Papal Problems...:(

[Mickey]

It is clear that Honorius was condemned not as a heretic, but for negligently having used imprecise language and permitting heresy to spread.

Did the council not respond:

"We have destroyed the fort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Paran, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc.”

Did the council not say that Honorius’ two letters were:

“hurtful to the soul.”

Did the sixteenth session not say:

“Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.”

Did the decree of faith published at the 18th Session not state that:

---

“the originator of all evil… found a fit tool for his will in… Honorius, Pope of Old Rome**, etc.”**

Did the Council not state that Satan had:

**“actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy …” **

Did the Papal legates, (representatives) of Pope Agatho, make any attempt to stop the burning of the letters? No.

Did they subscribe to every anathema placed upon Honorius? Yes.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Did the council not respond:

"We have destroyed the fort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Paran, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc.”

Did the council not say that Honorius’ two letters were:

“hurtful to the soul.”

Did the sixteenth session not say:

“Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.”

Did the decree of faith published at the 18th Session not state that:

---

“the originator of all evil… found a fit tool for his will in… Honorius, Pope of Old Rome**, etc.”**

Did the Council not state that Satan had:

**“actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy …” **

Did the Papal legates, (representatives) of Pope Agatho, make any attempt to stop the burning of the letters? No.

Did they subscribe to every anathema placed upon Honorius? Yes.

None of this implies that Honorius:

A) violated papal infallibility. In fact, as I have pointed out, Agatho asserted that such infallibility existed and yet at the same time held that Honorius had not exercised it.

or

B) Taught heresy. As you or anyone with a deep knowledge of the early Church would know, the early Church did not restrict the use of the word heresy as we do today. Were a bishop to fail to speak out against a heresy, he too would be given the title of heretic. The term was far broader in those days.

Pope Leo confirmed the Council and he approved of the phrases used in it, but he himself said that Honorius was guilty of “permitting” the heresy to foster, not teaching it himself.

Let me put this all into perspective here:

Pope Victor had, in the 200s, excommunicated people for not accepting his date of Easter. Then, in the 300s Pope Stephen asserted his authority over the issue of rebaptism and ran afoul of folks like Cyprian. Then in 400, Pope Leo struck canon 28 from Chalcedon. Then Agatho wrote a letter asserting infallibility. Then Leo, according to the Eastern interpretation, contradicted 3 Constantinople in declaring Honorius negligent but not guilty of teaching heresy. Then Gregory the Great asserted very explicit andd widesweeping claims to the universal jurisdiction of the papacy.

If the doctrine of universal jurisdiction was not true, then by the time of Leo II, and certainlyof Gregory, you would expect the Easterners and all the defenders of the truth to be screaming left and right about this attempt of the pope of Rome to usurp authority that was not rightly his. Things had been building since the time of Victor, and now there is Agatho, Leo II, and Gregory all in rapid succession with Leo II actually contradicting an Ecumincal Council to defend the authority of the papacy! There is no way such a chain of events would happen without widespread and loud denounciations of all of this - yet no such thing can be found.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

None of this implies that Honorius:

A) violated papal infallibility. In fact, as I have pointed out, Agatho asserted that such infallibility existed and yet at the same time held that Honorius had not exercised it.

or

B) Taught heresy. As you or anyone with a deep knowledge of the early Church would know, the early Church did not restrict the use of the word heresy as we do today. Were a bishop to fail to speak out against a heresy, he too would be given the title of heretic. The term was far broader in those days.

Pope Leo confirmed the Council and he approved of the phrases used in it, but he himself said that Honorius was guilty of “permitting” the heresy to foster, not teaching it himself.

Let me put this all into perspective here:

Pope Victor had, in the 200s, excommunicated people for not accepting his date of Easter. Then, in the 300s Pope Stephen asserted his authority over the issue of rebaptism and ran afoul of folks like Cyprian. Then in 400, Pope Leo struck canon 28 from Chalcedon. Then Agatho wrote a letter asserting infallibility. Then Leo, according to the Eastern interpretation, contradicted 3 Constantinople in declaring Honorius negligent but not guilty of teaching heresy. Then Gregory the Great asserted very explicit andd widesweeping claims to the universal jurisdiction of the papacy.

If the doctrine of universal jurisdiction was not true, then by the time of Leo II, and certainlyof Gregory, you would expect the Easterners and all the defenders of the truth to be screaming left and right about this attempt of the pope of Rome to usurp authority that was not rightly his. Things had been building since the time of Victor, and now there is Agatho, Leo II, and Gregory all in rapid succession with Leo II actually contradicting an Ecumincal Council to defend the authority of the papacy! There is no way such a chain of events would happen without widespread and loud denounciations of all of this - yet no such thing can be found.

No, just them ignoring the Pope’s solemn pronouncements and going along with the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Mickey]

Let me put this all into perspective here:

LOL! Here is some perspective for you.

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

**”**To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!****”

 

[Lazerlike42]

LOL! Here is some perspective for you.

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

**”**To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!****”

Quoting the Council does not refute the arguments I have made regarding Pope Honorius. Both the Council itself and the two popes involved demonstrated that they did not consider Honorius a positive heretic. I have provided evidence of this. Any further arguments to the contrary will have to confront what I have provided.

 

[Mickey]

Quoting the Council does not refute the arguments I have made

Your arguments are meaningless when the Council speaks for itself.

 

[Lazerlike42]

No, just them ignoring the Pope’s solemn pronouncements and going along with the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.

I am sorry, but this does not suffice. Whenever an insignificant pronouncement by a pope is rejected by even one bishop, the Eastern Orthodox present it as proof that no papal authority was recognized. However, when pope after pope asserts profound and impactful teachings and nobody objects, this is passed off as “ignoring” it? It can’t be had both ways.

The argument that is implicit here is that during the time of Agatho Leo, and Gregory, the Western Church did recognize the universal authority of the pope, whereas the East did not. In other words, it was about the same as it is now. However, it was not until the 800s and 1000s that any schism came about from the situation. Why did the East “ignore” it for so long, then suddenly go into schism over the matter?

The Filioque is not a sufficient response, because the concept of universal papal jurisdiction is a far more important issue than the Filioque, so far as is concerned the rational for communion. The East could easily ignore the Filioque and hold to their own formula, as do the Eastern Catholic Churches today. However, a pope who claimed to have disciplinary authority over the East, and who could, for example - and did, as in the case of Gregory for instance, - excommunicate Eastern Christians is, practically speaking, a far more important issue, and one far more needful of an open rejection.

Peace and God bless

 

[Lazerlike42]

Your arguments are meaningless when the Council speaks for itself.

Mickey, this is the same argument made by heretics who deny things like the Eucharist, Baptism, and the place of the blessed saints in the Christian life. They quote the Bible and assert that it speaks for itself.

They are wrong, as we both agree. They are wrong because they do not take into account the full context of the Scriptures, nor do they attempt to interpret them in light of Tradition and history.

I have put forth the greater context of the Council, and just as the greater context of Scripture and Tradition must be taken when intepreting Scripture, so too must the greater context be taken if we are to interpret the Councils.

Protestants have quoted Councils we both accept, and have used them to assert that Catholics and Orthodox are Pelagians. They do not interpret the Councils rightly, and so they do not receive their true teaching. Do not do the same.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

I am sorry, but this does not suffice. Whenever an insignificant pronouncement by a pope is rejected by even one bishop, the Eastern Orthodox present it as proof that no papal authority was recognized. However, when pope after pope asserts profound and impactful teachings and nobody objects, this is passed off as “ignoring” it? It can’t be had both ways.

Now you are telling partial fairy tales. An unbiased reading of history reveals that, beginning in the eleventh century, the Roman papacy underwent a tremendous transformation, becoming something it had not previously been. Preludes to this transformation included Old Rome’s isolation from the other patriarchates which led to a loss of the communal understanding of the Church and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and subsequent takeover by Germanic tribes of all the power structures — including the papacy by the early part of the eleventh century. The papacy became one of several political centres in Western Europe seeking to expand its power at the expense of others.

 

[East_and_West]

Now you are telling partial fairy tales. An unbiased reading of history reveals that, beginning in the eleventh century, the Roman papacy underwent a tremendous transformation, becoming something it had not previously been. Preludes to this transformation included Old Rome’s isolation from the other patriarchates which led to a loss of the communal understanding of the Church and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and subsequent takeover by Germanic tribes of all the power structures — including the papacy by the early part of the eleventh century. The papacy became one of several political centres in Western Europe seeking to expand its power at the expense of others.

Just continued to exercize the same authority as always. Sorry, Mickey, I think you are great, but you are living in a fairytale land.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, this is the same argument made by heretics who deny things like the Eucharist, Baptism, and the place of the blessed saints in the Christian life.

There you go again–projecting disbelief of the Holy Mysteries onto me. Please try to refrain from insulting people when you become frustrated. It is not a pleasant way to converse.

As you know, the Holy Orthodox Church recognizes the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church. When I read that Honorius is
anathematized as a heretic, I take it at face value. I see Roman Catholic apologists attempting to jump through theological and scholastic hoops in an attempt to deny the words of the Council—but you cannot! You attempt to force the Ultramontane innovation of infallibility onto the early Church–but it did not exist. Honorious is a thorn in your side because a heretic Pope crumbles the invented doctrine. Of course, without Honorius, I would still not accept the odd dogma.

He was declared a heretic and this was confirmed for hunfreds of years. It is something that you cannot sugarcoat. Sorry.

 

[Mickey]

Sorry, Mickey, I think you are great, but you are living in a fairytale land.

Likewise.

 

[East_and_West]

There you go again–projecting disbelief of the Holy Mysteries onto me. Please try to refrain from insulting people when you become frustrated. It is not a pleasant way to converse.

As you know, the Holy Orthodox Church recognizes the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church. When I read that Honorius is
anathematized as a heretic, I take it at face value. I see Roman Catholic apologists attempting to jump through theological and scholastic hoops in an attempt to deny the words of the Council—but you cannot! You attempt to force the Ultramontane innovation of infallibility onto the early Church–but it did not exist. Honorious is a thorn in your side because a heretic Pope crumbles the invented doctrine. Of course, without Honorius, I would still not accept the odd dogma.

He was declared a heretic and this was confirmed for hunfreds of years. It is something that you cannot sugarcoat. Sorry.

Honorius is not a problem for us. Even if he was a heretic, he never promulgated heretical doctrine for the whole Church to believe. That’s not jumping through hoops. That’s just reality. Get over it. Soon you will have to come to terms with the fact that the case of honorius does nothing to support your anti-Catholic case.

 

[Mickey]

. They do not interpret the Councils rightly, and so they do not receive their true teaching. Do not do the same.

I do not.

Yourself?

Hint: Orthodoxy means correct (or right) belief.

 

[Mickey]

Honorius is not a problem for us.

With the phenomenal amount of excuses I see on this forum for Honorius, I would say that he is a big problem for you!

 

[East_and_West]

With the phenomenal amount of excuses I see on this forum for Honorius, I would say that he is a big problem for you!

Then you are out of touch with reality. That is unfortunate. But I guess that is what it would take for some one to leave Holy Mother Church, the Universal Ark of Salvation, for second best.

 

[Mickey]

This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenmical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries, Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists at Vatican I in 1870 would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope’s good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir’s, 1989), p. 353).

 

[Mickey]

Then you are out of touch with reality. That is unfortunate. But I guess that is what it would take for some one to leave Holy Mother Church, the Universal Ark of Salvation, for second best.

Now E & W. It is days before your celebration of Holy Pascha. I have not personally insulted you. Why must you insult me?

 

[East_and_West]

Now E & W. It is days before your celebration of Holy Pascha. I have not personally insulted you. Why must you insult me?

I am sorry brother. I should have been more sensitive. I ask you to forgive me. Its just really hard to see some one who really cares about his faith walk away from Christ’s Church. But as I said, I appologize and ask your forgiveness. Let us celebrate a blessedTridduum this week.

 

[Mickey]

I am sorry brother. I should have been more sensitive. I ask you to forgive me.

I have always expressed my love for the Church I was born into (Latin Catholic). I believe She led me home to Holy Orthodoxy. I still respect Her and my friends and family who remain in Her bosom. I agree with much of what She teaches.

God forgives you and so do I.

If anything I have written has offended you, I also ask your forgiveness.

I will be gone for a few days.

May your Pascha be blessed as you celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif