A
- Status
A
Allyson
Guest
I went to post #43 of this thread, but it wasnāt you. Can you link? Thanks
I am off to bed, so until tomorrow, good night to all.
It has been a long day.God Bless,
Rosemary
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
In other words, Honorius was a āmaterial heretic.ā Your Church doesnāt apply āanathemasā to material heretics today and I seriously doubt she ever has, as a material heretic is only a technical heretic and carries no guilt for their situation, while an anathema is practically a sentence of damnation (thus assuming guilt). If you are correct about the nature of Honoriusā heresy, he could very well be the first, only and last material heretic to be condemned in this fashion. This casts much doubt on the correctness of your evaluation of the Honorius issue.
God bless,
Adam
S
steve_b
Guest
Marduk gave a good explanation on this subject
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367748&postcount=73
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367755&postcount=74
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367761&postcount=75
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367763&postcount=76
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367841&postcount=77
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3369282&postcount=80
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3369706&postcount=89
Bottomline,
To refute papal infallibility using Honorius as an example, two things*** must*** be established.
*]That Honorius, exercising his office of Pastor and Teacher, defined a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church.
*]That this doctrine, thus defined, was heretical.
Since it was agreed upon between Sergius and Honorius the subject they discussed was to be kept quiet, Honorius therefore did NOT teach monothelitism, he did NOT define it as doctrine, and did NOT say it was to be held by the Universal Church. ALL these points must be met to satisfy the technical definition of the doctrine of infallibility. The problem is, controversialists insist on framing the argument on THEIR terms rather than the terms of the doctrine.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
i believe it is 642.I went to post #43 of this thread, but it wasnāt you. Can you link? Thanks
I am off to bed, so until tomorrow, good night to all.
God Bless,
Rosemary
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Pope Gregory I excommunicated and/or threatened with excommunication several Eastern churches and bishops. He also rejected 3 canons from the first Council of Constantinople.
Pope Leo I rejected the 28th canon of Chalcedon, a canon that pertained especially to the Eastern Churches. (According to the then Archbishop of Constantinople, this was indeed within Leoās authority to do.)
Pope Leo II made statements interpreting the Third Council of Constantinople in a way - according to the Eastern Orthodox position - contrary to the Councilās intentions.
And so on and so on.
The popes were clearly trying to assert immediate authority over the Eastern Churches long before the 800s.
Allyson, as an Easterner, who are typically very knowledgable, you ought to know that the term āhereticā was no nearly so nuanced and refined as it is today. In the early Church, if you taught heresy, you were a heretic. If you allowed someone else to teach heresy, you were a heretic. If you were materially heretical, you were a heretic. In some cases, they even called schismatics heretics. It is entirely consistent with the usage of the term in place during the time of Honorius for a person to be regarded as a heretic without positively teaching heresy.
In fact, Leo II proves this to be the case. For he, in one and the same document, calls Honorius a heretic and also says that he was guilty, not of teaching heresy, but of permitting heresy to fester in the Church. If heresy refers only to one who positively teaches something heretical, then Leo contradicted himself within the same document.
In fact, the Council also would have contradicted themselves, because they accepted, approved, and applauded Pope Agathoās letter, which stated in several places that the Roman Church had never taught heresy. Therefore, when they condemned Honorius for heresy, it couldnāt have referred to his having taught heresy, as they had already rejected the notion that this had occured. This explains why on every single occassion that he is listed, Honorius is listed separately from those, such as Sergius, who had taught the heresy. The Council did not recognize Honoriusā crime as the same as theirs, and so did not list him with them.
I didnāt mean that at all, no. Let me try to give an example of what I meant:
In a discussion with a Protestant, I say that baptism regenerates, bringing us to new birth in Christ. The Protestant quotes Mark 16:16: āWhoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.ā Itās self evident, the Protestant says. The Bible teaches that those who donāt believe will be condemned. Baptism is not required.
I respond by telling him that the Greek word for ābelieveā implies obedience to that belief. I tell him that the first half of the passage links baptism to belief. I respond by quoting to him other Scripture, such as Titus 3:5 which refers to the āwashing of regenerationā and Acts 2:38: āRepent and be baptizedā¦ for the forgiveness of your sins.ā I tell him that Mark 16:16 is of doubtful authenticity and that it seems to possibly be a later addition.
He responds by saying, āThe passage is self evident. It says that whoever does not believe will be condemned. Let the Bible speak for itself.ā
Now the Protestant has not responded to any of my arguments. he has simply reasserted the same thing he did in the first place, the very assertion which all of my arguments were directed against. Even if he is correct - which we are all blessed to know is not so - he still has not shown this to be the case, for he has not shown where my arguments are fallacious, but merely reasserted the same thing.
My point was that those are doing the same thing who quote 3 Constantinople over and over and over in spite of countless arguments as to why their understanding of it is erroneous.
If I am wrong about the Council, then I am wrong. Show me! This is a discussion, not some sort of elementary school class wherein we sit around the carpet and tell everyone what we believe and why we think our religion is so wonderful. Weāre trying to show the veracity of our faiths, for the sake of the Love of Christ.
So donāt simply say that the Council speaks for itself when I am presenting arguments that your understanding of the Council is erroneous: show me why my arguments are wrong. I would think you would expect the same from me.
Peace and God bless
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Please see post #723
E
East_and_West
Guest
I am Catholic. I am on your side on this one.
E
East_and_West
Guest
How is this below the belt? Its just a historical reality.
E
East_and_West
Guest
Again, a Pope being a heretic does no damage to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. The only way such a case as Honorius could help the Eastern Orthodox Cause is if:
1. Honorius explicitly adhered to heretical teachings AND
2. Honorius explicitly promulgated hereitical teachings for the whole Church to believe. Number one is still up for debate, but even if it were not, number two is not up for debate. He never promugated heretical doctrine for the entire Church. Not once. In fact, if Honorius was a heretic, his case actually lends empirical support to the Catholic understanding of Papal infallibility in that God so protects the office of the Pope that he did not even allow a heretical Pope to promulgate heresy for the Church.
1. Honorius explicitly adhered to heretical teachings AND
2. Honorius explicitly promulgated hereitical teachings for the whole Church to believe. Number one is still up for debate, but even if it were not, number two is not up for debate. He never promugated heretical doctrine for the entire Church. Not once. In fact, if Honorius was a heretic, his case actually lends empirical support to the Catholic understanding of Papal infallibility in that God so protects the office of the Pope that he did not even allow a heretical Pope to promulgate heresy for the Church.
E
East_and_West
Guest
AMEN!!!
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Nobody believes the pope is incapable of erring. Pope Agatho himself asserted that Honorius had erred by āimprudentlyā putting down a few words. He recognized - as we do today - that there is a difference between the pope speaking, and the pope speaking infallibly. Hence, he says that Honoriusā fault has been rejected even by āpope after popeā who āintendedā to speak with āthe voice of the infallible Roman Church.ā In other words, Pope Agatho said that a pope can speak using the infallible voice, or merely speak. Honorius was merely speaking, and imprudently so.
The Pope can teach error, and when he does, there are means to deal with this. There are specific ways to go about doing so, which would include a personal rebuff to the pope himself (as in the case of Catherine of Sienna, although this did not involve matters of doctrine). Let me explain.
The faithful must give religious submission of mind and will to the popeās ordinary teachings. What this means is that they do not believe them with Faith. To believe with Faith is to believe something simply because God has revealed it, whatever our reason tells us. Hence, we believe in the Trinity and the Mystery of the Eucharist with Faith. When the pope offers a general teaching to the universal Church, the faithful accept his teaching as true on the grounds that he has taught it, in a way similar to a child believing what his teacher says on the teacherās authority. The child does not posess the education that the teacher has, and so ought not disagree - usually. The faithful lack the education and the character of teacher that has been imprinted on the soul of a bishop. They also lack the particular guidance that the Holy Spirit affords to the bishops, particularly the bishop of Rome. As such, they submit humbly to his teaching in account of all of this.
Yet it is not Faith, and this is the key. The faithful will only be believing things which are not definitively revealed by God, just as we believe all sorts of things everyday without them havivng been revealed by God. If the people are mistaken about such a thing, its not relevant until such time as it is shown to have been revealed by God. Thus, Cyprian was not a heretic for believing in rebaptism. Once that was settled as having been revealed by God, then he would have been.
Now, if the pope contradicts a matter of faith, this would be an entirely different matter. Now, if it so happens that a person truly does believe the pope has done this, then there are avenues of action that such a person may take.
This is why the issue is over whether or not it has been revealed by God that the Pope has universal jurisdiction. I would argue that the early Church regarded it as such, and certainly the modern Church does. It is a matter, at this point, of obeying God, and of searching out the truth of His revelation. Thatās what these discussions are about.
Peace and God bless
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Let us not forget that the very man who wrote Honoriusā letter said that he did not intend by his words to teach that Christ had only one will, but that His Divine and Human wills were not in opposition.
I know that many will tell me that the Council condemned Honorius, so they were obviously correct, yet let us remind ourselves:
#1) the disciplines of councils can err
and
#2) the discussion is over whether or not the Council really did condemn him for teaching monotheletism. I have presented arguments which suggest that Honorius was condemned for, as Agatho said, āimprudentlyā setting down a few words. That he, in other words, believed as his scribe asserts, but made the mistake of being ambiguous in his writing and fostering the beliefs of the heretics. This seems entirely consistent with
I know that many will tell me that the Council condemned Honorius, so they were obviously correct, yet let us remind ourselves:
#1) the disciplines of councils can err
and
#2) the discussion is over whether or not the Council really did condemn him for teaching monotheletism. I have presented arguments which suggest that Honorius was condemned for, as Agatho said, āimprudentlyā setting down a few words. That he, in other words, believed as his scribe asserts, but made the mistake of being ambiguous in his writing and fostering the beliefs of the heretics. This seems entirely consistent with
- Agathoās statement that Honorius āimprudentlyā set down words
- Leoās assertion that he had āpermittedā heresy to enter the Church
- The Councilās applauding of statements that the Roman Church had never taught heresy
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
i know it. this is not for you, it is for the EO to answer. so far i got no response.
A
Allyson
Guest
A
Allyson
Guest
Thanks again.
A
Allyson
Guest
Well, heres the thing. I have only recently come upon this issue of Honorius and papal infalliablity, and I have pretty quickly concluded that the case does very little for understanding papal infalliability. In the last few pages of this thread I have consistently said that to try and determine whether or not Honorius acted according to modern definitions is an exercise in anachronism. What I found so frustrating in Lazerlike42ās post was that he (or she) seemed to be going out of the way to say that they Council did not condemn Honorius (post-mortem) for heresy by condemning him for being a heresy. I have already said before in this thread that the Council Fathers must have thought that they had good reason to do so - here. BTW, George Ostrogorsky writes about the relation ship between Sergius and Honorius, and says that Sergius sought to use the doctrine of monotheletism to unite the Church, and that Honorius supported him in that endeavor - excerpts here and here. Of course this is a secondary source, so we would have to know what sources he was looking at to see how he reached this conclusion, but his book is considered the premier text on Byzantine history, so I think we can trust him.
Futhermore, I find that the focus on Honorius obscures the greater point that I see the Orthodox making on this forum, that is that there was no idea of papal infalliablity in the Church of the first millienium, and further that the doctrine would appear to be less than 150 years old.
I am not interested in arguing for how the case of Honorius disproves papal infallibility, because the case makes no difference either way. I hope that you did not get the wrong impression about my feelings here from the post you were replying to. The two points you say must be proved positively can not be proved to be true of false. This is why I find the whole Honorius issue to be tiring. I only responded to Lazerlike42 on the issue, because I did not find his analysis to be accurate historically given what primary text we do have.
God Bless,
R.
A
Allyson
Guest
Well for this one, I should have just held off until I had time to give a longer more complete explanation of what I meant, but this will still have to wait. Letās just say for now that what I was referring to here was the attempt to apply separately developed Western cannons to the East in the case of Photius (860ās), and later in 1054, still further independently developed modes of discipline foreign to the East; when the Pope of Rome felt that Eastern questions about the removal of Eastern practices from traditionally Eastern Churches (on islands of the coast of Italy) by the West, etc. prompted an attempt to treat the Patriarch of Constantinople as if he were one of the Western bishops. See: Francis Dvornikās The Photian Schism; George Ostrogorskyās History of the Byzantine Empire; and Johnathan Harrisās Byzantium and the Crusades if you are interested in reading more. It is a lot to summarize.
Yes, I understand well the development of the term heretic. I am sorry if I didnāt appear to be aware of the the nuance. What I have said before that matters was that the Council Fathers thought his actions serious enough to name him at all.
I was being partly facetious, I should have used an emoicon. I found you line, ābecause my arguments are designed to show the true meaning of the declarationā to be a bit condescending against the backdrop of texts of the council.
I didnāt say this. What I did do was select a couple of quotes because I was very tired. One of them by the way, does list Honorius with the others.
I am not interested in arguing the case of Honorius against the doctrine of infallibility. What I do see is the main points our Orthodox brothers (and sisters?) are making about the historicity of the doctrine of papal infallibility. What I find it mind boggling to make of the case of Honorius something that it is not (by Catholics) since I find it to be a non-issue historically speaking, and this is what I find myself responding to.
It also seems that I have had affirmative responses to the sentiment of non-issue from some Orthodox members posting here on this thread. On one level it has historical significance, but not standing on its own.
God Bless,
R.
A
Allyson
Guest
Okay, I looked at 642, and it did not enlighten the meaning of:
But what do you mean by the phrase above?
Thanks and God Bless,
Rosemary
Please do explain. I am pretty sure you mean only the part where the filioque is, and not all that important stuff at the beginning.
But what do you mean by the phrase above?Thanks and God Bless,
Rosemary
A
Allyson
Guest
To un-give credit where un-giving is due, I have not been an Easterner for very long, officially speaking. My official translation to the Ruthenian Rite (Byzantine Catholic) was 2 years andā¦9 months ago (the 29th of March). Whoa, its almost 3 years.:bounce: I was active in a parish for almost two years before that.
I am exploring a very new world
!What I have had is a long time interest in Patristics, and some graduate level studies.
God Bless,
Rosemary
- Status