Papal Problems...:(

[Mickey]

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**.

I must admit, I get a bit of a chuckle when Rome jumps through hoops to defend the heretic Honorius. The doctrine of infallibility was defined in 1870. The RCC is forced to retroactively use the 1870 dogma to defend Honorius hundreds of years earlier. He was a heretic! It is not difficult to see this from an honest look at church history. The RCC feels that if they admit that a pope was a heretic, the dogma of infallibility will crumble. The Orthodox Church does not need to show that the heretic Honorius disproves supremacy/infallibility. We know that the doctrine is an innovation. We know that the doctrine was invented by post schism Rome. We know that the doctrine did not exist for the undivided Church.

So this battle continues because Rome feels that if they can show that Honorius did not officially and publically teach heresy ex-cathedra, then infallibility has been championed.

It is church history that disproved infallibility.

 

[anthony022071]

catholic-legate.com/articles/honorius.html

< The claim that Honorius was a Monothelite came from this text written to Sergius:

“Wherefore we acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin.” (15)

Another source translates it: “We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our [human] nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall.” (16)

Now stop and reflect carefully on these texts. Honorius clearly does not say Christ possesses merely one will, which happens to be divine. Rather, Honorius states that Christ has only one human will as opposed to two human wills. Furthermore, notice how Honorius agrees with Sergius and “acknowledges one will of our Lord…” yet he goes on to discuss this one will in terms of Jesus’ humanity only. Now why would Honorius speak against the existence of two human wills? The answer lies with Sergius’ inquiry. He had deceptively suggested the orthodox view (i.e. one human will) in order to establish a false context where Honorius would confirm the heretical position of “one will” in total. He could then use the Pope’s concurrence to further the Monothelite heresy.

If there were two human wills in Christ there would be a conflict within Him, but we know that not to be the case since Trinitarian Christology demands that the Son assumed a human nature which was pure and undefiled by sin, as it was, for instance, before the Fall. Furthermore, we know that the will is a function of the nature of the person. Hence, as we have only one human nature, we only have one human will. Our Lord, on the other hand, having a divine nature and a human nature has two wills corresponding to each.

His second successor, Pope John IV (642), confirmed Honorius’ intention, stating that Honorius’ purpose was to simply “deny contrary [human] wills of mind and flesh.” (5) This was later confirmed by the Abbot John, who was a scribe and the secretary to Honorius: “We said that there is one will in the Lord, not of his divinity or humanity, but of his humanity solely.” (6) St. Maximus “the Hammer”, Doctor of the Church and Martyr also insisted that Honorius maintained only one human will in Christ not one will in toto. He wrote that heretics “lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming that Honorius to be one with their cause.” (7)

Besides, therefore, eventually granting Sergius his request for silence in the Church, Honorius remarks are very interesting indeed since they are, in point of fact, entirely opposed to the Monothelite heresy. Honorius wrote:

"You must confess, with us, one Christ our Lord, operating in either nature, divine OR human actions [in uirisque naturis divina vel humana operantem]

Honorius’ formula is “directly opposed to that of Cyrus, who had not said, ‘operating divine OR human actions’, distinctively and separately but ‘operating divine AND human actions’, conjuctively and in a mixed manner, by one, sole operation, which was neither simply human nor simply divine, but always theandric - that is, compounded of divine and human.” But Sergius had defended the article of Cyrus’ agreement in regard to the use of the word ‘one’ (as for the word ‘theandric’, Sergius had prudently SUPPRESSED IT IN HIS APPEAL to Honorius!)" (1)

Morover, all of the subsequent Pontiffs (Pope Servinus (640), Pope John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653)) up to and including Pope Agattho tacitly defended Honorius’ orthodox doctrinal position and condemned Monothelitism. In fact, “in his letter to the Emperor that was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agattho (678-681) asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see and stated that he and ALL of his predecessors, thus inclusive of Honorius, ‘have never ceased to exhort and warn them (i.e. the Monothelites) with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma.’”(8)

One will notice immediately Agattho’s careful selection of language above by remarking that, at the very least, no Pontiff pronounced a doctrinal error. He says that all Popes were doctrinally orthodox even if some did not exert the influence that they should have and “kept silent” instead. >

 

[anthony022071]

catholic-legate.com/articles/honorius.html

< “The names of those men whose doctrines we execrate are …Sergius… Cyrus…Pyrrhus…Paul and Peter…and…Theodore…all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome…rejected, because they are 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…because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” (9)

Again, if one carefully reads this text a number of things come to light. First and foremost, Honorius is not mentioned among those who are “minded contrary to our orthodox faith”; that is, “Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter and Theodore”. He may share their punishment but not the reason for it. If he were a heretic and positively taught the doctrine of Monothelitism, our opponents must provide some plausible explanation why deference was shown to Honorius by not including him in the list of being “contrary to the orthodox faith”. Unless our opponents wish to appeal to the Bishop of Rome’s primacy and the supreme office that he held in the Church as a reason for Honorius’ omission, the alternatives are few and far between. >

< Fourthly, the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649 were dispersed widely throughout the East and West, and followed the same basic protocol as the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople and anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, but, as my thesis has maintained, Pope Honorius’ name is curiously missing from the anathemas. The council even went on to assert that from the very beginnings of Monothelitism, no Roman Pontiff had departed from keeping the Catholic Faith.

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

“[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)

“[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)

“…he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” (17)

Again, we see our thesis maintained. The first citation indicates that the Pope “permitted” the pollution of profane teaching, but did not teach it himself, while the second selection indicts Honorius for fostering the heresy by “negligence” - again, hardly a challenge to the definition of papal infallibility or even Honorius’ personal orthodoxy.

As already intimated above, while there is really little support for a refutation of papal infallibility here, we must be careful to appreciate that Honorius was not a saint. In fact, he was a negligent Pope who caused much damage to the Church, and the Council was right in condemning his actions.

"It is expressly said, in the Acts, that God cannot endure that rule of silence, “Et quomodo non indigneretur Deus qui blasphemebatur et non defendbatur.” “And how could God but be indignant, who was blasphemed and NOT defended?” (13)

Because of his negligence, the Sixth Ecumenical Council (and the third) at Constantinople (680-681) burned the letters of Honorius, called him a “heretic”, and anathematized him. Their actions were approved by Pope Leo II and their decisions confirmed again at the next two Ecumenical Councils.

The Council called Honorius a heretic, but it must be remembered that in the early Church the term “heretic” could have two meanings: to those who maintained and pronounced the error formally and/or materially and to those “who neither taught nor maintained error themselves, but were accessory to the pertinacity of heretics, whether by protecting them, by favoring them, or by not repressing.” (14) This latter sense of permitting heresy has been understood and “confirmed by several examples in antiquity.” (12)

This secondary “soft” sense of heresy is possible for any Pope just as it was for Honorius. A Pope can indeed be negligent in his office, but in and of itself, this does not necessarily mean that he is guilty of impugning an article of faith.

As far as the definition of papal infallibility, invoked at the First Vatican Council in 1870, is concerned, it permits a Pope being negligent while on the Papal throne but not, quite obviously, actually pronouncing error from it. >

 

[Mickey]

**Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed the Council’s condemnation and stated: **

"[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)

"[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)

"…he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted." (17)

** How very sad.**

 

[ralphinal]

So by not actively confronting a heresy makes you guilty of it. Therefore, any Catholic or EO bishop who does not actively hunt down and refute heresy is a heretic? Simply letting it stay in the shadows makes you guilty of teaching it? Am I reading too much into this?

 

[steve_b]

I must admit, I get a bit of a chuckle when Rome jumps through hoops to defend the heretic Honorius.

The doctrine of infallibility was defined in 1870. The RCC is forced to retroactively use the 1870 dogma to defend Honorius hundreds of years earlier.

He was a heretic!

To refute papal infallibility two things must be established.

1. 
   *]That Honorius, exercising his office of Pastor and Teacher, defined some doctrine to be held by the Universal Church.
   *]That this doctrine, thus defined, was heretical.
   Honorius did NOT teach that heresy, he did NOT define it as doctrine, and did NOT say it was to be held by the Universal Church. No pope of Rome has ever taught heresy. And this bugs the heck out of you doesn’t it?
   
   Sergius OTOH, your Patriarch, DID teach this heresy.
   
   Honorius ran afoul precisely because he did NOT teach. He did NOT take action on this matter. He preferred to stay silent. Infallibility was not the issue.
   
   
   Mickey:
   

   It is not difficult to see this from an honest look at church history. The RCC feels that if they admit that a pope was a heretic, the dogma of infallibility will crumble.

   As I said before, you and all other controversialists prove this out, that you attack papal infallibility on your terms, with YOUR definition of infallibility, not the Church’s definition.
   
   You’re bugged because under the Catholic definition, your attack fails. AND, you CAN’T claim infallibility as an Orthodox in your own tradition, because your tradition DID teach heresy from the office of patriarch.
   
   
   Mickey:
   

   The Orthodox Church does not need to show that the heretic Honorius disproves supremacy/infallibility. We know that the doctrine is an innovation.

   What you mean to say is, God did not protect the Orthodox Church, but He protected the Catholic Church and the Chair of Peter from teaching heresy.
   
   
   Mickey:
   

   We know that the doctrine was invented by post schism Rome. We know that the doctrine did not exist for the undivided Church.

   Isn’t it interesting that NO pope of Rome going back to Peter has ever taught heresy? Therefore infallibility HAS existed for 2000 years in the Catholic Church, it just didn’t exist in Eastern Orthodoxy.
   
   
   Mickey:
   

   So this battle continues because Rome feels that if they can show that Honorius did not officially and publically teach heresy ex-cathedra, then infallibility has been championed.
   
   It is church history that disproved infallibility.

   The council who tried Honorius (42 years after his death) and condemned him, did not say Honorius taught heresy. So there you have it. :tiphat:

 

[Mickey]

This secondary “soft” sense of heresy is possible for any Pope just as it was for Honorius.

Now I understand. It was the “soft” sense of heresy.

 

[Mickey]

To refute papal infallibility two things must be established.

1. 
   *]That Honorius, exercising his office of Pastor and Teacher, defined some doctrine to be held by the Universal Church.
   *]That this doctrine, thus defined, was heretical.

1. 
   It has nothing to do with Honorius. You can defend him all you like. Papal infallibility is a pure innovation. Peroid. :tiphat:
   

   As I said before, you and all other controversialists

   Contraversialist? Wow, I am honored.
   
   But no, I am a simple Orthodox Christian and a wretched sinner.
   

   You’re bugged because under the Catholic definition, your attack fails.

   On the contrary–I am not bugged about anything and I am not attacking RCism. I just do not agree with the validity of the doctrine of papal infallibility.
   

   AND, you CAN’T claim infallibility as an Orthodox in your own tradition,

   God forbid!
   

   Therefore infallibility HAS existed for 2000 years in the Catholic Church

   No. It has existed for 138 years in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[steve_b]

It has nothing to do with Honorius. You can defend him all you like. Papal infallibility is a pure innovation. Peroid. :tiphat:

Contraversialist? Wow, I am honored.

But no, I am a simple Orthodox Christian and a wretched sinner.

On the contrary–I am not bugged about anything and I am not attacking RCism. I just do not agree with the validity of the doctrine of papal infallibility.
God forbid!
No. It has existed for 138 years in the Roman Catholic Church.

You evaded every point.

 

[Mickey]

You evaded every point.

On the contrary. There is only one point. I believe with my full heart that papal supremacy/infallibility is a complete innovation, and was never known in the early Church.

You disagree.

Oh well.

 

[JJR1453]

Nobody is ignoring Irenaus. This has been argued many times. I believe you have a slanted translation of this text as well.

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,

“pre-eminent authority” should actually be translated “superior origin” according to William Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers, a catholic volume.

St Irenaeus is speaking is speaking to the churches of the werstern patriarchate. Rome being the most ancient church in the area is said to be the church to be appealed to. That is all he is saying. Notice that he himself opposed Pope Victor over the easter dating controversy with the east (not something to be done if the pope is the absolute monarch of the Church). You are taking one quote and trying to make it fit the modern papal model.

Is there any clear and undeniable support for the papacy in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils?

Hello VARC! Sorry, but I must sharply disagree with you here. St. Irenaeus did not oppose Victor, he simply thought him to use too rash of a decision(He excommunicated Asia). St Irenaeus disagreed with Pope Victor’s decision, he DOES NOT ever state that he doesnt have the authority to make such a decision. He appeals to Pope Anicteus and St. polycarp in their peacefullness on the matter of observance.

Blessings in Christ,

JJR

 

[steve_b]

On the contrary. There is only one point. I believe with my full heart that papal supremacy/infallibility is a complete innovation, and was never known in the early Church.

You disagree.

Oh well.

I disagree because of the evidence to show otherwise.

 

[Mickey]

The Sixteenth Session of the Third Council of Constantinople

“To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”

 

[Mickey]

The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”.

 

[Mickey]

Eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681.

"The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ.

 

[Mickey]

logos prosphoneticos

“Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them.”

 

[anthony022071]

You can defend him all you like. Papal infallibility is a pure innovation.

Cyprian of Carthage:

“Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come” (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.])

Theodore the Studite:

“I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconoclasts] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”
(Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

Signatories of the “Formula of Hormisdas” (519 AD) to restore union after the Acacian Schism (484 AD):

“[We agree that] in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion is always kept immaculate. . . . We receive and approve all the letters of the blessed Pope Leo . . . and, as we have said, we follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. Therefore, I hope that I may deserve to be with you [Pope Hormisdas] in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See, in which Communion is the whole, real and perfect solidity of the Christian Religion. And I promise that in the future I will not say in the holy Mysteries the names of those who are banished from the Communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who do not agree with the Apostolic See.”

St. Maximus the Confessor:

“The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High.”
(Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica [A.D. 650], in PG 91:144)

Fourth Council of Constantinople (869):

“Salvation primarily depends upon guarding the rule of right faith. And since we cannot pass over the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church,’ what was said is confirmed by facts, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate, and holy doctrine has been proclaimed. Not wishing, then, to be separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope to merit to be in the one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, in which See is the full and true solidity of the Christian religion.”

 

[anthony022071]

The Sixteenth Session of the Third Council of Constantinople

“To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”

The Third Council of Constantinople (680):

“Peter’s Apostolic Church has never departed from the way of truth into any error whatsoever.”

 

[Mickey]

Cyprian of Carthage:
“Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come” (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.])

LOL. St Peter’s seat is not limited to Rome.

None of your quotes (as usual) prove the innovated doctrine of papal supremacy/infallibility. 1870.

 

[Mickey]

Synodal letter to Pope Agatho:
We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.

---

It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius…in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council…in his letter to the Spanish bishops…and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig. Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by…the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after…Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: “We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning…Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc.” The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places…To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath…according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that “he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius” (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).