Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[Cavaradossi]

St. Maximus the Confessor, of Constantinople, AD 650,

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world. "(Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess pp 354f)

That quotation is likely spurious. On top of that, no Greek copy of the letter exists, so it is impossible to do a stylistic analysis in order to determine its authenticity. Had St. Maximus truly believed in that nonsense, he would have subscribed to monothelitism when the heretic pope, Honorius, declared the monothelite heresy devised by the heresiarch Sergios I of Constantinople to be orthodox in belief…

 

[CopticChristian]

In his book Principles of Catholic Theology, Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) presents an interesting viewpoint from the position of a Catholic theologian :

“… In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”

During my time in a Catholic seminary, I neither heard this position taught nor did I read anything about it. I understood the concept of doctrinal development, but my Church history professor was quite clear in stating the Orthodox had abandoned the historic view of the Roman primacy. My question is this : how prevalent is this position amongst Catholics (be they scholars, clergy, or even members of the forum)? I only know of one other (a Jesuit historian) who espouses this viewpoint.

I do not know if you have or have not read the Balamand agreement or subsequent documents concerning The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium

This post has caused me to want to read and I have read bits and pieces of them. Much of what you ask is in these documents. Primacy of Rome in my opinion is not the major issue. The major issue as I see it is the equality of Bishops in the scheme of things.

I am not sure if everyone has read these documents or not. It would help me if I do.

 

[jam070406]

That quotation is likely spurious. On top of that, no Greek copy of the letter exists, so it is impossible to do a stylistic analysis in order to determine its authenticity. Had St. Maximus truly believed in that nonsense, he would have subscribed to monothelitism when the heretic pope, Honorius, declared the monothelite heresy devised by the heresiarch Sergios I of Constantinople to be orthodox in belief…

Honorius never “declared” the monothelite heresy and the Church, which includes the Faithful, Bishops and clergy in union with the Pope, never officially adopted it as Church teaching (which it never could ), so your point is moot.

 

[dzheremi]

Honorius never “declared” the monothelite heresy and the Church, which includes the Faithful, Bishops and clergy in union with the Pope, never officially adopted it as Church teaching (which it never could ), so your point is moot.

I’m not sure about the strength of the term used (“declared”), but I’ve read from Catholic sources (e.g., the Catholic Encyclopedia) that Pope Honorius was a monothelite. Is it your position that the Third Council of Constantinople, and subsequent popes such as Leo II, were somehow wrong in their condemnation of the heretic due to the lack of a church-wide “declaration” from Honorius? Otherwise, I don’t see the point in disagreeing with Cavaradossi’s statement. Clearly Honorius was a heretic, who (in the words of Leo II) “did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

 

[jam070406]

I’m not sure about the strength of the term used (“declared”), but I’ve read from Catholic sources (e.g., the Catholic Encyclopedia) that Pope Honorius was a monothelite. Is it your position that the Third Council of Constantinople, and subsequent popes such as Leo II, were somehow wrong in their condemnation of the heretic due to the lack of a church-wide “declaration” from Honorius? Otherwise, I don’t see the point in disagreeing with Cavaradossi’s statement. Clearly Honorius was a heretic, who (in the words of Leo II) “did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

Of course you don’t see the point, you can’t stand the Catholic Church so you take side against it. He made the claim that St. Max would have naturally held a heretical view because of Honorius. But official teaching of said heresy never came out of Rome. What Honorius wrote in a private letter, revealed after his death, had no bearing on official Church teaching. So it was a lame and disingenuous attempt to try and show that the Holy See was not the pillar of orthodoxy that some of the early Saints claimed was.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Since apostolic times to today there is only one apostolic see that never fell into heresy which is the see of Peter in the Popes.

Ought to at least provoke the thought that one might in fact be incorrect in their theology. Yet with the growing number of denominations this doesn’t seem to be the case.

 

[rinnie]

How many times do I have to say it :** I am not contesting Roman primacy**, nor are any of my brothers in the faith.

Please explain to me what St. Augustine really meant. I am curious as to your interpretation of his words.

Ok, then post them. So far, you have only informed me of my error, but provided no evidence.

St. Augustine is not even speaking on primacy. His words condemn the idea that Rome has the final say on a matter. Why? Because Rome** can be** wrong.

Then to quote Jerry Maguire, “Show me the money”. If a Roman Catholic is to be historically honest, they would adopt Pope Benedict’s position, i.e. that the Orthodox view is true to the early Church. You are trying to force your doctrinal developed views into a history that supports no such thing. Go ahead, direct me to the fathers who believed in Roman supremacy.

The real audience is the lurkers, not the participants. I don’t expect to convince you of anything, but the readers have seen time after time that you can present no evidence of papal supremacy in the early Church. The fathers and the councils are against you, as is your pontiff.

Here is where I am confused by what you are saying. First of all you say you do not reject the Primacy of Rome. Okay not lets us stop there. Forgvie my ignorance here, but how can you accept the Primacy of Rome, but reject the Primacy of the Roman Pope?

Or to put this another way is it true that the Orthodox abandon the Historic View of Roman Primacy, and it Roman Primacy is not the Historic view how did not EXIST how did they abandon something that they claim did not exist?

This is my WHOLE problem with understanding this.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Amazing we should assume what St Augustine thought when we have Scripture and Divine Providence which states otherwise?

I could be wrong but wasn’t it GOD who stated “You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church”

St Paul then further elaborates on this in his letter to Carthage. Maybe we are all as Catholic’s reading scripture incorrectly?

St Paul stated the Rock is Christ and its in Rome. Why would he state that when speaking to another Catholic Church? Maybe because they were thinking incorrectly as individuals on the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and what it is and where it exists. Thus the example of the Church of Rome being Christ.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Honorius never “declared” the monothelite heresy and the Church, which includes the Faithful, Bishops and clergy in union with the Pope, never officially adopted it as Church teaching (which it never could ), so your point is moot.

And the quote you used from St. Maximos is likely forged, so your point is moot. Two can play this game.

 

[dzheremi]

Of course you don’t see the point, you can’t stand the Catholic Church so you take side against it. He made the claim that St. Max would have naturally held a heretical view because of Honorius. But official teaching of said heresy never came out of Rome. What Honorius wrote in a private letter, revealed after his death, had no bearing on official Church teaching. So it was a lame and disingenuous attempt to try and show that the Holy See was not the pillar of orthodoxy that some of the early Saints claimed was.

Hahaha. Wow. Uh…insights into my mind notwithstanding…I just don’t see it that way. I think it’s a cautionary lesson on the implications of allowing the Pope to be considered, by virtue of the chair or some other way of formulating a distinct “Petrine ministry” (I’ve never understood this term myself…if we take Peter to be head of the apostles, does that mean that his mission was somehow different than the other apostles, who likewise established Sees and preached the gospel and all that being an apostle entailed?) or in any other way, as above and set apart from the consensus of the bishops and the church. It is saying, in effect, that if Maximos believed as the quote says, then he would have had no choice but to follow Honorius’ side (that is, to say, monothelitism). Yet this is not what we see when we look at the Synod of Cyprus in 634, which endorsed monothelitism. The deacon sent by Honorius, Gaios, was on the monothelite side. Anastasius, a pupil of Maximus, was on the anti-monothelite side.

 

[jam070406]

Hahaha. Wow. Uh…insights into my mind notwithstanding…I just don’t see it that way. I think it’s a cautionary lesson on the implications of allowing the Pope to be considered, by virtue of the chair or some other way of formulating a distinct “Petrine ministry” (I’ve never understood this term myself…if we take Peter to be head of the apostles, does that mean that his mission was somehow different than the other apostles, who likewise established Sees and preached the gospel and all that being an apostle entailed?) or in any other way, as above and set apart from the consensus of the bishops and the church. It is saying, in effect, that if Maximos believed as the quote says, then he would have had no choice but to follow Honorius’ side (that is, to say, monothelitism). Yet this is not what we see when we look at the Synod of Cyprus in 634, which endorsed monothelitism. The deacon sent by Honorius, Gaios, was on the monothelite side. Anastasius, a pupil of Maximus, was on the anti-monothelite side.

I don’t need to read your mind only your posts, which are often very anti-Catholic.
I’m not going round and round on the Honorius topic either . It’s been discussed before ad nauseam. Rome never officially proclaimed heresy.

 

[jam070406]

And the quote you used from St. Maximos is likely forged, so your point is moot. Two can play this game.

And yet you still attempted to discredit Rome by bringing up Honorius.

 

[Cavaradossi]

And yet you still attempted to discredit Rome by bringing up Honorius.

And you trample on St. Maximos’ memory by quoting documents forged in his name.

Ah well, I suppose we will have to respectfully disagree.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t need to read your mind only your posts, which are often very anti-Catholic.
I’m not going round and round on the Honorius topic either . It’s been discussed before ad nauseam. Rome never officially proclaimed heresy.

Often we can tell more about a person’s beliefs from their actions than from what they say. Besides, Rome is not Honorius and Honorius is not Rome. Please stop confusing the issue by seeing anti-Catholic polemics in everything. Honorius may have been a heretic but as subsequent popes rebuked the heresy that Honorius was personally guilty of (as I pointed out earlier with regard to Leo II), I don’t see why you think anything I’ve written here is anti-Catholic. It isn’t. If anything I’m anti-heresy, and anti-fake quotes from Maximus the Confessor…

 

[jam070406]

Often we can tell more about a person’s beliefs from their actions than from what they say. Besides, Rome is not Honorius and Honorius is not Rome. Please stop confusing the issue by seeing anti-Catholic polemics in everything. Honorius may have been a heretic but as subsequent popes rebuked the heresy that Honorius was personally guilty of (as I pointed out earlier with regard to Leo II), I don’t see why you think anything I’ve written here is anti-Catholic. It isn’t. If anything I’m anti-heresy, and anti-fake quotes from Maximus the Confessor…

I’ve see many of your posts and I’m not referring to this one topic.
If you have proof the quote is fake please provide it.

 

[dzheremi]

I’ve see many of your posts and I’m not referring to this one topic.

Oh, okay. I’m referring to this discussion, since this is the one we’re having.

If you have proof the quote is fake please provide it.

Again, if Maximos the Confessor believed as the quote implies, why was his anti-monothelite pupil Anastasius sent to the synod in Cyprus is 634 to oppose Pope Honorius’ pro-monothelite deacon? Why would he actively oppose the Pope of Rome in such a way? It doesn’t make sense. As I wrote earlier, we can tell more about what a person believes by their actions than by what they write (or what they’re quoted as writing, in this case). Maximos’ actions don’t at all match the quote you’ve given.

 

[jam070406]

Oh, okay. I’m referring to this discussion, since this is the one we’re having.

Again, if Maximos the Confessor believed as the quote implies, why was his anti-monothelite pupil Anastasius sent to the synod in Cyprus is 634 to oppose Pope Honorius’ pro-monothelite deacon? Why would he actively oppose the Pope of Rome in such a way? It doesn’t make sense. As I wrote earlier, we can tell more about what a person believes by their actions than by what they write (or what they’re quoted as writing, in this case). Maximos’ actions don’t at all match the quote you’ve given.

I have no time right now to even verify what you say.
What is the source?

 

[dzheremi]

And I likewise have no time to do your research for you. Heading out for a 1200 mile drive in about a half hour. If you search for Honorius, Pope Leo II, the Synod of Cyprus 634, St. Maximos or many other related terms, you will find reference to what I’ve written. It’s a matter of historical record what representatives were sent to what synod. And it is a matter of historical record that the deacon sent by Honorius was on side of the monothelites. Peace.

 

[GaryTaylor]

As far as the Monothelite heresy. Doesn’t it come back around to Patriarch Sergius dragging Honorius into it?

 

[jam070406]

And I likewise have no time to do your research for you. Heading out for a 1200 mile drive in about a half hour. If you search for Honorius, Pope Leo II, the Synod of Cyprus 634, St. Maximos or many other related terms, you will find reference to what I’ve written. It’s a matter of historical record what representatives were sent to what synod. And it is a matter of historical record that the deacon sent by Honorius was on side of the monothelites. Peace.

Thanks. I apologize for acting like a jerk.
Have a safe trip.