Papal Problems...:(

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alexius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mardukm said:
They’re not insults, but you can choose to view them as such if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...
I call like I see it. 🤷
mardukm said:
instead are merely content in repeating the lies and half truths of your polemic teachers.
Click to expand...
Get a grip man. Do you think I take classes from a group of rigid Orthodox theologians who are out to destroy Rome. You are humorous. :rotfl:

.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
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.
Click to expand...
Listen pal. Everyone cuts and pastes at times. Sometimes we lose the source because they were copied as word documents. Please do not accuse me of spam because you are not pleased with my position on Church history. You and Mard do not have to agree with me, and I do not expect you to agree. But I would appreciate it if you could knock off the insults and interact in a gentlemanly fashion. Thank you.
 
Mickey said:
Listen pal. Everyone cuts and pastes at times. Sometimes we lose the source because they were copied as word documents. Please do not accuse me of spam because you are not pleased with my position on Church history. You and Mard do not have to agree with me, and I do not expect you to agree. But I would appreciate it if you could knock off the insults and interact in a gentlemanly fashion. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Your actions are exposed, you have no interest in discussion or debate. Your sole duty is to flood the thread and not directly interact. This is not an insult, it is a pattern over many threads, it is a fact.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
Any Christian, especially when it comes to Church leadership, should give a bishop the benefit of the doubt in situations of duress.
Click to expand...
Yes. Some relent and others accept martydom.
Catholic_Dude said:
Your credibility is in the toilet at this point
Click to expand...
You are very charitable.
Catholic_Dude said:
and your negative testimony is actually backfiring and exposing you.
Click to expand...
All you really need to look at my friend, is Honorius. The anathematized heretic pope which shoots down the innovation of supremacy/infallibilty. That is the only thing being exposed here.
Catholic_Dude said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Holy Orthodox Church sees it the other way around (RCPU as Mard might say).
 
Catholic_Dude said:
Your actions are exposed, you have no interest in discussion or debate. Your sole duty is to flood the thread and not directly interact. This is not an insult, it is a pattern over many threads, it is a fact.
Click to expand...
One man cannot flood a thread. Mardukm and I go way back and are friends (but it can get heated). Sometimes I am wrong. I have no problem admitting that. I am one man. This is not a conspiracy. Take a deep breath and chill out.
 
mardukm said:
Brother, stop supporting the lies;
Click to expand...
I try to read many different sources. It surely does seem that the verdict is still undecided (at best) on Liberius.
Historians and critics have been much divided as to the guilt of Liberius. Stilting and Zaccaria are the best known among the earlier defenders; in the nineteenth century, Palma, Reinerding, Hergenröther, Jungmann, Grisar, Feis, and recently Savio. These have been inclined to doubt the authenticity of the testimonies of St. Athanasius and St. Jerome to the fall of Liberius, but their arguments, though serious, hardly amount to a real probability against these texts. On the other hand, Protestant and Gallican writers have been severe on Liberius (e.g. Moeller, Barmby, the Old-Catholic Langen, and Döllinger), but they have not pretended to decide with certainty what Arian formula he signed. With these Renouf may be grouped, and lately Schiktanz. A more moderate view is represented by Hefele who denied the authenticity of the letters, but admitted the truth of Sozomen’s story, looking upon the union of the pope with the Semi-Arians as a deplorable mistake, but not a lapse into heresy. He is followed by Funk and Duchesne (1907), while the Protestant Krüger is altogether undecided.
newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm
 
mardukm said:
I need to go, but I will give a refutation of the other lies and half-truths of EOPU later on.
Click to expand...
I must admit, I knew very little about these other Popes aside from the heretic Honorius. I have found the source that I had pasted from and it claims to be traditional Roman Catholic–so I suppose it could be SSPX or protestant.

I must say I have learned much, and though I am personally not prepared to call these men heretics, there seems to be many unresolved issues depending on which glasses you wear. Nevertheless, since I am Orthodox you have immediately concluded that all my sources have originated from evil polemic Orthodox teachings.

But when all is said and done, the heretic Honorius disproves the possibility of the innovative doctrine of papal infallibilty/supremacy–a doctrine that was not known in the undivided Church.

You are well-learned for a young man–much more learned than myself. When time permits, I attempt to read everything I can about early Church history–but I do not retain much. When all is said and done, it is my heart that shows me the fulness of truth and beauty of Holy Orthodoxy.
 
VARC said:
The best Roman Catholics can come up with is isolated quotes from the Fathers that are often taken out of context and contadicted.

Who contradicted what the Fathers had to say about Roman supremacy?

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

That’s not true. It was the ratification of the popes that made a council “ecumenical”. Councils didn’t get to self-authorize their own legitimacy. Some of the Eastern councils were heretical,and had it not been for the veto power of the popes,they could have been considered ecumenically binding.

So I ask again. Is there any undeniable proof for papal supremacy in the Ecumenical Councils? The answer is no.

The answer is yes.

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.”

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.” >
Click to expand...
 
Continued from post #71

Pope Celestine, To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 11 (A.D. 430):

“Joining to yourself, therefore, the sovereign of our See, and assuming our place with authority, you will execute this sentence with accurate rigour: that within ten days, counted from the day of your notice, he shall condemn his [Nestorius’] false teachings in a written confession.”

Council of Ephesus, Session I (A.D. 431):

“The Holy Synod said: 'Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and having apprehended from his letters, and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis, which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and colleague, Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears, have arrived at the following sentence against him:-- 'Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse.”

Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431):

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place…Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.”
 
Mickey,
Im sorry if I came off harsh, I should not have lost my temper, but I do think your style of posting does not help the discussion often times.
 
ralphinal said:
About Honorius, would any of you object to the information on this site?

mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm
Click to expand...
The article seems reasonable. Based on what I know of the case (New Advent and other sources) the following points seem to stand out for me and I’ve used them in the past when discussing Honorius with controversialists.
  • The Church has a great memory. They knew about this case intimately and I’m sure discussed it at Vat I council…
  • If this was a stumbling block for papal infallibility, the doctrine would have NEVER been defined. So obviously it wasn’t a problem
  • Most people who attack papal infallibility attack THEIR definition of infallibility, not the Church’s definition.
  • Honorius didn’t and couldn’t defend himself because at the time of his trial he had been dead for 40 years. I wish he had been able to give testemony
  • Honorius asked for silence on the matter. That ALONE proves Honorius had no intention to teach, which is a key ingredient to the doctrine of papal infallibility. Silence proved to be THE problem for Honorius.
    As an aside, this case IMO, is a wake up call for all Catholics. We can’t be silent OR tolerant of ANYONE who espouses heresy lest we be guilty of allowing heresy to spread by our silence or our tolerance even for the sake of peace. There is always someone who will interpret silence wrongly.
I found the following text from the article interesting
:

as to the use, namely, of the words *one *or *two *he says, explicitly, that he does not wish to give a definition upon it,

[snip]

the Sixth Council burned the letters of Honorius, called Honorius himself a heretic, anathematized himafter he had been dead for forty-two years,

[snip]

First: In what sense was Honorius condemned by the Council? Not as one who had asserted, taught, or propagated heresy, but as one negligent in his pastoral office, one who had favored *heretics *(not heresy), and had been overindulgent to Sergius.

I. Many were condemned by the Sixth Council; Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Petrus, Paulus, Macarius, etc., and together with these, Honorius. Of all the rest we find it said, in the condemnatory clauses of the Council, that they had maintained one will in Christ; nowhere is this said of Honorius. Therefore it cannot be proved by the authority of the Council that Honorius taught one will in Christ.

II. In none of the Acts of the Council is it said that Honorius is called a heretic because he maintained or taught heresy.
III. It is said expressly, and not once only, that Honorius is condemned because, by his silence, he fostered the Monothelites and followed the counsel of Sergius.

[snip]…

What argument can be drawn from the condemnation of Honorius against the infallibility of the Pope? The Catholic doctrine of infallibility is this: "When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as Teacher of all Christians, he defines, by his apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals, to be held by the Universal Church, he possesses, through the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, that infallibility which our Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should possess in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and therefore, such definitions
166​

of the Roman Pontiff, of themselves, and not by reason of the consent of the Church, are ulimutable (irreformabiles). Council of the Vatican.
In order, therefore, that the condemnation of Honorius should prove that the Popes did not always possess this infallibility, two things must be established. 1st., That Honorius, exercising his office of Pastor and Teacher, defined some doctrine to be held by the Universal Church. 2d. That this doctrine, thus defined, was heretical. But** neither can be shown**.
Click to expand...
 
Many catholics are trying to confuse the obvious concerning Honorius; specifically that he was a heretic and the Catholic Church condemned him as such in the 6th Ecumenical Council.

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 343of 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.
According to the the 6th Ecumenical Council, Honorius not only followed heresy but confirmed its teaching in the Catholic Church by the Patriarch Sergius. That pope certainly wasn’t infallible when exercising his teaching duty as the so called supreme pastor of the church.

Now I suppose a few people are going to make every excuse for Honorius in order to justify papal infallibility. Well go for it. We’ve all heard it a dozen times but I guess one more time won’t hurt.
 
VARC said:
Not one word in any Ecumenical Council regarding universal Roman jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
See posts 71 and 72.

From the 6th Ecumenical Council:

[The answer of all the rest of the Bishops subject to the See of Constantinople. (Col. 735.)]

“And we, most pious Lord, accepting the teaching of the suggestion sent to your most gentle Fortitude by the most holy and blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, and of that other suggestion which was adopted by the council subject to him, and following the sense therein contained, so we are minded, so we profess, and so we believe that in our one Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, undividedly, and two natural wills and two natural operations; and all who have taught, and who now say, that there is but one will and one operation in the two natures of our one Lord Jesus Christ our true God, we anathematize.”

Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680-681) to Pope St. Agatho:

“Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed [father]; and therefore Christ our true God gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church. Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter [of Agatho’s] was divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up.”
 
VARC said:
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.
Click to expand...
My brother mardukm already addressed canon 6 of Nicea!

Mardukm’s response ably demonstrates why canon 6 is not a problem at all for the papacy.

Now it’s your turn to respond my dear friend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top