Peter's "confession"

[Jason_W]

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

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

your misunderstanding of Papal Infallability is clear hear. Popes can and do make mistakes, we have had a few very bad Popes throughout history, but none taught error concerning faith and morals.there are many controversies concerning Pope Honorius.although his intent was well meant, he was more or less at fualt because he had not exercised his supreme authority,the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had NOT issued a definition ex cathedra.

It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing. Honorius entirely agrees with the caution which Sergius recommends. He praises Sergius for eventually dropping the new expression “one operation”, but he unfortunately also agrees with him that it will be well to avoid “two operations” also; for if the former sounds Eutychian, the latter may be judged to be Nestorian.

**The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance. But before, and even just after, the Vatican Council such a view was sometimes urged, though almost solely by the opponents of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. **

I guess that would be you , mickey. but the fact is, that this has nothing to do with Papal infallability as you might suggest. the only error of Pope Honorius was not that he taught false doctrine concerning the Faith , but instead that he had not taught at all when he should have.

 

[Jason_W]

Silly wabbit. Again, this talks about St Peter–that glorious Apostles. Rome does not have the monopoly on St Peter.

All bishops succeed this great Apostle.

Once again, your pasted quote proves nothing for the odd 1870 doctrine.

Try not to retroactively interpret the strange post schism Latin ultramontane dogma into the early Church.

Peter Chrysologus

“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

why not without the consent of the Bishop of Rome? why cant they get the consent of the Bishop of Corinth, or the Patriarch of Alexandria? they are all successor’s of Peter right? who is retroactively interpreting here? your theological puzzle pieces dont all fit. there are many gaps. but with the fullness of Truth the picture is clear.

 

[bnapgh]

You know, Mickey, reading your last posts I start to relish Nietzche a little, at least as a proponent of perspective.

First Basel:

Council of Basel (1431–49) A controversial Council …intended to continue …the Council of Constance, against heresy, and initiating reform, but fell into dispute with Pope Eugene IV for asserting the authority of the Council over that of the pope. When the pope attempted to dissolve it, the Council appointed Felix V (Amadeus VIII), the last of the antipopes.

Mickey, are you aware of the attendance at the Council of Basel? There was just one delegate on opening day; three came 3 weeks later; and 2 more, before these six issued the Council’s first document! Then attendance swelled! ‘‘Though there were not a dozen members present, the assembly immediately arrogated itself the title of a general council, and began to act as if its authority were secured.’’

In a unique administrative change: Cardinals, bishops, priests and laymen each had one vote! How egalitarian!

The published purpose of the Council was to reform abuses such as Papal taxes, simony, and “concubinage among the clergy”. Sounds valid to me!

I find the following Basel facts to be more supportive of Papal supremacy than detrimental to it.

Basel

Emperor Sigismund, fearing the “growing power of the Turks”, attended and reported to Pope Eugene IV that “that very few prelates had attended, that there was little hope of an increased number owing to the war between Burgundy and Austria and the general unsafety of the roads, and that even the city of Basle itself was in danger and its people unfriendly to the clergy. On the receipt of this news Eugene issued (12 November) a commission to Cæsarini, signed by twelve cardinals, empowering him to dissolve the council, if he should deem it advisable, and to convoke another to meet at Bologna eighteen months after the dissolution.”

“Meanwhile the assembly at Basle had entered into communication with the Hussites… This was understood at Rome as indicating a desire to reopen for discussion questions of doctrine already settled at Constance and at Sienna, and as a result Eugene IV issued (18 December) a Bull dissolving the council and convoking another to meet at Bologna.”

Basel. at peak, seemed to have only “three bishops, fourteen abbots, and a considerable body of doctors and priests.”
The “second public session was held (15 February, 1432) …declaring that a general council had its authority directly from Christ and that all, even the pope, are bound to obey it.”

“In the fourth public session (20 June, 1432) it was decreed that in case the papal throne should become vacant during the time of the council, the conclave could be held only at its place of session; that in the meantime Eugene IV should appoint no cardinals except at the council, nor should he hinder any person from attending, and that all censures pronounced against it by him were null and void.”

They set up four committees each equally represented by the four nationalities and there was to be no general session until the four reached agreement among representatives.

“(A)t the tenth public session (19 February, 1433) this threat was enforced, and in the presence of five cardinals and forty-six bishops the pope [ed: and the 12 cardinals who signed the Bull.] was declared contumacious and canonical proceedings were instituted against him.”

The Pope tried to cooperate if the Council were to moderate but when they would not, he issued the ‘Bull “Doctoris gentium” (18 September), in which it was stated that unless the delegates abandoned their methods and confined themselves for a limited number of days only to the Bohemian affair the council would be transferred to Ferrara.’
“All the cardinals except d’Allemand and …most of the bishops…left Basle and joined the pope at Ferrara.”
“Most of the Christian world stood loyal to the pope and to the Council of Ferrara. England, Castile and Aragon, Milan, and Bavaria disavowed the assembly at Basle, while, on the other hand, France and Germany, though recognizing Eugene IV, endeavoured to maintain a neutral position. In a meeting of the French Clergy at Bourges (May, 1438), at which were present delegates from the pope and from Basle, it was determined to remain loyal to Eugene, while at the same time many of the reforms of Basle were accepted.[ed: the twenty-three articles of the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges]”

“after the election of Albrecht II …, in Mainz (March, 1439), (Germany) followed the example of France and declared for Eugene IV as lawful pope while they accepted many of the reforms of Basle.”

Then at “Basle itself it was resolved to depose the pope and in order to prepare the way for deposition three articles were drawn up, namely:
“that a general council is superior to a pope;
“that the pope cannot prorogue, or dissolve such an assembly;
“that whoever denies these is a heretic.

“Cardinal d’Allemand was the leading spirit in this undertaking. Against the wishes of the bishops and most of the ambassadors present, these decrees were passed (16 may, 1439), and Eugene IV was deposed as a heretic and schismatic (25 June). Immediately steps were taken to elect his successor. “

This Council’s last action had the impressive quorum of: “Cardinal Louis d’Allemand, eleven bishops, five theologians, and nine jurists and canonists”.

Contuned with 1870

 

[bnapgh]

Now onto 1870 and Pius IX:

Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
A. This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, by the Bishops of the Church. Keenan Catechism

Interesting, but not really a rationale or reason; it’s just a dictum. Would you like to read the Catholic Catechism citations?

'I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles, the barque of Peter; I am the way, the truth and the life. They who are with me are with the Church; and they who are not with me are out of the Church. They are out of the way, the truth and the life. — Pope Pius IX “The Guardian”, April 11, 1866

I would generally agree with this on Faith & Morals for the two logical reason that (1) Faith can never be a popularity contest, and (2) scripture promises Peter (and his successors) that the Holy Spirit will forever guide him. St. Augustine repeatedly affirmed this, as well, pointing out it was best for the flock ---- which is another issue you keep forgetting to address.

As early as January 1870, at the initiative of Bishops Martin and Senestre a petition was sent to the pope; it immediately received the support of the majority of the Council members and thus anticipated the decision before any discussion on the subject. The petition asked for the proclamation of the pope’s supreme and infallible authority in matters of faith. Forty-six Council members from Austria-Hungary and Germany immediately sent a counter-petition, asking not to submit this subject for discussion; they were joined by 38 French, 27 American, 17 Eastern and 7 Italian bishops.

Was this another Freudian typo, Mickey?

You write “immediately … the majority of the Council … (supported the) petition (that) asked for the proclamation of the pope’s supreme and infallible authority in matters of faith.”

Is this what you intended consciously or just subconsciously?

The collection of written protests against the dogma of papal infallibility shows how strong was the opposition to it. Sixty-one members wrote that the proposed dogma should be withdrawn and some gave decisive dogmatic and canonic reasons for this; fourteen said that the subject required further investigation; others regarded the proposed dogma as a self-contradictory innovation likely to lead to schism; only 56 were more or less in favour of it. ****

Lets see: 61 + 14 + 56 = 131;
so 61 of 131 or 46% asked that it be withdrawn.

I would hardly call that “strong”. Is this what you meant by “force it down their throat”?

 

[bnapgh]

More like “symbolism”. And your Church agrees!

No attentive reader of the Old Testament can fail to notice that a certain sacredness seems to attach to particular numbers, for example, seven, forty, twelve, etc. It is not merely the frequent recurrence of these numbers, but their ritual or ceremonial use which is so significant.
newadvent.org/cathen/11151a.htm

Whether the appeal is “sacred” or “symetrical”, the Catholic Church to my knowledge has never used numerology as justification for its actions or lack of action.

 

[bnapgh]

You may interpret it as anything you like. It will not hurt my feelings. As a Roman Catholic for 40 plus years and then Eastern Catholic for almost a decade before entering Holy Orthodoxy, I gained a decent understanding of the Western Church. But there is always more to learn.

You have still not substantiated your sarcasm or explained why — as opposed to that — you espouse these tenets of Faith. I am also curious about why you abandoned the Roman Catholic Church. Was it merely over the infallibility of the Pope?

I am sorry that you feel I am throwing barbs. Please forgive this sinner. I have disturbed you and it may be most beneficial that I limited my discussion with you. I do not like to upset anyone.

Your barbs are more frustrating than disturbing or upsetting. You seem to ignore many of the points I make and then purposely misquote those to which you do respond. I have been hoping you are here for serious discussion of truth, but I fear it might just be to throw “barbs”.

I said that it is my belief that there will not be another council of East and West. Why? Because the West must return to Orthodoxy. Yes. That is me speaking.

Before that you did not say it was ‘‘your belief’’, but you said:

**That would have been an impossibility in the undivided Church. **

That does not sound like an opinion, it sounds like a categorical statement. Either way, when I asked ‘‘why?’’, you said because Orthodoxy is right and will not change. That is not an explanation.

Such a negative choice you have provided for me.

Can you give me a third reason to explain why you (and the Elder) believe that the Roman and Orthodox churches can never rejoin? (1) You disdain rapprochement; (2) you are pessimistic about rapprochement; (3) ???

I believe the way I do because I believe that the Holy Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

That is a conclusion, not an explanation or a rationale.

(Edited)

 

[Mickey]

I don’t understand this. Did Peter and only Peter lay his hands on all of the first tier of new Bishops? It is my understanding that the other Apostles also commissioned successors. If this is so, how can all bishops claim succession from Peter?

Since all Apostles had the same authority to bind and loose. You figure it out.

 

[Mickey]

the only error of Pope Honorius was not that he taught false doctrine concerning the Faith , but instead that he had not taught at all when he should have.

The council and all suceeding councils and popes speask for themselves.

---

The Sixteenth Session of the Third Council of Constantinople

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

 

[Mickey]

Peter Chrysologus
“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

I see nothing of the ultramontane doctrine of supreme infallibility here.

 

[Mickey]

I start to relish Nietzche a little

This Council’s last action had the impressive quorum of: “Cardinal Louis d’Allemand, eleven bishops, five theologians, and nine jurists and canonists”.

Were there not three popes around this time period? Who was the real pope?

This council was eventually declare to** NOT** be a council. Why? Was it because the ultramontanists could not push through their infallibility doctrine?

SESSION 8 18 December 1432 –Council of Basel
Since, therefore, by decrees of the sacred general councils of Constance and of Siena and by the approval of two Roman pontiffs, namely Martin V and Eugenius IV of happy memory, a general council was instituted and established in this city of Basel and assembled legitimately in the holy Spirit, it is clear that during this council another general council cannot exist elsewhere.

If it was established legitimately in the Holy Spirit, why was it stricken from the books?

 

[Mickey]

Interesting, but not really a rationale or reason; it’s just a dictum.

Oh. Is that what it was? Just a dictum?

St. Augustine repeatedly affirmed this, as well, pointing out it was best for the flock ---- which is another issue you keep forgetting to address.

Did you read his retractions?

Was this another Freudian typo, Mickey?

No. Perhaps you should read it more closely. Obviously, according to the petition, this odd dogma was a done deal. The bishops were scandalized. Perhaps you should refrain from attempting to be a Freudian psychiatrist?

 

[Mickey]

Whether the appeal is “sacred” or “symetrical”, the Catholic Church to my knowledge has never used numerology

That is good to hear. Now tell those Catholic nuns at the retreat center near my house to stop teaching it–along with reiki and enneagram.

 

[Mickey]

I am also curious about why you abandoned the Roman Catholic Church.

Maybe I’ll PM you some day.

you said because Orthodoxy is right and will not change. That is not an explanation.

It is truth. Orthodoxy means “right” or “correct” belief.

Can you give me a third reason to explain why you (and the Elder) believe that the Roman and Orthodox churches can never rejoin?

The true Church, (the Holy Orthodox Church), already exists. How is that?

 

[Mickey]

(Edited)

I have charitably answered everything to the best of my ability. It is not easy being vastly outnumbered and trying to respond to everyone. (Edited) I am sorry that I do not answer questions in the manner in which you would like. I am not here to cause friction in discussion. (Edited) And so this sinner must now exit the discussion so that it does not deteriorate further. (Edited)

Please forgive me if I have offended you in any way.

Slava Isusu Christu!
Slava Na Viki!

 

[Jason_W]

I see nothing of the ultramontane doctrine of supreme infallibility here.

i just wanted to point out that once agian you completely missed my point. you stated all Bishops are successors of Peter.

For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith,cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome

they could not try cases on the Faith without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.why?.. because he held supreme authority by the Grace of God through Peter. thats not some retroactive interpretation , just a little common sense.

 

[JRKH]

(Edited)

I have charitably answered everything to the best of my ability. It is not easy being vastly outnumbered and trying to respond to everyone. (Edited) I am sorry that I do not answer questions in the manner in which you would like. I am not here to cause friction in discussion. (Edited) And so this sinner must now exit the discussion so that it does not deteriorate further. (Edited)

Please forgive me if I have offended you in any way.

Slava Isusu Christu!
Slava Na Viki!

Mickey,
I have been following the conversation and find much here of interest. You are obviously very convicted in your faith and I applaud you for becoming orthodox rather than protestant. I think that this points up a very real option for people who are not convicted in the RCC, but do not wish to abandon the Church.

At times you do come off as abrasive, and condescending toward Rome, but I counterblance that with our feelings about the Rome vs Orthodox issues and find it laudable that the exchange has remained, on the whole, civil from both sides.

To all Participating in the discussion,
We here will never resolve the issues between Rome and the Orthodox Church, which is why we have the magisterium, commisions, etc to study, discuss, work with and draw closer the two Great and truly Apostolic Churches. We should pray for these men and the success of their worrk. Let us place our own opinions on the altar of the common good and say, “Praise God and Blessings to each other.”

Peace
James

 

[bnapgh]

Goodbye, Mickey. God speed! I shall accept your disclaimer that your pertinacity was not ill-spirited nor your obstinacy intentional.

You say you came to dialogue, but IMO that might be wishful.

FWIW I see a series of posts which pretty much evidence an attitude of taunting, and which IMO demonstrate virtually no evidence of true dialogue.

I pray that is my error.

 

[Jason_W]

Mickey, i tried to pm you but it didnt go through.

I still believe the Pope settled issues which could otherwise not be settled. hence his supreme authority in Peter. nevertheless i enjoy these forums because they help me to better know my Faith. most people forget that we are to love God with all our mind too. and im sorry to hear someone disrepected you , people like that do an injustice to us all.

God Bless, and Godspeed

 

[davidv]

Since all Apostles had the same authority to bind and loose. You figure it out.

I do have it “figured out”. If a complete document record were to exist, not all bishops would find the succession of laying on of hands began with Peter. The power to bind and loose is **not **the same and the power of the keys. Binding and loosing power exists in the office of bishop. The power of the keys exists in the the office of Pope.

 

[White_Russian]

No. AD stands for Anno Domini (In English we say Year of Our Lord as you see in so many writings). BC does indeed mean Before Christ

that’s what it means to you and me but now, “academia” has decided to scrap those terms and use B.C.E. to mean “before the common era” and C.E. to mean “common era.” There is nothing common about Christ. Is nothing scared any more? The relentless attacks on Christ and Christianity just keep on coming and coming. from Academia.