Papal Problems...:(

[East_and_West]

not really. I think its been shown time and time again how the case of Honorius does not contradict the docrtine of Papal in fallibility. Its funny to watch you guys. We refute your position, and yet you continue to use a refuted postion as evidence for your position. Does Eastern Orthodoxy really build such a week foundation for itself?

 

[Mickey]

The Council speaks for itself:

**The Sixteenth Session of the Third Council of **Constantinople

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

 

[ForeverAdam]

not really. I think its been shown time and time again how the case of Honorius does not contradict the docrtine of Papal in fallibility. Its funny to watch you guys. We refute your position, and yet you continue to use a refuted postion as evidence for your position. Does Eastern Orthodoxy really build such a week foundation for itself?

I agree that the case of Honorius doesn’t contradict the official Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility. In fact, nothing in the ancient Church does. However, this doesn’t help your case. Rather, it shows that the whole concept of the Pope declaring dogmas (and thus being infallible) was an unknown concept during the first millennium. It just didn’t come up in either papal teaching or action. During this time, Popes were either orthodox or heretics (and they could move from one to the other in one utterance). There was no concept of them being infallible at any time. Instead of opposing the teaching of papal infallibility explicitly, Orthodoxy pleads ignorance of it. And we’re on good grounds because we have no record of it ever being taught or acted upon during the first millennium (a damning fact for something supposed to be part of the Faith given “once-for-all”).

The lack of existence of any “papal infallibility” is one of the reasons why the condemnation of Honorius at the Sixth Ecumenical Council wasn’t followed with a footnote explaining that the condemnation didn’t apply to an “ex cathedra” teaching. People read the proclamation and went on, reaffirmed in their belief that Holy Tradition is the rule of even Popes. Orthodox Christians still receive the proclamation that way. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, respond to the Honorius episode by rushing to show how it doesn’t contradict papal infallibility. Who is receiving the whole issue like the ancient Church? The former are. Who is the ancient Church? Let he who has eyes, let him see!

Besides, I get the feeling that you guys are arguing out of both sides of your mouth here. At any other time on this forum, the Orthodox are condemned for being in rebellion to the Pope and chided for not knowing the obvious truth that the Pope cannot err, is the sure norm of teaching and thus it is never possible to resist him. However, when the issue of Honorius comes up, papal infallibility suddenly becomes limited to only declaring dogmas (which is the actual teaching, in any case), thus refuting the notion that the Pope cannot err and showing that resistance to him is justified in principle. You cannot have it both ways. Either Popes can never err and the case of Honorius contradicts your Faith, or Popes can err (except when making dogmas) and the Orthodox Church’s principle of resistance is justified. Which one is it? Or does Roman Catholicism really not know what her teaching on papal infallibility is?

God bless,

Adam

 

[Mickey]

I There was no concept of them being infallible at any time. Instead of opposing the teaching of papal infallibility explicitly, Orthodoxy pleads ignorance of it. And we’re on good grounds because we have no record of it ever being taught or acted upon during the first millennium (a damning fact for something supposed to be part of the Faith given “once-for-all”).

The lack of existence of any “papal infallibility” is one of the reasons why the condemnation of Honorius at the Sixth Ecumenical Council wasn’t followed with a footnote explaining that the condemnation didn’t apply to an “ex cathedra” teaching. People read the proclamation and went on, reaffirmed in their belief that Holy Tradition is the rule of even Popes. Orthodox Christians still receive the proclamation that way. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, respond to the Honorius episode by rushing to show how it doesn’t contradict papal infallibility. Who is receiving the whole issue like the ancient Church? The former are. Who is the ancient Church? Let he who has eyes, let him see!

Excellent post Adam!

 

[wisdomseeker]

Yes, at Toledo.

can you show me this creed created by the catholic church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

not really. I think its been shown time and time again how the case of Honorius does not contradict the docrtine of Papal in fallibility. Its funny to watch you guys. We refute your position, and yet you continue to use a refuted postion as evidence for your position. Does Eastern Orthodoxy really build such a week foundation for itself?

No, the Fathers build such a strong foundation for us.

As Allyson points out, the Fathers of the Council felt they needed to single Honorius by name. Pope Leo agreed and insisted on it. Allyson also points out the anachronism of applying ex cathedra Vatican I standards on Honorius’ activities, which also has implications for how Apostolic Pastor Aeternus is.

You have split hairs over material heretic, etc., but refuted nothing.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

can you show me this creed created by the catholic church.

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
factórem cæli et terræ,
visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
per quem ómnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
descéndit de cælis.
Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;
passus, et sepúltus est,
et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,
et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.
Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória,
iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,
cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:
qui ex Patre Filióque procédit.
Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:
qui locútus est per prophétas.
Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatorum.
Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum,
et vitam ventúri sæculi. Amen

 

[wisdomseeker]

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
factórem cæli et terræ,
visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
per quem ómnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
descéndit de cælis.
Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;
passus, et sepúltus est,
et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,
et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.
Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória,
iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,
cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:
qui ex Patre Filióque procédit.
Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:
qui locútus est per prophétas.
Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatorum.
Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum,
et vitam ventúri sæculi. Amen

the catholic church according to this has not created another creed. so, my question has not been answered. as i said before i will stand on the sideline on this. nobody knows for sure how the Son got on the creed, i will not be the one taking it out though. for the Son is the Judge of all.

 

[Allyson]

the catholic church according to this has not created another creed. so, my question has not been answered. as i said before i will stand on the sideline on this. nobody knows for sure how the Son got on the creed, i will not be the one taking it out though. for the Son is the Judge of all.

There is ONE new word (the big one in bold), but this one new word was and is considered and innovation, probably even by its innovators (for they would have seen its innovation in a positive light), and this addition was perceived by the Church in the East as an innovation, which significantly alters the nature of the creed, thus forming a new creed. “Filioque” has appeared in the texts of subsequent councils held in the West, even in the profession of faith. The Council of Toledo would be one such council. I know how you see that it is not creating a new creed, because you see it as a minor addition, but this is not how it was seen by the East. If you understand that then you get the crux of the matter. You will see how it is that it appears that the Church in the West has created a new creed.

In the Early Church the creed was written and revised to combat heresies, but at the Council of Constantinople which finalized the creed (quoted in Greek, ect. here), the Council Fathers determined that it was sufficient and that no new creeds should be written in an effort to combat heresy. Instead of creeds being used to exclude heretical belief, cannons and anthemas came to be used.

Now, to be fair the Catholic Church today we all need to remember that the Vatican has put out documents saying that the use of the filioque is a litugical usage of the Latin Rite (or something to that effect) AND that the official creed of the Church is the Nicene Creed (or Constantinople) without the filioque. The Eastern Catholic Rites which had been using it due to Latinizations have been removing it from their litugical use. I am not sure that we can know the intention of those who added it to the creed unless we have access to personal writings about it. Did the Western (Latin) part of the Church write a new creed in the sense that they created something that was significantly new on the scale that Constantinople amended the Nicene creed? I would say that the answer is decidedly NO, but the addition of the filioque did significantly alter the creed on one point, so the Eastern (at that time centered in Constantinople) claims that the Western part of the Church had done something objectionable (and to them it was also theologically unsound) were well-founded almost 1,200 years ago. Nothing new is being said on this point.

To try and bring this back to the point of the thread…

Well, I do really think that the Honorius issue can be laid to rest. I already feel that it has. So, unless anyone really actually has something new to say about it, I don’t think anymore progress can be made.

More thought later maybe…I read something interesting today while on lunch.

God Bless,
R.

 

[anthony022071]

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.

Pope Leo pronounced in his Tome the doctrine that Christ was fully God and fully man,two natures in one person,even before his Tome was approved by the Council of Chalcedon. He did not have to wait for the approval of the Eastern bishops to pronounce this doctrine.

Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, (d. AD 449), writing to Pope Leo I:
“The whole question [of Eutychianism] needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God’s help completely suppress the heresy… and so the convening of a council which is any case difficult will be rendered superfluous.”

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (A.D. 465-533):
“That which the Roman Church, which has the loftiest place on the earth, teaches and holds, so does the whole Christian world believe without hesitation for their justification, and does not delay to confess for their salvation.”

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.

That was true with the pre-Schism councils as well.

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.”

Theodore the Studite:
“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.” (Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

St. Maximus:
“…the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.” (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

 

[Hesychios]

ForeverAdam;3435630:

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.

Pope Leo pronounced in his Tome the doctrine that Christ was fully God and fully man,two natures in one person,even before his Tome was approved by the Council of Chalcedon. He did not have to wait for the approval of the Eastern bishops to pronounce this doctrine.

Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, (d. AD 449), writing to Pope Leo I:
“The whole question [of Eutychianism] needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God’s help completely suppress the heresy… and so the convening of a council which is any case difficult will be rendered superfluous.”

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (A.D. 465-533):
“That which the Roman Church, which has the loftiest place on the earth, teaches and holds, so does the whole Christian world believe without hesitation for their justification, and does not delay to confess for their salvation.”

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.

That was true with the pre-Schism councils as well.

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.”

Theodore the Studite:
“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.” (Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

St. Maximus:
“…the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.” (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

The flowery language of these patristic excepts is not reflected in the hard facts, which (unfortunately) have already been presented, rendering your point moot.

It looks like wishful thinking, more or less.

 

[Hesychios]

the catholic church according to this has not created another creed.

Says who…you?

The phrase is an illegal interpolation. It cannot be presented as reflecting the official Creed of the church, but as something new and evolved.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Pope Leo pronounced in his Tome the doctrine that Christ was fully God and fully man,two natures in one person,even before his Tome was approved by the Council of Chalcedon. He did not have to wait for the approval of the Eastern bishops to pronounce this doctrine.

No Orthodox bishop has to wait for the approval of an ecumenical council in order to pronounce unchanging Orthodox doctrine. However, if Pope Leo were exercising papal infallibility (as defined by Vatican I) we would remember his tome as being the dogmatic refutation of monophysitism. However, we remember Chalcedon for that. Ergo, all you’ve shown with Pope Leo’s Tome is that he was acting as a good Orthodox bishop in professing the Faith. No dogmas were involved (the Council is remembered for that) and thus no semblance of “papal infallibility.” Try again.

Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, (d. AD 449), writing to Pope Leo I: “The whole question [of Eutychianism] needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God’s help completely suppress the heresy… and so the convening of a council which is any case difficult will be rendered superfluous.”

The same could be said of any strong Orthodox Bishop. You’ve still to prove that Popes can establish dogmas. Crushing an error and thus rendering a council superfluous (which, sadly didn’t happen with Pope Leo) is not the equivalent of making a dogma. A negative (no council necessary) doesn’t translate into a positive (a papal dogma instead).

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (A.D. 465-533): “That which the Roman Church, which has the loftiest place on the earth, teaches and holds, so does the whole Christian world believe without hesitation for their justification, and does not delay to confess for their salvation.”

Yes, but Popes of Rome can wither away into heresy and become like salt that has lost its flavor, just as Holy Orthodoxy says happened to your Popes between the 11th and 13th centuries. Interestingly, Pope Innocent III (by continuning the ancient belief of the Church on this point) substantiates this understanding that Popes can lose the Faith and be revealed as judged by God:

“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.” – Sermon 4.

Remember his ancient words when you read other ancient words talking about the glory of the Roman See and her occupants. It is in holding to the entire historical record that one comes to right conclusions, not in only picking the quotes that one likes.

God bless,

Adam

 

[wisdomseeker]

Says who…you?

The phrase is an illegal interpolation. It cannot be presented as reflecting the official Creed of the church, but as something new and evolved.

if you want to protest against the Son of God on the creed go right ahead. i will not.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

if you want to protest against the Son of God on the creed go right ahead. i will not.

The Son has his own section…all to himself. They dispute one aspect of the Son which was not and has not been agreed upon in ecumenical council.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Son has his own section…all to himself. They dispute one aspect of the Son which was not and has not been agreed upon in ecumenical council.

that is my point. again if you want to remove the Son from whatever place you think He should not be, go right ahead. I will not.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

They don’t want to remove Him from a place…they don’t wish to add Him.

 

[Allyson]

They don’t want to remove Him from a place…they don’t wish to add Him.

Ditto to this point. The Orthodox have never added the filioque to the creed. Only the Eastern Catholics are “removing it” because it was added as a Latinization in spite of the Union of Brest. Higher up on the thread I linked to the original Constantinoplean Creed (forgive my bad spelling) more popularly known as the Nicene Creed that does not have the filioque, but you don’t need to look at the original text of the creed to know that the filioque was added later by the West alone. The Orthodox never used it to remove it, and the Eastern Catholic Churches have been removing it to return to their more Orthodox traditions just as they should.

So what you really wanted to say is that the Orthodox don’t have to ADD IT!

God Bless,
R.

 

[rien]

I’m kind of at the end of the road here. I’ve searched endlessly for proof that the Pope has all the authority he claims, but I have yet to find it in the Early Church (pre-schism). Most of the claims come post schism and seem to be based on broad statements. The other arguments are mostly from silence…

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.

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?

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.

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

In summary, here are my questions again:

1. Where is the proof for Papal Infallibility?
2. Where and when did a Pope speak ex cathedra?
3. What statements in the early Church were ex cathedra and which were not?
4. Why did the Pope seemingly reserve the authority to declare saints to himself when it was traditionally left to synods?
5. Where was the Pope during the first Ecumenical Councils and where was his approval?

Thank you for all your help!

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

I agree. The infallibility declation is false. It came not from the universal church - East and West. Just like the Assumption dogma is false. Unless the East in the future declares them so along with the Western church.

Huge problem for Catholics yet they refuse to read history and see the obvious truth here. IMHO.

 

[rien]

Ditto to this point. The Orthodox have never added the filioque to the creed. Only the Eastern Catholics are “removing it” because it was added as a Latinization in spite of the Union of Brest. Higher up on the thread I linked to the original Constantinoplean Creed (forgive my bad spelling) more popularly known as the Nicene Creed that does not have the filioque, but you don’t need to look at the original text of the creed to know that the filioque was added later by the West alone. The Orthodox never used it to remove it, and the Eastern Catholic Churches have been removing it to return to their more Orthodox traditions just as they should.

So what you really wanted to say is that the Orthodox don’t have to ADD IT!

God Bless,
R.

This is so funny. The "new’ catholic apologists urge Protestants to go to the source. Yet they do not do so themselvs. Any wonder why many are questionning the Catholic church and its teachings? And I am talking catholics here. They simply don’t hold up IMHO. Thank you fo offering a perfect ecample. Like if the Catholic church got this wrong what else did they get wrong?