through theological and scholastic hoops in an attempt to deny the words of the Council—but you cannot! You attempt to force the Ultramontane innovation of infallibility onto the early Church–but it did not exist. Honorious is a thorn in your side because a heretic Pope crumbles the invented doctrine. Of course, without Honorius, I would still not accept the odd dogma.

He was declared a heretic and this was confirmed for hunfreds of years. It is something that you cannot sugarcoat. Sorry.

Mickey, I apologize if you have understood me to be accusing you of disbelieving the Sacred Mysteries. This was not my intention, in either this or the other thread.

What I have been putting forth is that the reasoning you are using to defend your view on the papacy is parallel to the reasoning that those who do deny the Mysteries use to do so.

Heretics cite Scripture passages in opposition to the Mysteries such as the Eucharist and Baptism, and when challenged with a greater context they assert that the passages speak for themselves. In your case, you are citing conciliar declarations in opposition to the papacy and when challenged with a greater context you assert that they speak for themselves.

Now when dealing with a Protestant who rejects Baptism, it is necessary to show him from the greater context of Scripture why the passage he cites does not mean what he thinks that it does. In the case of our discussions over the papacy, myself and others have tried to show from the greater context why the conciliar declarations you cite do not mean hat they think they do.

In such a discussion, it is the responsibility of the Protestant not to simply reassert the passage in question, but to address the context I have brought forth. In your case, if you want to defeat the argument I am making, you must address the context I have brought forth.

If indeed Honorius was condemned as a heretic, then the arguments I have made will prove to be fallacious. However, you must show why they are, rather than merely citing the declaration, because my arguments are designed to show the true meaning of the declaration.

Again, I am not here asserting that you hold to the views of the heretics. I am asserting that the arguments you are making are of the same falacious method that they employ.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Then you are out of touch with reality. That is unfortunate. But I guess that is what it would take for some one to leave Holy Mother Church, the Universal Ark of Salvation, for second best.

Go to the Fathers. since they are yours and ours. I would like to read writings of the Fathers about your churches the way they spoke about of the the catholic church of Rome.

:bowdown: :bowdown2:

 

[Lazerlike42]

This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenmical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries, Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists at Vatican I in 1870 would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope’s good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir’s, 1989), p. 353).

Do you also agree with John Meyendorff when he asserts that Eastern Orthodox attempts to dismiss a passage from Irenaeus are “just hypotheses, some plausible and others not?” (Primacy of Peter, 131)

Or, when he says that “It is true that other apostles, John, James and Paul, are also called ‘coryphaei’ and ‘primates,’ but Peter alone is the ‘rock of the Church.’ His primacy has therefore, not only a personal character, but bears an ecclisiological significance?” (Primacy of Peter, 74)

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Not one Orthodox disputes primacy…they dispute infallibility and supremacy.

Please don’t bait, baiters never win.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Please post writings of Our Fathers comenting about orthodox churches the way they spoke of the Church of Rome.

 

[Allyson]

what truth?
Like i said before, no one knows for sure how the Son appeared on the Creed,

Wisdomseeker,

Say What? I’m sorry but I don’t know what you mean??? Please explain for me since I don’t remember seeing this before!

God Bless,
R.

 

[Allyson]

Isn’t this really a moot point?

Let’s suppose we had a council of those Churches that currently recognized the Pope and the Eastern churches that currently did not, and they were going to definitively settle several issues, such as Filioque, or even Immaculate Conception.

Due to the number of Western participants, do you really think that the council would come up with something different than the Pope?

So, what those that reject the primacy of the pope are saying is that they wouldn’t accept the authority of a joint council as well…

Scott

Hello Scott,

I don’t think there is a moot point, because if all those Western Bishops value the reestablishment of communion and the Eastern Bishops do too, they will hammer an agreement out. The question really should be what will the people do??? Thems I’m not so sure about…

God willing, it will be done in spite of our human pride.

God Bless,
R.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Wisdomseeker,

Say What? I’m sorry but I don’t know what you mean??? Please explain for me since I don’t remember seeing this before!

God Bless,
R.

43​

 

[Allyson]

Yeah lets trust the East for truth when they fell into heresy over and over and over again.

I am sorry, but this is a little below the belt… Please try again.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hello Scott,

I don’t think there is a moot point, because if all those Western Bishops value the reestablishment of communion and the Eastern Bishops do too, they will hammer an agreement out. The question really should be what will the people do??? Thems I’m not so sure about…

God willing, it will be done in spite of our human pride.

God Bless,
R.

I am all for it.

 

[Allyson]

The argument that is implicit here is that during the time of Agatho Leo, and Gregory, the Western Church did recognize the universal authority of the pope, whereas the East did not. In other words, it was about the same as it is now. However, it was not until the 800s and 1000s that any schism came about from the situation. Why did the East “ignore” it for so long, then suddenly go into schism over the matter?

The Popes didn’t try to assert any immediate authority over the Eastern Patriarchs until the 800’s and 1000’s, and that did cause Schism. See the discussion in Byzantium and The Crusades, by Jonathan Harris; pp. 41-51 for a discussion of the Schism of 1054.

 

[Allyson]

if you want to protest against the Son of God on the creed go right ahead. i will not.

Umm, I would like to point out that NO ONE here has protested against the Son of God in the creed. What is at issue with the filioque is the procession of the Holy Spirit. Please, keep it strait.
God Bless

 

[ForeverAdam]

Why was Simon Bar-Jona singled out for his profession? Why was only his name changed to “Rock” (Cephas), and not the others who had professed faith in Christ? (And remember, his name was changed the very first time Jesus met him - three years before his profession at Caesarea- Philippi.)

I don’t know. It’s like asking why St. Paul was made the Apostle to the Gentiles or why St. James was the head of the first local Church. God gives his gifts and his callings as he chooses and they often remain a mystery. I do know, however, that when the Holy Fathers spoke of Matthew 16:18 that they emphasized a glorious confession of Faith made by the head of the apostles that strengthened the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth. Their words never wander onto things like the “first papal statement” or the Pope as the final arbiter of the truth. In fact, Matthew 16:18 makes them gush about the strength of the Church, not the strength of one Bishop.

Peter and his successors are to be the unique participators in the infallibility of the Rock, Christ Himself. And whosoever wishes to be one with Jesus Christ must join that divine society that is built upon the foundation the Savior Himself laid - Saint Peter.

In fact, it is reasonable to conclude that all the apostles were infallible in their post-Pentecostal mission, as such was needed in the founding of the Church. However, you’ve yet to prove that the early Church definitively believed that the apostolic infallibility of Peter was passed on to the Bishop of Rome. Several quotes from even Roman Catholic sources prove that this automatic infallibility is absent in the ordinary teaching (and the Pope making dogmas is an innovation of the 19th century) of the Roman Pontiff.

Infallibility: Testimony from the universal Church in post-apostolic times - The Bishop of Rome has always and everywhere been accepted as the final arbiter of the faith of Christians.

This would only be true if the Bishop of Rome could never fall into heresy. However, many quotes prove that this wasn’t even the understanding of Post-Schism Rome herself. It’s hard to be the final arbiter of the faith of Christians when the Pope, himself, can be revealed to have a defective faith. Only he who cannot err can be the final arbiter of Faith. Besides, if this is the role of the Papacy, St. Vincent of Lerins seems ignorant of it as he developed his “Vincentian Canon” on the basis of the authority of Holy Tradition, not the authority of the Pope (he doesn’t even mention the Pope). Likewise, no doctrinal crisis in the Church was resolved through the intervention of the Pope nor did anyone appeal to the Pope for a dogmatic refutation to heresy. Popes taught, other Bishops lauded them in high-sounding talk, but Ecumenical Councils made the dogmas and resolved the heresy. This is the historical record and it demands an explanation from Roman Catholics.

The exceptions here do indeed prove the rule. For up until the Greek schism (9th Century), there was no mass opposition to this tradition. Every one of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church during the past two thousands years of history, both in the East and the West, testified to the supreme doctrinal authority of the Roman bishop.

The Fathers of East and West praised the Popes in great language, just as we still do any worthy saint. However, there was no tradition that Popes couldn’t err or that the doctrine of the Church was automatically the doctrine of the Pope.

(cont . . .)

 

[ForeverAdam]

The first eight ecumenical councils, which were all held in the East, first received the approval of the Pope before their convocation, and, upon their conclusion, they all awaited his final determination of orthodoxy before their decrees could become binding upon the universal Church they represented.

The Roman Emperors (and one Empress) who convened these Councils seemed ignorant of the fact that the Popes had to approve their convocation. If they did acknowledge this right of the Pope it would seem that they would have made matters easier and let the Popes convene the Councils, themselves (instead of perpetually testing the Roman Pontiff’s patience by convoking them independently). Besides, at least one emperor, Marcian, convened a Council (the Council of Chalcedon) against the expressed desires of Pope Leo. This is an awfully brazen action for emperors who were good Christian monarchs and terribly spineless inaction for Roman Pontiffs who (we are told) held supreme power of ecumenical councils. Besides, it should be noted that the West was often the last part of the Church to confirm the council. Thus, while it would look like the West was giving its supreme approval to the ecumenical Council it was actually just functioning like any part of the Church, which, with all the other local Churches, had to give its approval to a council in order for it to be considered, ecumenical. The claim of Rome to be be the final arbiter of councils reminds one of the short boy on the playground always being chosen last for the baseball game but thinking that the players are only saving the best for last. In other words - wishful thinking.

The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869) taught that, “in the Apostolic See (Rome) the Catholic religion has ever been preserved free from stain.”

The Third Council of Constantinople (680) declared “Peter’s Apostolic Church has never departed from the way of truth into any error whatsoever.”

Compare this to the letter of Leo, Pope of Rome to Leo Augustus, Roman Emperor:

“For in your Majesties’ communications it is beyond doubt revealed what the Holy Spirit is working through you for the good of the whole Church… And hence, since I know you, venerable Prince, imbued as you are with the purest light of truth, waver in no part of the Faith, but with just and perfect judgment distinguish right from wrong and separate what is to be embraced from what is to be rejected, I beseech you not to think that my humility is to be blamed for want of competence, since my cautiousness is not only in the interest of the universal Church but also for the furtherance of your own glory… I am very confident of the piety of your heart in all things, and perceive that through the Spirit of God dwelling in you, you are sufficiently instructed, not can any error delude your faith" - Letter 162. Leo the Bishop of Rome to Leo Augustus, Roman Emperor.

Either be consistent and apply the inability to err to Roman Emperors or admit the Orthodox position that acclamations of the inability to err was a common way to laud the strong faith of certain individuals in the early Church and had/has no positive ecclesiological significance. Take your pick.

The bishops of the Council of Chalcedon (151), not far from Constantinople, responded to the reading of Pope Leo’s dogmatic Letter to his representative, Bishop Elavian, with the unanimous outburst of faith, “Peter hath spoken through the mouth of Leo.”

Aren’t you leaving out the context of this quote? I thought the context of the quote reads: “After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers.” The context shows that Cyril and Leo both taught the truth and because such unanimity of doctrine was showed, the anathema was given. This reflects collegial tradition not papal monarchy.

The Council of Ephesus (431) called Pope Celestine (422-432), “the guardian of the faith,” who teaches right doctrine, because he is the successor of Blessed Peter the Apostle, the head of the whole faith, and the head of the Apostles."

And the Kontakion of St. Photius the Great reads: “With garlands of chant let us crown the Church’s far-shining star, the God-inspired guide of the Orthodox, the divinely- sounded harp of the Spirit and steadfast adversary of heresy find let us cry to him: Rejoice, O most venerable Photius.” We don’t read this as saying that St. Photius the Great was the infallible Pope of the Orthodox because he is seen as “the God-inspired guide of the Orthodox.” By the same logic, neither should use see Pope Celestine as such because he is the “guardian of the faith” (a title neither more nor less than that given to St. Photius). And you cannot argue that Pope Celestine was infallible because of being the successor of Peter in the Roman See since you’ve yet to prove that the Fathers believed the apostolic infallibility of St. Peter (possessed equally by all the apostles, in any case) was transferred to the Bishop of Rome. You cannot use an opinion you’ve yet to prove.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Allyson]

It is clear that Honorius was condemned not as a heretic, but for negligently having used imprecise language and permitting heresy to spread.

But he was named as a heretic? even in the Pope Leo quote you gave? What kind of double speak are you attempting?

I said before in a previous post, to try to prove infallibility from this case is an exercise in anachronism. Please see my previous post for my full idea. I find the who case just a little trying either way.

I don’t mean to upset you by using the term “double speak,” but I found your comment to be just as mind twisting as all that.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Allyson]

Then you are out of touch with reality. That is unfortunate. But I guess that is what it would take for some one to leave Holy Mother Church, the Universal Ark of Salvation, for second best.

Gag me! We can never have unity with attitudes like this. Let’s all try for a little more understanding.

By the way, I don’t like this attitude from either side of the isle, I just see it more from the Catholics on this forum, which makes me - a Catholic - :crying: .

 

[wisdomseeker]

Umm, I would like to point out that NO ONE here has protested against the Son of God in the creed. What is at issue with the filioque is the procession of the Holy Spirit. Please, keep it strait.
God Bless

i believe the catholic church and eastern orthodox have solved this problem already.

 

[Allyson]

43​

Thanks, will look

 

[Allyson]

If indeed Honorius was condemned as a heretic, then the arguments I have made will prove to be fallacious. However, you must show why they are, rather than merely citing the declaration, because my arguments are designed to show the true meaning of the declaration.

???

So only you can reveal the meaning of all??? I am sorry, but why do you feel the need to make the council say what it does not say. It was interest of the Council to defend the faith and the Fathers did. No more, no less. If we need to make distinctions then…

Honorius was not what we call a formal heretic, because he was not corrected on his error in his lifetime, but he was a material heretic. He held a heretical belief, and his position was public knowledge. The Fathers of the Council felt it necessary to name him.

So why the need to nullify the meaning of the declaration? For that is what I believe you are attempting to do.

God Bless,
R.

Not to just throw quotes out there, but…

THE SENTENCE AGAINST THE MONOTHELITES.

SESSION XIII.

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. But the names of those men whose
doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of
God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal
city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of
Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this
God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore
sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed
Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-
preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded
contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected
to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the
holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old
Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all
respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have
also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time
Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it
in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and
with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as
orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and
have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of
the Holy Churches.

AND

[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]

…

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

BTW, the Monothelites thought he was their man:

[Answer of the Monothelites made at the Emperor’s bidding:]

We have brought out no new method of speech, but have taught whatever

we have received from the holy Ecumenical Synods, and from the holy
approved Fathers, as well as from the archbishops of this imperial city, to
wit: Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, as also from Honorius who was Pope
of Old Rome, and from Cyrus who was Pope of Alexandria, that is to say with
reference to will and operation, and so we have believed, and so we
believe, so we preach; and further we are ready to stand by, and defend
this faith.

Found at EWTN.

 

[ForeverAdam]

In the letter of Agatho to the third Council of Constantinople, he declared:

This letter was applauded, approved, and accepted by all those present, including the Eastern bishops - who I believe were a majority at this Council.

And the same Pope Agatho is credited with developing a Papal Coronation Oath that reads,

"***I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I*.

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it Ourselves or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture**."

This oath mentions the possibility of error (even excommunication) on the part of the Pope. This would hardly be mentioned if Pope Agatho didn’t think Popes could err. And even if this Oath were made centuries before Agatho, it would hardly have come to carry the namesake of the denier of one of its principal portions. I think you need a better interpretation of the letter from Agatho because it doesn’t fit well with other portions of the historical record. Correct conclusions come from working with all quotes, not only certain ones.

The Church teaches that the faithful are bound to submit the Pope when he teaches on matters of faith or morals regardless of whether he is speaking infallibly or not.

Then the Pope must be ensured that he will never err or else the faithful are bound to consent to err or at least make a lie out of the episcopal office by keeping heretics in their See. You need to refute the quotes I linked to in a previous post that state the clearly possibility of error on the part of the Roman Pontiff in order for this unconditional submission to be possible.

If he is wrong, it will at some time come to light through the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

Of course. The existence of Holy Orthodoxy is living proof of this principle.

This is one thing that the Orthodox are said to violate by Catholics.

What are we violating? If Popes can err they can be resisted. Until you prove that Popes cannot err, the only principle we could be violating is a command to be obedient or silent in the fact of heterodoxy - an unacceptable option.

The other way that such a chide might be against is the notion of schism. Schism is the refusal to obey the disciplinary authority of the pope, apart from any relevance to doctrine. The Orthodox reject this obedience.

There can be no obedience to heterodox prelates, including the Bishop of Rome (not to mention that the Bishop of Rome never had as much disciplinary authority that you make him out to have).

God bless,

Adam