Papal Problems...:(

[justasking4]

To your posts #'s 92, 93, 94, & 95

I refer you to your own post when you write (in blue)

Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed the Council’s condemnation and stated: (my comments in red)

"[Honorius] did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching." (10)
(Who was doing the profane teaching here? Not Honorious. He was silent on the matter. It was Sergius doing the teaching, and the others with him. Honorius didn’t condemn Sergius. And he was condemned for it)

"[Honorius did not] as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence." (11)
(Sergius was the source, but Honorius by his tolerance of him, didn’t condemn Sergius, which was negligence on Honorius part )

"…he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted." (17)
(Strangely, silence from Honorius was viewed as permission. )

The council did not say that Honorus taught, defined, or said this should be held as belief for the Church. That is fact. So infallibility was not the issue here. If Honorius defined, taught and said the Church must believe it, THEN you have a point.

The bottom line is that this pope was declared a heretic. Correct?

 

[guanophore]

The bottom line is that this pope was declared a heretic. Correct?

There is a difference between personal error, and teaching doctrinal error. Peter engaged in personal sin, and Paul rebuked him. Yet, when he spoke infallibly, no one questioned this at all at any time.

 

[Namesake]

Why is it so hard to think Christ left us a leader? When a group of people get together they always have a leader, one leader.

And that leader would be Christ.

 

[wisdomseeker]

And that leader would be Christ.

Yes, that is right. Christ is our leader. how do you know that?

:crying:

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
The bottom line is that this pope was declared a heretic. Correct?

guanophore
There is a difference between personal error, and teaching doctrinal error. Peter engaged in personal sin, and Paul rebuked him. Yet, when he spoke infallibly, no one questioned this at all at any time.

If this was just a “personal error” then why did later councils continue to condemn him?

 

[steve_b]

And that leader would be Christ.

True. And Sword Brethren forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif said Jesus made Peter the leader. Nothing trumps THAT!!!

 

[guanophore]

If this was just a “personal error” then why did later councils continue to condemn him?

Personal error of any person is damaging to the Body. When the bad behavior is in a bishop, it has far reaching effects. Such things should be condemned. Look at what the scandals in the priesthood have done to the Church! It is much more damaging than had it been done by layleaders.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

He disagreed with the decision, but he never questioned the authority for him to do it.

This conviently ignores that the context of St. Iranaeus’ words was that the whole Church had written letters rebuking Victor (the word of Eusebius, who states he read the letters). They made it quite clear, Victor was on his own.

Why would there be? It wasn’t disputed. But in the acts of the Councils, there were plenty of unchallenged speeches made that affirmed such authority–especially in relations to Sts. Celestine, Leo, and Agatho.

The dispute on canon 28 of Chalcedon would say otherwise.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Too long. Why don’t you sum it up for us. The canon seems clear enough to me. The jurisdiction of the pope of Rome is equated with the jurisdiction of the pope of Alexandria in the canon. Not one word in any Ecumenical Council regarding universal Roman jurisdiction.

Here is his main argument regarding the Canon 6 of Nicea:
Canon 6: Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.
That canon is to be understood like this (this is the heart of the article):
“Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern these provinces, because this is also the Roman Pontiff’s custom; that is, because the Roman Pontiff, prior to any synodical enactment, has repeatedly recognized the Alexandrian Bishop’s authority over this tract of country.”

This exposition is unpalatable to the adversaries of Roman supremacy; hence they offer us a different interpretation. They make (touto) refer to patriarchates in general and expound the sentence as follows: “Let Alexandria have jurisdiction over these provinces, because the Roman Bishop has also a Patriarchate.”

… … …I beg leave to suggest to those who still cling to the idea that in the clause, “Since this is also the Roman Bishop’s custom," the Council meant, "Since it is also the Roman Bishop’s custom to be a Patriarch,” that there is a grave difficulty inherent in this interpretation.
He says this line of thinking doesnt work for multiple reasons which he goes into.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Constantinople was a heavy influence on other Bishops, its own Patriarch was the leader in going after Rome. For anyone to think Constantinople was just another Bishop is a big mistake given the strong influence it held.
There does appear to be evidence that Pope Sylvester was behind Councils like Nicea, here are two pages which a Catholic Apologist made and he quotes Protestant historians who state that the Pope was elderly at that time and sent people as representatives:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/pope-silvester-and-council-of-nicaea.html
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/04/reply-to-james-white-on-council-of.html

A Bishop named Hosius of Cordova was one of the main leaders at the Council of Nicea, and according to these historians he was acting as the Pope’s representative. On top of that here is an interesting quote from that article above:

• Here is a quotation from Gelasius [of Cyzicus] the Eastern priest-historian writing about A.D. 475, stating explicitly that Hosius the bishop of Cordova was in effect a papal legate at the council of Nicea. So much for the notion that the popes did not preside at the earliest councils. The translation is mine; it’s fairly literal but functional, I hope:

Hosius himself, the famous Beacon of the Spaniards, held the place of Sylvester, bishop of great Rome, along with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincent, as they held council with the many [bishops].

• {Patrologia Graece 85:1229}

Im pretty sure “Patrologia Graece” is the collection of Greek Church Father writings…

The Church is superior because of its founders, the two most glorious Apostles, Saint Peter and Saint Paul. St Irenaeus was very clear on that, and you can bet the house that if Constantinople was founded by the two most glorious Apostles (or even any Apostle for that matter) that FACT would be trumpeted from the rooftops.

I disagree he is speaking of only the western region, for St Peter and Paul founded this Church and its Bishops was the only line of succession worthy of listing.

You can read the two articles I posted above, but yes there is support in council documents and other historical source that the Pope held the high authority. Even in canon 6 of Nicea which both sides appeal to, a fair look at the wording reveals that Rome was seen as the head. There was a huge thread on this Canon Six topic but I cant find it and I think it might have been wiped out when the forums were undergoing work, it linked to many good articles, but this article is all I could find at the moment.

Your aritcle commits a number of errors (for one thing, going into the Latin at all. Although read at the Councils for the benefit of those from the West, the Greek texts were the official ones).

For one thing, it fails to mention the canon that precedes c. 3 of Constantiople I:
The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

It is also wrong in its analysis of the status of c. 3, and c. 28 of Chalcedon: even Pope St. Leo writes (and complains) that the bishops under him in Illyrium accept and follow canon 28.

The borders of the patriarchs in the East, unlike Rome, had to be fixed. The canon on Jerusalem shows that: caught between Alexandria and Antioch, its status vis-a-vis St. Catherine’s is still in dispute. Further, Ephesus would have to take up the quesiton of Antioch and Cyprus, and again refer to the above canons.

Rome’s borders were fixed, as the Western Empire was her patrimony. Only when the border between the halves fluctuated in Illyrium did the issues arise about her borders.

Its boasting about Rome also shows its age: Rome might again be strong, but 400-1400, she was anything but. For part of that time, the Fathers could look “Romeward” and see no pope at all: he was off in Avignon.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You know, I think that we are all missing an important point. The Church does not define a dogma until there is a confilt over it. There is no need until it becomes an issue. If the early Church all followed the lead of the bishops working together with Rome, there is no need to define the role of the pope. Even with the divison of the east and west, there was not enough conflict. It was only after the Protestant reformation that you saw the need for more clearly defined authority. Take for example the Assumption of Mary. For centuries, Christians had no issue with it. Both the east and west hold the teaching in some way. Suddenly, there was a new thought that said that the Blessed Virgin was never assumed into heaven. Some even said that she could be in hell!!! The church had to respond.

those who denied it in 1950, were denying it in 1850, etc. There was no need to act.

And since the East denied the pope’s claims of authority, needless to say that Pastor Aeternus should have been issued in 1070, not 1870.

The more I study it, the more certain I am that Rome is correct. Why? There seems to be too much other evidence, not related to the early church per se. For example, take the Protestant Reformation. The Eastern Orthodox had a hard time refuting the claims. Why? The way they understand the faith is different in mindset. How could the universal church not deal with a problem within its people? Posters on this board have said as much. They simply could not understand the way the Protestants thought or the conclusions they came to, even though they were similar to earlier heresies in many cases. SO many of the early heresies started in the east and ended at Rome, unable to pass. It just seems right to me.

The Protestants are not from the Orthodox, but Rome. The same mindset. And the Protestants, 500 years later, are still around.

As for heresies beginning in the East, and ending in the West, none of the Ecumenical Councils was held in the East, and none were called by the Pope of Rome.

 

[VARC]

That canon is to be understood like this (this is the heart of the article):

“Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern these provinces, because this is also the Roman Pontiff’s custom; that is, because the Roman Pontiff, prior to any synodical enactment, has repeatedly recognized the Alexandrian Bishop’s authority over this tract of country.”

​

"

The Council of Nicea equated the jurisdiction of Rome with the jurisdiction of Alexandria. You say that Alexandria is permitted to govern its area because the of the Bishop of Rome’s conscent but that does not hold water. The Council NEVER appealed to the power of the bishop of Rome for its authority. All of the canons were binding on all the bishops of the church with no execption for the Roman bishop.

You (and you source) are reading the canons with a religious bias. Pope Sylvester wasn’t even there so they didn’t grant Alexandria her jurisdiction because the pope “repeatedly recognized the Alexandrian bishop’s authority” but rather the Council decided that since both Rome and Alexandria were Apostolic Sees then they should have the same regional authority. Cite the Nicean Council to prove your assertion that the canon (or any of the canons) are subject to and based on Roman authority.​

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This ECF quote is pre-schism and very direct.

St. Optatus of Milevis “The Schism of the Donatists” 367A.D.

You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas- of all the Apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do other Apostles proceed individually on their own; and anyone who would set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner…I but ask you to recall the origins of your chair, you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of Holy Church.

We’ve dealt with this before. Optatus can’t even get the list of Popes, whom he says is of utmost importance to recognize, right.
newadvent.org/cathen/11262b.htm

 

[anthony022071]

The Council NEVER appealed to the power of the bishop of Rome for its authority. All of the canons were binding on all the bishops of the church with no execption for the Roman bishop.

You (and you source) are reading the canons with a religious bias. Pope Sylvester wasn’t even there so they didn’t grant Alexandria her jurisdiction because the pope “repeatedly recognized the Alexandrian bishop’s authority” but rather the Council decided that since both Rome and Alexandria were Apostolic Sees then they should have the same regional authority. Cite the Nicean Council to prove your assertion that the canon (or any of the canons) are subject to and based on Roman authority.

vintage.aomin.org/bjoprem.html

< Pope Silvester was represented by two Roman priests, Victor and Vincent, and also by the Bishop of Cordova, Hosius. Both St. Athanasius and Theodoret confirm that Hosius was the president of the Council. In a list drawn in order of rank, the historian Socrates lists Hosius first of all bishops, before more eminent bishops. In fact, Hosius and the two priests signed the decrees first. After their signatures comes that of St. Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria. By right, no priest should have signed before any bishop. Neither did the bishop of Cordova, Spain have the right to sign before a Patriarch. The other Spanish bishops signed further down on the list, where Hosius would have, had he merely been representing himself, and not Pope Sylvester.

The synod was convened, according to the Sixth Ecumenical Council - Constantinople III - by Constantine and Pope Sylvester: “Arius arose as an adversary to the doctrine of the Trinity, Constantine and Silvester immediately assembled the great Synod at Nicea.”

According to Socrates, Pope Julius asserted that, “Ecclesiastical discipline prohibits that a decree be received by the Churches unless sanctioned by the Roman Church.” Pope Julius ruled the Church 11 years after the Council and was the Pope who affirmed Athanasius’ orthodoxy. Athanasius himself quotes this same pontiff rebuking the Eusebians for bypassing his authority (which he “received from the blessed Apostle Peter”) in condemning the church of the Alexandrians.

In Dionysius’ collection of the Acts of Nicea, he affirms that the Pope approved the Council: “And it pleased the council that all these things be send to the Bishop of Rome, Silvester.” >

The Byzantine-Slavonic Menaion, January 2:

“Father Sylvester…thou didst appear as a pillar of fire, snatching the faithful from the Egyptian error [the Arian heresy] and continually leading them with unerring teachings to divine light. … Thou hast shown thyself the supreme one of the Sacred Council, O initiator into the sacred mysteries, and hast illustrated the Throne of the Supreme One of the Disciples. … Endowed with the See of the leader of the apostles, you became an outstanding minister of God, enriching, establishing, and increasing the church with divine dogmas. You were the prince of the sacred council and you adorned the throne of the head of the disciples; like a divine prince over the holy Fathers you confirmed the most sacred dogma.”

 

[Alexius]

This is just so confusing. It is as though this one dogma rests on so little. I can grant the Pope a certain supremacy, but infallibility? I think it’s a stretch. I can’t believe one’s soul rests on whether or not Honorius actually declared his teaching or not…

 

[anthony022071]

This is just so confusing. It is as though this one dogma rests on so little. I can grant the Pope a certain supremacy, but infallibility? I think it’s a stretch. I can’t believe one’s soul rests on whether or not Honorius actually declared his teaching or not…

Papal supremacy is justified by papal infallibility. If the pope isn’t infallible in his teaching on faith and morals,and yet he is the supreme bishop,then he doesn’t have any more authority from Christ than any other bishop.

See posts 81,82,96,and 111.

 

[Alexius]

If Honorius was a heretic, then that means Rome did not recognize the council since its Pope was an apostate…Peter could not speak from the chair and declare the council because it condemned him, right?

 

[Mickey]

he doesn’t have any more authority from Christ than any other bishop.

Amen!

 

[Mickey]

The bottom line is that this pope was declared a heretic. Correct?

Yes.
Plain and simple.
The council speaks for itself.
Rome is forced to jump throgh hoops and engage in spin doctoring to explain this away.

The heretic Honorius has been a thorn in the side of the innovated doctrine of infallibility for a very long time.

 

[Mickey]

It didn’t take any work at all.

LOL. Look at the twisting that apologists must go through in an attempt to explain this away!

Honorius didn’t teach, define, nor tell the Church Universal to believe in monothelitism.

The council speaks for itself. He was condemned as a heretic!

Those are the essential ingredients to proclaiming faith and morals infallibly. If he did that with monothelitism, then you’d have a point.

The council speaks for itself.

But he didn’t.

He was condemned as a heretic.