E
East_and_West
Guest
:yawn: :yawn: This has been explained over and over again. Its obvious that you are not looking for answers but only to repeat the EO mantra over and over again.
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
A
Allyson
Guest
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
H
Hesychios
Guest
Nerdiness or not (I don’t really think so) it helps to give correct attribution, so you are well within your right to ask. I neglect to do this as well sometimes.
Otherwise we contributors give the impression of being individuals with explosive intelligence, photographic memory, and lightning fast typing skills. Were it only so.
I remember seeing this list, or something like it, at Dave Armstrong’s site long ago when I was Roman Catholic and interested in things he wrote. He certainly influenced me a lot in those days, the text reminds me of his work even if he is not the source.
As it happens it shows up here, with the person proclaiming authorship.
Michael
V
vocatio
Guest
Okay guys, did Fr. Ambrose give you permission to post here?
A
Allyson
Guest
Thanks for the link Michael! I will peruse it at my leisure.Nerdiness or not (I don’t really think so) it helps to give correct attribution, so you are well within your right to ask. I neglect to do this as well sometimes.
Otherwise we contributors give the impression of being individuals with explosive intelligence, photographic memory, and lightning fast typing skills. Were it only so.
I remember seeing this list, or something like it, at Dave Armstrong’s site long ago when I was Roman Catholic and interested in things he wrote. He certainly influenced me a lot in those days, the text reminds me of his work even if he is not the source.
As it happens it shows up here, with the person proclaiming authorship.
Michael
God Bless,
Rosemary
P
Pons
Guest
With all due respect,
Change “Council” to “Bible” and one gets the Protestant attitude regarding “Call no man father”, the brethren of the Lord, and other issues.
M
Mickey
Guest
With all due respect,
I have never questioned these issues you speak of. However, Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the Council and afterward— and the Bible does not speak of supreme infallible pontiffs.
M
Mickey
Guest
With all due respect,
I have never questioned these issues you speak of. However, Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the Council and afterward— and the Bible does not speak of supreme infallible pontiffs.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
OK, let the Church speak: according to the Liber Diurnus, the newly elected Pope of Rome recited a profession of Faith/oath which anathematizes Honorius.
A
anthony022071
Guest
The case of Honorius does not contradict papal infallibility as defined by Vatican 1. He didn’t teach a heretical doctrine,and the council did not accuse him of doing so.
A
Allyson
Guest
Okay, I have quickly tired of the Honorius gig. What it comes down to, for me, is that everyone is talking past the other. We can not know with definite certainity whether Honorius “taught” monophysitism - we weren’t alive then(!) - as would be defined by Vatican I, which, as a definition by the Church, leaves us as always some little indefiniteness - wiggle room for understanding. What documentation we have is not a day by day blow by blow account of the daily lives of the Patriarchs of the Church. What we do have shows that the Fathers of the Council thought Honorius’s actions to be serious enough so as to single him out by name. We can spend all the time we want picking at “well so-and-so at the council this and so-and-so that” or “well he wasn’t implicated until the later date of the council, so obviously he was not viewed in the same light of other monophysites named.” Since this kind of nit picking doesn’t get us anywhere, it doesn’t do us any good to pursue it. I think that the point our Orthodox brothers and sisters (I don’t know who all is what sex), is that Honorius was considered by the Church to have been in error, and that he was singled out by the council does seem to conflict with the idea of Papal Infalliability, because he played a roll which was considered to be dangerous to the faith (perhaps even in a public way?!) by the Fathers of the Council. To try and figure out how his role does or does not fall under the definition of the Vatican I council is a maddenly anachronistic task, that may very well better left untouched for the simple fact that we maybe don’t have enough of the original history preserved. I don’t have access to it (primary texts) to know for sure. If anyone has all the primary sources available today, they would be better able to answer this question.
One side point to this. Many times I have seen posters point out that Rome as a whole did not fall into the monophysite heresy in the way that the East did at the time. I will not contest this, for as far as I have seen this is historically true. I should say though that this is not due to actions that Honorius may or may not have taken, but rather to the fact that his immediate predecessors were decidedly not monophysites, and monophysitism was simply already not present significantly in the West before Honorius. But in the East the the pursuit, by Constantinople (both Church and State), of unity with the monophysites in the far East (Syria and Egypt, ect. I believe) as a means of forming a stronger political unity within the Byzantine Roman Empire and its subsequent failure as ecclesiastical policy is why monophytism was more of a problem in and for the Eastern part of the Church - hence why the council (6th EC.) was in Constantinople and not Rome! Councils tend to be held in the places near to the problems which they address. For excerpts of historical analysis by George Ostrogorsky see my posts hereand here; his book is History of the Byzantine State - he also lists many, many, many other sources in his book. I recommend it if you like a good historical read.
It is one of the failures of on-line forums that comments come out context from their preceding comments - that is the train of thought is broken up over multiple posts, so sometimes I feel like responses miss the point of the post to which they are responding. As I feel has happened in the case of the Honorius issue. I highly recommend thinking outside of the post. I am probably guilty too sometimes, but I will certainly work to be more conscious. I am not suggesting that there is no resolution to the issue or this historical example, I am just trying to point out how difficult it is to discuss either here online or in general. God willing we will all know in the end.
God Bless,
R.
:byzsoc:
Time to go read some history!!!
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
Papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I only gave the Pope the power to create dogmas (and thus be infallible when he does so). However, we have no Pope ever claiming the ability to make dogmas before the 19th century and your own Church admits that this power wasn’t used until 1854, suspiciously close to when such an “immemorial teaching” was dogmatized. It’s looks more like a new teaching to me. It certainly carries the appearance of innovation since it was unknown to the ancient Church (and still is to the Holy Orthodox Church). Besides, the Council did call Honorius a heretic and anathemized him. No Roman Catholic Council would ever dream of doing such a thing to one of their Popes. In fact, such a thing would be impossible since according to Latin teaching, the ecumenical council depends on the agreement of the Pope. The whole case of Honorius is a good object lesson in how different the Church of the Sixth Ecumenical Council was from the modern-day Roman Catholic Church.
God bless,
Adam
S
Servus_Pio_XII
Guest
ForeverAdam,
Your point about the Council to-day is a very good one.
From the CiC 1983 (Codex iuris canonici):
“Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside over it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.”
Your point about the Council to-day is a very good one.
From the CiC 1983 (Codex iuris canonici):
“Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside over it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.”
M
Mickey
Guest
**The Sixteenth Session of the Third Council of **Constantinople
”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”
E
East_and_West
Guest
This charge has been answered over and over again. Are you not reading the thread?
E
East_and_West
Guest
This charge has been answered over and over again. Are you not reading the thread?
M
Mickey
Guest
Deja vu!
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Okay, I have quickly tired of the Honorius gig. What it comes down to, for me, is that everyone is talking past the other. We can not know with definite certainity whether Honorius “taught” monophysitism - we weren’t alive then(!) - as would be defined by Vatican I, which, as a definition by the Church, leaves us as always some little indefiniteness - wiggle room for understanding. What documentation we have is not a day by day blow by blow account of the daily lives of the Patriarchs of the Church. What we do have shows that the Fathers of the Council thought Honorius’s actions to be serious enough so as to single him out by name. We can spend all the time we want picking at “well so-and-so at the council this and so-and-so that” or “well he wasn’t implicated until the later date of the council, so obviously he was not viewed in the same light of other monophysites named.” Since this kind of nit picking doesn’t get us anywhere, it doesn’t do us any good to pursue it. I think that the point our Orthodox brothers and sisters (I don’t know who all is what sex), is that Honorius was considered by the Church to have been in error, and that he was singled out by the council does seem to conflict with the idea of Papal Infalliability, because he played a roll which was considered to be dangerous to the faith (perhaps even in a public way?!) by the Fathers of the Council. To try and figure out how his role does or does not fall under the definition of the Vatican I council is a maddenly anachronistic task, that may very well better left untouched for the simple fact that we maybe don’t have enough of the original history preserved. I don’t have access to it (primary texts) to know for sure. If anyone has all the primary sources available today, they would be better able to answer this question.
One side point to this. Many times I have seen posters point out that Rome as a whole did not fall into the monophysite heresy in the way that the East did at the time. I will not contest this, for as far as I have seen this is historically true. I should say though that this is not due to actions that Honorius may or may not have taken, but rather to the fact that his immediate predecessors were decidedly not monophysites, and monophysitism was simply already not present significantly in the West before Honorius. But in the East the the pursuit, by Constantinople (both Church and State), of unity with the monophysites in the far East (Syria and Egypt, ect. I believe) as a means of forming a stronger political unity within the Byzantine Roman Empire and its subsequent failure as ecclesiastical policy is why monophytism was more of a problem in and for the Eastern part of the Church - hence why the council (6th EC.) was in Constantinople and not Rome! Councils tend to be held in the places near to the problems which they address. For excerpts of historical analysis by George Ostrogorsky see my posts hereand here; his book is History of the Byzantine State - he also lists many, many, many other sources in his book. I recommend it if you like a good historical read.
It is one of the failures of on-line forums that comments come out context from their preceding comments - that is the train of thought is broken up over multiple posts, so sometimes I feel like responses miss the point of the post to which they are responding. As I feel has happened in the case of the Honorius issue. I highly recommend thinking outside of the post. I am probably guilty too sometimes, but I will certainly work to be more conscious. I am not suggesting that there is no resolution to the issue or this historical example, I am just trying to point out how difficult it is to discuss either here online or in general. God willing we will all know in the end.
God Bless,
R.
:byzsoc:
Time to go read some history!!!
I think the case of Honorius has been summarized.
- Status