Papal Problems...:(

[Alexius]

There is evidence, for this & others - but, it is so tangled, that people can look at the same facts & connections between them, & come to different conclusions.## See above

I think that best sums up the issue. It is so difficult to decide who is right and who is wrong–both positions have merit…

Thank you to everyone so far. Of course, my brain is spinning in circles (literally–I have a bad headache from all the thinking), but I’m sure the benefits outweigh the pain…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[SiempreFiel]

Ask a dozen catholics which teachings of the pope are infallible and you’ll get a dozen different lists.

And your point is…

What good is infallibility if nobody can infallibly discern which teachings are infallible?

You are mistaken! The pope can infallibly declare which teachings are infallible!!!

 

[swariffin]

Alexius, you are proceeding from a very flawed understanding of the Pope’s role and authority. The magisterial authority of the Church is held by the College of Bishops with the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) at its head. The ecumenical councils are the full exercise of that shared magisterial authority.

Paul

Dear Paul,

You are correct. No problem with the Pope. The problem is in Alexius himself. If he would like to know something about the pope, he should not based his research from the non Catholic sources. It will be the same as learning Islam based on the bible or the vice versa.

 

[Alexius]

Dear Paul,

You are correct. No problem with the Pope. The problem is in Alexius himself. If he would like to know something about the pope, he should not based his research from the non Catholic sources. It will be the same as learning Islam based on the bible or the vice versa.

I am not basing my questions on any type of non-Catholic source, unless Vatican I and II are non-Catholic and the Church Fathers were not either (the latter is more possible).

PS. I studied Islam and the source was always the Qur’an interpreted by the apologists and Islamic scholars, so I do go to the source–why else would I ask other Catholics?

 

[Alexius]

Alexius, you are proceeding from a very flawed understanding of the Pope’s role and authority. The magisterial authority of the Church is held by the College of Bishops with the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) at its head. The ecumenical councils are the full exercise of that shared magisterial authority.

Paul

It does seem; however, that the shared authority is almost non-existent because of Papal Infallibility. The declarations of Vatican I and II are clear in stating that the Pope is infallible and binding in decisions in and of himself (that is, the Office of Petrine Authority). He need not receive consent from the whole Church in order to bind something on them.

Not to be a pain, but what I see so far is individuals seeking the Pope’s decision, not out of necessity, but out of recognition of Rome’s constant defense of orthodoxy. I will examine these issues more closely when I get a chance, however. I do seek to come to an understanding of this. I’m not asking questions to argue and debate or simply act sincere while being polemical–I really am sincere in my questions…Thanks again.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alexius,

It does seem; however, that the shared authority is almost non-existent because of Papal Infallibility. The declarations of Vatican I and II are clear in stating that the Pope is infallible and binding in decisions in and of himself (that is, the Office of Petrine Authority). He need not receive consent from the whole Church in order to bind something on them.

Not to be a pain, but what I see so far is individuals seeking the Pope’s decision, not out of necessity, but out of recognition of Rome’s constant defense of orthodoxy. I will examine these issues more closely when I get a chance, however. I do seek to come to an understanding of this. I’m not asking questions to argue and debate or simply act sincere while being polemical–I really am sincere in my questions…Thanks again.

I can see your sincerity, brother. Your questions will bear fruit.

I hope you trust me when I say that I have been where you are, having been foremerly an Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome.

You seem to have several misconceptions about the papacy, according to your first paragraph. Here are some things you may want to consider:

1. The Pope ALWAYS acts, and HAS ALWAYS acted collegially (though not always in a Council). You will not find one doctrinal pronouncement of the Pope in history that has not been enacted in concert with his brother bishops (though some may have been enacted with SOME opposition).
2. EVERY public doctrinal teaching of the Pope in history has been demonstrated to be the TRUTH, with or without initial opposition or conciliar approval- from Pope St. Victor regarding the rebaptism controversy to Pope St. Leo’s Tome, and beyond (if you can name just one, with satisfactory explanation, I will admit the dogma of papal infallibility is false).
3. Does the Truth require the consent of the many to be the Truth? THAT is the purpose of the decree that the Pope’s ex cathedra pronouncement does not need the consent of the rest of the Church. Your concern does not even touch upon the true intent of the dogmatic statement - it is not about the Pope’s authority to demand adherence to the Truth (in which case the Church’s consent would come into play); rather, it is about the very nature of the Pope’s statements AS Truth, being the mouthpiece of God in those unique instances. As noted in #2 above, history has proven this to be the case (unless, as requested, you can show me even one instance where a public teaching of the Pope has been demonstrated to be doctrinally false or heterodox).

Also, you might recall an old thread (that has thankfully been reposted) I started called “Papal Prerogatives” which discusses exactly what the Papacy is all about, and what the Vatican Council Fathers intended in their pronouncements. Here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185817&highlight=Papal+prerogatives

There is also a current thread on the papacy in the ECF called “Papacy vis a vis the Ecumenical Council” which might help you out (I have not had time to respond to the most current set of posts, but I will within the end of the week).

Thank you for your honesty.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alexius,

For instance, even after the schism, there are Ecumenical Councils. With the declaration of Papal Infallibility, it seems there is no need for councils anymore. On top of that, there is no way of questioning the Pope after such a decision.

You just need to look at the documents of Church history to understand what the Catholic Church teaches about the papacy. A council will be necessary when a Council will be necessary. In fact, it is not always necessary, just as it is not always necessary for the Pope to exercise his unique prerogatives. I believe your question can be answered by Apostolic Canon 34 which gives the very reason why a head bishops needs the consent of his brother bishops for his enactments:
But neither let him who is first do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.
Thus it is established by the divine Apostolic Canons that the consent of ALL the bishops is necessary, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING TRUTH, BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING UNITY. This ties in with my previous post regarding the true intent of the Vatican decree that the teaching of the Pope ex cathedra does not need the consent of the Church - that is, it is a statement on the nature of the Truth which comes from the Chair of Peter, not on the authority of the Pope to make that Truth acceptable to the entire Church. Remember that when our first Pope St. Peter proclaimed the revelation that the Gentiles should be accepted into the Church, he was ALONE in his belief. But he did not need the consent of the rest of the Church for his teaching to be TRUE. However, for the sake of unanimity, the consent of the Church would be needed.

Further, there are such declarations like the one which states that only the Pope may canonize saints. On a side note, where does beatification come from?

Brother, where in the world did you get this idea? Every bishop and Patriarch can canonize saints. It is simply that they do so ONLY within their jurisdiction (because the cult of the saints is primarily a local phenomenon). What the Pope can do singularly is to declare the cult of a particular Saint as UNIVERSAL.

I would not have such problems if there were evidence of a Pope who spoke an infallible doctrine in the early church, but it seems on the other hand that Popes often made errors.

Give me just one public teaching error made by the Pope in the united Church of the first millenium. Yes, the Popes sometimes made errors in judging who or who is not a heretic, or on some matter of discpline. But never has a Pope made an error in doctrinal error. Please tell us where you have gotten that perception - what proof from the Fathers do you have?

Lastly, where was the Pope at so many of the Ecumenical Councils?

This has already been answered sufficiently. I don’t know how it could possibly even be asked.

Even more importantly, where was his sticker of approval? It seems that the only binding authority for a council was the decision of the bishops as a whole. Where has that gone?

A body of bishops cannot act without its head. This is what the divinely established Apostolic Canon 34 teaches; its opposite is called the heresy of conciliarism. And, as mentioned, the purpose of a council (as a body of bishops with its head bishop, Ecumenical or local) is to establish unanimity/unity in the Faith. That has always existed in the Catholic Church. The Pope cannot establish unity without his brother bishops.

1. Where is the proof for Papal Infallibility?

Already answered by someone else. Further, please refer to my previous post - show me a public teaching of the Pope that has been in error or heterodox.

1. Where and when did a Pope speak ex cathedra?

The criteria is established. You can investigate the issue yourself and come to a decision.

1. What statements in the early Church were ex cathedra and which were not?

The Pope has always acted collegially, even when enacting ex cathedra statements. I believe it is hard to distinguish between an ex cathedra statement and a dogmatic statement made in council. For example, Pope St. Leo’s Tome can be taken to be ex cathedra, but he expected it to be promoted in a conciliar setting. In the end, what is the point of your question?

1. Why did the Pope seemingly reserve the authority to declare saints to himself when it was traditionally left to synods?

Already answered above.

1. Where was the Pope during the first Ecumenical Councils and where was his approval?

Already answered by someone else.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother VARC

That is a classic argument from silence.

This seems like a classic case of evasion. Brother Genesis315 gave you three examples, yet you do not address them, and instead provide this evasive rejoinder.
Further, as is typical of Orthodox polemics, you have tried to restrict your evidence (or rather your lack of it) to the Nicene Council. But there are two very powerful canonical proofs for the prerogatives of the Pope in the 4th century:

1. the canons of the Council of Sardica, which obtained approval from the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, grants the bishop of Rome UNIVERSAL APPELLATE AUTHORITY to hear cases from bishops throughout the Church, East and West.
2. The Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople verified the Roman prerogative. Canon 3 of Constantinople sought to grant Constantinople the prerogative of honor after Rome. But we see from Canon 28 of Chalcedon the true extent of this “prerogative of honor.” It was meant to grant the bishop of Constantinople the same kind of prerogatives the bishop of Rome possessed (and it was not just “honor”). These prerogatives included the authority to JUDGE ON MATTERS OUTSIDE OF ONE’S IMMEDIATE PATRIARCHAL JURISDICTION, and to CONSECRATE BISHOPS OUTSIDE OF ONE’S IMMEDIATE PATRIARCHAL JURISDICTION.
   Remember that despite the seeming grandeur of the bishop of Constantinople’s prerogatives, IT WAS ALWAYS AND EVER SECOND TO THAT OF THE BISHOP OF ROME.

I hope these facts help you out.

The canons do speak of the jurisdiction of the pope of Rome. They say that the pope of Alexandria has the same powers of the pope of Rome in his jurisdiction.

The key here is your phrase “IN HIS JURISDICTION.” Yes, the Canon is establishing the jurisdictional prerogatives of the PATRIARCHS.

Brother, the argument from silence is ALL yours. Your polemic is, “Because it does NOT mention papal universal jurisdiction, then the latter must be false.” I’m not making this up. The fallacy is in your very next paragraph!

VARC:

Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis are in the jurisdiction of Alexandria just as Rome has jurisdiction over the Italian peninsula and the west. There is no mention whatsoever of universal Roman papal jurisdiction; only regional jurisdiction like the pope of alexandria.

The best Roman Catholics can come up with is isolated quotes from the Fathers that are often taken out of context and contadicted.

Haven’t seen any evidence from you.

The highest authority in the pre-schism Catholic Church was an Ecumenical Council. Not the pope of Rome and not individual church Fathers.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches - the Supreme authority is the body of bishops in union with its head bishop, whether in the solemn setting of an Ecumenical Council, or spread throughout the world. The problem with your statement is that 1) it misrepresents the Catholic teaching; 2) it is not patristic, in violation of apostolic canon 34, and the teaching of many of the Ecumenical Councils and individual Church Fathers that the Bishop of Rome is the head bishop.

So I ask again. Is there any undeniable proof for papal supremacy in the Ecumenical Councils? The answer is no. The idea of a Council necessarily excludes the idea of a supreme infallible bishop with universal immediate jurisdiction. If such an office existed, there would have been no such need for Councils only papal decisions. That is why many catholics believed that Vatican I should have been the last council. They are now obsolete.

Please read my previous post to brother Alexius. It addresses your concerns.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Give me just one public teaching error made by the Pope in the united Church of the first millenium.

Liberius– signed a heretical semi-Arian profession of faith at Sirmium in 357.

Zosimus– recognized heretical statements of Pelagius.

Vigilus– refused to uphold the Church teaching that Chirst had two wills.

Boniface IV– strong tendencies toward Nestorianism

Honorius I --"[Honorius] is shown to be incapable of enlightening this Apostolic Church by the doctrine of Apostolic Tradition, in that he allowed its immaculate faith to be blemished by a sacrilegious betrayal".
(Pope St Leo II)

 

[mardukm]

Liberius– signed a heretical semi-Arian profession of faith at Sirmium in 357.

All reputable Church historians agree he was under duress. That’s no proof.

Zosimus– recognized heretical statements of Pelagius.

All historical records from the African Church recognize that Pope St. Zozimus was misled by Celestius as to his actual beliefs. That’s no proof.

Vigilus– refused to uphold the Church teaching that Chirst had two wills.

That’s not true. What he did is refuse to condemn certain persons and writings which the Councils of Chalcedon (apparently) did not condemn. He was wholly orthodox during the entire episode, as even the Fifth Ecumenical Council admitted. Have you had a chance to read the Sentence of that Council? They appeal to Pope Vigilius by name as siding with them.
No proof - once again.

Boniface IV– strong tendencies toward Nestorianism

That’s a new one. He was charged for having Nestorian tendencies BECAUSE HE DEFENDED THE CONDEMNATION OF THE THREE CHAPTERS. Mmmm. I guess that means the Fifith Ecumenical Council also had Nestorian tendencies.
No proof - once again.

Honorius I --"[Honorius]
is shown to be incapable of enlightening this Apostolic Church by the doctrine of Apostolic Tradition, in that he allowed its immaculate faith to be blemished by a sacrilegious betrayal".
(Pope St Leo II)

And this answers my question how? Show us all here who are ignorant of Eastern Orthodox polemic history the times and places when Pope Honorius publicly taught the monothelite heresy. No proof - once again.

So much for EOPU education. Nice try, though. Any other supposed proof?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

All reputable Church historians agree he was under duress.

Duress?
He also excommunicated St. Athanasius, who was courageously defending the orthodox Catholic faith.

All historical records from the African Church recognize that Pope St. Zozimus was misled by Celestius as to his actual beliefs

Misled?

That’s not true.

Hmmm? If I’m not mistaken, he did not condemn the monophysite heresy either. Pelagius attacked him and charged him with heresy. Vigilus excommunicated him. But Pelagius succeeded him and fell into similar habits.

That’s a new one.

St. Columbanus wrote to the pope vehemently reprimanding him for his heretical tendencies (Epistula V), called upon the pope to prove his orthodoxy and to call a council to clarify the doctrinal confusions that the pope had created.

Show us all here who are ignorant of Eastern Orthodox polemic history the times and places when Pope Honorius publicly taught the monothelite heresy.

Honorius is the most difficult for you to defend. Pope St Leo’s writings should suffice.

I do not need to show you anything. You will not accept it. You do a fine enough job promulgating your own style of triumphalism, legalistic justifications, and polemics.

So much for EOPU education.

More insults. Is this all you have left, brother?

Nice try, though.

Thank you.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

I can see that you have graduated from EOPU like brother Isa, but have not taken Humor 101 like he did.

Re Pope St. Liberius:

Duress?

Here is what is missing from your EOPU textbooks:
The emperor Constantius sent the eunuch Eusebius to Rome in order to induce Liberius through fair or foul means to approve of Athanasius and to recognize Arianism. The eunuch offered sumptuous gifts in St. Peter’s which were refused by an indignant Liberius. Every attempt having failed, Constantius had him arrested and brought to his court in Milan. This was done at night because Liberius was loved by the people, and a revolt by the Romans was to be avoided at all costs. [After further efforts to sway St. Liberius failed, he] was sent to Berea in Thrace under the surveillance of an Arian bishop. Claudio Rendina, The Popes - Histories and Secrets, 48-49. (The book is a critical look at the papacy from a political perspective)
Here is a quote from St. Athanasius that is also missing from your EOPU textbooks: “Liberius has become weak and has signed through the fear of death that threatened him.”

He also excommunicated St. Athanasius, who was courageously defending the orthodox Catholic faith.

And so was Pope St. Liberius, who, upon return to his See after having been forced to submit to an ambiguous creed during an Arian council, immediately repudiated what he was forced to sign under duress.:clapping:

So much for your “proof” #1.

Re Pope St. Zosimus

Misled?

Some more missing facts from your EOPU textbooks, from St. Augustine himself, detailing how Coelestius was able to temporarily mislead the Pope on what he believed:
The accused man [Coelestius] did not dare to hold out against the letter of the blessed Pope Innocent; indeed he went so far as to “promise that he would condemn all the points which the Apostolic See condemned.” Thus the man was treated with gentle remedies…

And again:
For although Pelagius deceived the Council in Palestine, seemingly clearing himself before it, he entirely failed in imposing on the Church at Rome, although he went so far as to make the attempt. For the most blessed Pope Zosimus recollected what his predecessor had thought of these very proceedings…

I would rather listen to St. Augustine’s account of the matter rather than your teachers at EOPU. So much for “proof” #2.

Re Pope Vigilius

Hmmm? If I’m not mistaken, he did not condemn the monophysite heresy either. Pelagius attacked him and charged him with heresy. Vigilus excommunicated him. But Pelagius succeeded him and fell into similar habits.

Yes, you are mistaken on two points. Pope Vigilius always explicitly condemned monophysitism. The very rationale behind Pope Vigilius’ stance was a defense of Chalcedon, which indeed did NOT condemn Ibas or Theodoret (and condemning the Three Chapters would have done what the Council did not do). In truth, Pope Vigilius’ position AND the condemnation of the Three Chapters were BOTH ultimately trying to defend Chalcedon, but in different ways.

Pelagius was in the same position. He did not want to condemn the Three Chapters in defense of Chalcedon, so when Pope Vigilius condemned them with the Fifth Council, he assumed (mistakenly) that Pope Vigilius was repudiating Chalcedon. But when Pelagius became Pope, he realized as well that condemning the Three Chapters was actually a defense of Chalcedon, which is what he (and Vigilius) were eager to do all along.

So much for “proof” #3.

Re Pope St. Boniface IV

St. Columbanus wrote to the pope vehemently reprimanding him for his heretical tendencies (Epistula V), called upon the pope to prove his orthodoxy and to call a council to clarify the doctrinal confusions that the pope had created.

Brother, you’re just digging yourself further down a hole. Yes, as ALREADY stated, this “heretical tendency” was his rejection of the Three Chapters. I guess your teachers at EOPU did not tell you that for a while, some parts of the Western Patriarchate did not accept the papal condemnation of the Three Chapters. St. Columbanus was one of those who did not accept that condemnation - though he did it innocently, at the urging of the Western emperor, without understanding what the controversy was about.

Your teachers at EOPU are teaching with forked tongue. Do they condemn the Three Chapters? Do they side with the 5th Ecumenical Council? If they do, why do they attempt to condemn Pope St. Boniface?

So much for “proof” #4

Re Pope Honorius

Honorius is the most difficult for you to defend. Pope St Leo’s writings should suffice.

Oh. Is THAT why you just avoided answering my question? Sorry, you’ll have to point out to me exactly where it is stated that Pope Honorius publicly taught monothelitism. You know you cannot.
So much for “proof” #5

You do a fine enough job promulgating your own style of triumphalism, legalistic justifications, and polemics.

It’s just the truth and historical facts brother. My mention of EOPU is my sincere and jocular way of not blaming you for these lies and half-truths coming from you, assuming it is something you have heard/read from EO polemic sources. I am, however, disappointed that you did not bother investigating the original sources yourself to test the truth of what the EO sources are spouting. I am happy that you are in a place where you are spiritually fed, but you shouldn’t have to justify your move to Eastern Orthodoxy with lies and half-truths. I really expected better of you, broter Mickey.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I can see that you have graduated from EOPU like brother Isa

Repeating the same insults do not enhance your credibility.

“Liberius has become weak and has signed through the fear of death that threatened him.”

By his own admission (Letter “Studens Paci”), Liberius signed an heretical semi-Arian profession of faith at Sirmium in 357, during the period of the Arian heresy in the Church. He also
excommunicated St. Athanasius, who was courageously defending the orthodox Catholic faith. Liberius also signed, in December 359, when he was under pressure at
the hands of the Emperor, who was holding him prisoner at Byzantium, a semi-Arian formula that had already been accepted by all the (heretic) Eastern bishops, 160 in number, meeting at Seleucia, and by 400 (heretic) Western bishops, at Rimini – by all of them except St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, and a tiny handful of others, whom Liberius went so far as to condemn and
excommunicate.
These facts are attested to by St. Athanasius (History of the Arians, sec. 41; Apologia against the Arians, sec. 89), St. Hilary of Potiers (Historical Fragments, Ad Constantium), and St. Jerome (Chronicle), who wrote: “Liberius, conquered by the tedium of exile, WITH HERETICAL PERVERSITY, signed [the profession of semi-Arian faith] and entered into Rome
as a conqueror.” Neither St. Athanasius nor St. Hilary had any problem resisting the heretical politics of Pope Liberius.

I would rather listen to St. Augustine’s account of the matter rather than your teachers at EOPU. So much for “proof” #2.

Pope Zosimus, in the presence of the Roman clergy, recognized as orthodox the heretical statements of Pelagius, which had been condemned by Pope Innocent I and the two Councils of Carthage.

Pelagianism, which denied the doctrine of Original Sin and man’s need for grace, was a virulent heresy of the time, against which St. Augustine wrote numerous tracts (The Remission of Sins and the Baptism of Children, The Spirit and the Letter, Letter to Hilary, Nature and Grace, Perfect Justice, The Acts of Pelagius, The Grace of Christ, and Original Sin).

The pope condemned those who held the orthodox Catholic faith as calumniators (Letter “Postquam nobis,” November 21, 417; Letter “Magnum pondus”) and demanded a formal retraction from the orthodox African bishops, St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Aurelius of Carthage.

In response, St. Augustine and St. Aurelian took a solemn oath with God as witness (obtestatio), affirming that the prior Catholic doctrine prevailed over the judgment of the pope, which was upheld by a plenary council of all Africa assembled. Confronted with resistance to his part in perpetuating heresy, Pope Zosimus finally recanted and renewed the excommunication of the heretic Pelagius.

 

[Mickey]

So much for “proof” #3.

Vigilius became to all appearances a supporter of heresy when, in 553, he refused to uphold firmly the Church’s teaching that Christ had two Wills, against “Monothelism.” He did not condemn either this or the older Monophysite heresy. The Roman deacon Pelagius attacked Vigilius on this account and charged him with heresy, for which he was excommunicated by
Vigilius. It was Pelagius, however, who succeeded him as pope, only to fall into similar habits of temporizing and diplomatic duplicity as his predecessor!

The Emperor Justianian had called a kangaroo council to rescind the condemnation of the heresy of monophysitism, a heresy that denied the two natures, human and divine, of Christ. Pope Vigilius, who wished to return to Rome from exile, in a decree, or Iudicatum, recanted his former orthodox Catholic position, condemned the orthodox decree of the Council of Chalcedon
(451), and excommunicated the bishop-authors of that decree (the so-called Three Chapters of Theodoret).

As a result of this action, he was excommunicated for heresy by an African Council and forced to annul the Iudicatum, although he continued to support it privately in correspondence with the emperor. The Fifth Oecumenical Council at Constantinople (553) excommunicated Pope Vigilius, and the next year he recanted again, saying that he had been
deceived by the devil.

Having thus succumbed to public and personal heresy, Pope Virgilus died before he reached Rome. His heresy had a great repercussion on the Church of the time. In the West, it even caused a schism in northern Italy.

 

[Mickey]

So much for “proof” #4

Hey, you said it–heretical tendencies.

 

[Mickey]

Oh. Is THAT why you just avoided answering my question?

Finally, the Third Oecumenical Council of Constantinople (680-681) condemned the heresy of monothelitism and condemned and excommunicated Pope Honorius (after his death) as a heretic, as did Pope St. Leo II, who followed the Council, in these words:

"Having found that [Honorius’s letters] are in complete disagreement with the Apostolic dogmata and the definitions of the Holy Councils, and of all the approved Fathers; and that, on the contrary, they lead to the false doctrines of the heretics, we absolutely reject and condemn them as being poisonous to souls.

“We also state that Honorius, formerly pope of the elder Rome, had been also rejected from God’s Holy Catholic Church and is being anathematized, on account of the writings that he sent to Sergius, where he adopted his ideas in everything, and reaffirmed his impious principles. He is shown to be incapable of enlightening this Apostolic Church by the doctrine of Apostolic Tradition, in that he allowed its immaculate faith to be blemished by a sacrilegious betrayal.”

We could probably focus soley on Honorius as a prime example of a heretic pope. I have seen many threads on this. The Latin side must jump through hoops and retroactively apply conditions of ex-cathedra statements as set forth in the innovated doctrine of infallibility in an attempt to justify this anathematized pope. I suppose you could start another Honorius thread.

But it would not help your case very much.

 

[Mickey]

My mention of EOPU is my sincere and jocular way of not blaming you for these lies and half-truths coming from you, assuming it is something you have heard/read from EO polemic sources.

Yes. I see that you fling this insult often when you become perturbed. It proves nothing except your level of frustration.

I am, however, disappointed that you did not bother investigating the original sources yourself to test the truth of what the EO sources are spouting.

The truth, as set forth through Roman Catholic colored glasses is not impressive to me.

I am happy that you are in a place where you are spiritually fed, but you shouldn’t have to justify your move to Eastern Orthodoxy with lies and half-truths.

In kind, I am happy that you are at peace. But you do not need to justify your move to the Roman Church by attempting to discredit Holy Orthodoxy. Your polemics (RCPU) are subtle and you attempt to cover them with explanations of jocular levity. But I can read between the lines just fine. The lies and half-truths are spouting from your keyboard. I must defend Holy Orthodoxy. So if you stop your attacks, we will be just fine.

 

[Mickey]

Re Pope St. Boniface IV

I have just recently begun reading about St Boniface and the three chapters. My material was neither RC or Orthodox.

My apologies to St Boniface.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Repeating the same insults do not enhance your credibility.

They’re not insults, but you can choose to view them as such if it makes you feel better. I sincerely do not want to blame you for the lies you are repeating. If you do not want to accept that, what can I do?

By his own admission (Letter “Studens Paci”), Liberius signed an heretical semi-Arian profession of faith at Sirmium in 357, during the period of the Arian heresy in the Church. He alsoexcommunicated St. Athanasius, who was courageously defending the orthodox Catholic faith. Liberius also signed, in December 359, when he was under pressure at the hands of the Emperor, who was holding him prisoner at Byzantium, a semi-Arian formula-- whom Liberius went so far as to condemn and excommunicate. These facts are attested to by St. Athanasius (History of the Arians, sec. 41; Apologia against the Arians, sec. 89), St. Hilary of Potiers (Historical Fragments, Ad Constantium), and St. Jerome (Chronicle), who wrote: “Liberius, conquered by the tedium of exile, WITH HERETICAL PERVERSITY, signed [the profession of semi-Arian faith] and entered into Romeas a conqueror.” Neither St. Athanasius nor St. Hilary had any problem resisting the heretical politics of Pope Liberius.

So now you FINALLY admit that the Pope was under duress. But I see you still refuse to look at the primary sources, and instead are merely content in repeating the lies and half truths of your polemic teachers. Here is what St. Athanasius caused to be transcribed in defense of Pope St. Liberius in the very chapter of History of the Arians to which your polemic source appeals :
But Liberius after he had been in banishment two years gave way, and from fear of threatened death, subscribed. yet even this only shews the heretics’ violent conduct, AND THE HATRED OF LIBERIUS AGAINST THE HERESY, AND HIS SUPPORT OF ATHANASIUS, SO LONG AS HE WAS SUFFERED TO EXERCISE A FREE CHOICE. FOR THAT WHICH MEN ARE FORCED BY TORTURE TO DO CONTRARY TO THEIR FIRST JUDGMENT, OUGHT NOT TO BE CONSDIERED THE WILLING DEED OF THOSE WHO ARE IN FEAR, BUT RATHER OF THEIR TORMENTORS.

Brother, stop supporting the lies; just read the sources, PLEASE. I can understand that St. Jerome may not have had immediate access to Pope St. Athanasius’ own defense of Pope St. Liberius, but what is YOUR excuse, when the evidence is so easy to acquire. I will pray that you gain the will to investigate the Fathers for yourself to counter the lies you have been fed.

Pope Zosimus, in the presence of the Roman clergy, recognized as orthodox the heretical statements of Pelagius, which had been condemned by Pope Innocent I and the two Councils of Carthage.

The pope condemned those who held the orthodox Catholic faith as calumniators (Letter “Postquam nobis,” November 21, 417; Letter “Magnum pondus”) and demanded a formal retraction from the orthodox African bishops, St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Aurelius of Carthage.

In response, St. Augustine and St. Aurelian took a solemn oath with God as witness (obtestatio), affirming that the prior Catholic doctrine prevailed over the judgment of the pope, which was upheld by a plenary council of all Africa assembled. Confronted with resistance to his part in perpetuating heresy, Pope Zosimus finally recanted and renewed the excommunication of the heretic Pelagius.

ONCE AGAIN, what excuse you can proffer to not read the sources. I offered you two excerpts which themselves ALREADY refute everything you have written here. But since you simply once again repeat the lies you have heard, I begin to doubt your sincerity, I’m sad to say. ONCE AGAIN, here is St. Augustine himself regarding Pope St. Zosimus and Celestius (I hope this excerpt from Augustine finally convicts you of the wrongness perpetrated by EOPU, for it cannot be the case that they only read parts of the documents; more likely, they read the whole thing and deliberately chose to exclude/ignore certain portions to perpetrate the lie about Pope St. Zosimus):
Moreover, they accuse the Roman clergy of prevarication…the Pelagians had conceived with a false hope that the new and execrable dogma of Pelagius or Coelestius could be made acceptable to the Catholic intelligences of the Romans, when those crafty spirits * were treated with somewhat more leniency than the stricter discipline of the Church required. For while so many and such important ecclesiastical documents were passing and repassing between the Apostolic See and the African bishops, what sort of a letter, what decree, is found of Pope Zosimus of venerable memory, wherein he prescribed that it must be believed that man is born without any taint of original sin? Absolutely he never said this, never wrote it at all. But since Coelestius had written this in his pamphlet, that he was merely in doubt and desired to be instructed…therefore his pamphlet was called catholic [by Pope Zosimus]. This was thought to have been the case in him when he [Coelestius] ]replied that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent of blessed memory.

Brother, do you not see that EOPU is siding not with orthodoxy, but with the heretics in trying to condemn Pope St. Zosimus? Again, I will pray that God gives you the will to read the sources for yourself, and stop depending on your 2nd or 3rd-hand sources. Reading them, it can only be a blessing, wouldn’t you agree? So do it, please.

I need to go, but I will give a refutation of the other lies and half-truths of EOPU later on.

Blessings,
Marduk*

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Mickey, what you are doing is despicable and typical of many EO around here. You are cut and pasting long quotes, not giving the citations, and have no intention of interacting with Mardukm.

This is so typical of your sort to spam the threads to do whatever necessary to get off topic or whatever desperate measures are necessary to hopefully draw some blood.

Any Christian, especially when it comes to Church leadership, should give a bishop the benefit of the doubt in situations of duress. All you have mentioned (and these were all cut and paste jobs) is about 5 popes, 2-3 of which were under duress. That is simply desperation on your part.

Your credibility is in the toilet at this point, and your negative testimony is actually backfiring and exposing you. I have noticed a CONSTANT pattern of this type of behavior among EO around here on multiple threads and it is despicable and not going to fool anyone who is trying to take an honest look at things.