Question:Why be Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

[Nicea325]

That is the beauty and for us the most maddening aspect of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. The definition is so vague that, depending on the circumstances almost any papal statement can be made to fit or not fit the definition. That is attested to by the fact that Catholics themselves don’t have a clue how many infallible pronouncements have been made.

In Christ
Joe

Vague?

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (cf. Lk 22:32), by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but, as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith" (LG 25).

It should be noted that the Second Vatican Council also calls attention to the Magisterium of the bishops in union with the Roman Pontiff, stressing that they too enjoy the Holy Spirit’s assistance when they define a point of faith in conjunction with the Successor of Peter:

“The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme Magisterium with the Successor of Peter… But when either the Roman Pontiff or the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops…which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church” (LG 25).

The Council also says:

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the Successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith. And this infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends” (LG 25).

These conciliar texts codify as it were the awareness which the apostles already had when they assembled in Jerusalem: “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and ours too…” (Acts 15:28). This awareness confirmed Jesus’ promise to send the Spirit of truth to the apostles and the Church once he had returned to the Father after offering the sacrifice of the cross: “He will teach you everything and remind you of all I told you” (Jn 14:26). That promise was fulfilled at Pentecost and the apostles continued to feel its life. The Church inherited that awareness and memory from them.

That is attested to by the fact that Catholics themselves don’t have a clue how many infallible pronouncements have been made.

That is not a strong argument,because most Catholics are not score keepers. Do you, off the top of your head,know how many pronouncements the President of the U.S. gave in 2009? Is that an attestment that Americans really do not know their own government?

 

[Hesychios]

Not a very good example to follow, how could he be called a saint if he did not hold the faith of the Church?

I am intrigued.

Do you as a Catholic think that Saint Constantine is not a saint?

 

[josephdaniel29]

That is not a strong argument,because most Catholics are not score keepers. Do you, off the top of your head,know how many pronouncements the President of the U.S. gave in 2009? Is that an attestment that Americans really do not know their own government?

No but I know how many executive orders he signed; thirty nine to be exact. It’s not that hard to figure out.

So if you don’t know how many infallible teachings have been issued is it possible that you and many other Catholic unwittingly hold heretical beliefs?

 

[Wesley7]

It sounds like a schizophrenic mess.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I am intrigued.

Do you as a Catholic think that Saint Constantine is not a saint?

Especially considering he is on the Melkite calendar of saints.

Link

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Any ole excuse will do. If a pope teaches a heresy, say he wasn’t speaking ex cathedra. If he speaks ex cathedra with it, say he was just guilty of failing to teach. As a backup, use the good old “you’re confusing infallibility with impeccability!” And if that doesn’t work, just say there was no anathema attached. That’s the requirement.

Take the extra ecclesium non salus argument. I’ve been hearing the argument to try and reconcile that with Vatican II, "what the pope meant was that non-Catholics will be saved in the end possibly, but first Jesus will make them Catholic in the afterlife right after death so they can find salvation, a sort of post-mortem RCIA… If you want to make the infallibility argument work, you’ll twist and bend any fact of history, statement, contradiction to make it work one way or another. It’s not the no-spin zone!

That is the beauty and for us the most maddening aspect of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. The definition is so vague that, depending on the circumstances almost any papal statement can be made to fit or not fit the definition. That is attested to by the fact that Catholics themselves don’t have a clue how many infallible pronouncements have been made.

In Christ
Joe

 

[shaky]

Gabriel_of_12:
And this I have done, upon myself, I have concluded that most Eastern Orthodox not in communion with the Pope, does not have a true understanding of what the Catholic church has defined Infallible. In fact the posters I have read here, never reveal the True definition of Infallibility of the Pope, all of these including your commentary voice negative influenced overtones from our seperated brethren. As far as Transubstantiation, Assumption of Mary, purgatory, Filioque etc… one must come to learn why and how these Apostolic Doctrines become revealed in a critical time in human history, not to mention how they are defined by the Catholic Church first, before one draws any negative conclusions from those who protest these Apostolic teachings.

One tends to forget how the Western Catholic Church and her Popes defeated the Eastern heretics and hersies that came from the Eastern Church, and how the Pope was able to defend and keep the Apostolic faith from falling victim into these Eastern heresies.

So, yes, the Pope always has and always will defend these Apostolic teachings in every age. Even if he has to defend them in a new language that the Eastern Church objects to for example the biblical teaching of “filioque”.

What many protestants falsely see in infallibility, purgatory, indulgences etc… I myself see the Pope and the other apostolic successors championing the Apostolic faith and defending this 2000 year old unchanged Catholic faith, defining it to new worlds, new tongues, new peoples, new nations. Then defending this Apostolic faith when it comes under attack by defining Transubstantiation, filioque etc… to mans new inventions such as “communism” which the Eastern Church was infected by.

We can sit today and judge from afar, but where was the Eastern Church and where the protestants when the evil one attacked the Apostolic teachings, that the Pope and the Apostolic successors had to define and defend the true presence of Jesus in his Eucharist to a mad world who rejected God and invented man came from a monkey theory and not God, the Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Mary proved to communism that God dwells with the human race. Yet protestants forget that it is the Pope and the Catholic Bishops world wide in unity with Peter’s chair throughout the ages that has kept this Apostolic faith intact with out change, but clarified and defended against the enemies of God.

Learn first what the Catholic church has defended by defining the Apostolic Teachings these past 2000 years to Her enemies of powers and principalities, before judging by those negative opinions against these apostolic teachings. Yet there is nothing new under the sun for the Catholic Church, She is battled tested.

Peace be with you

Hi Gabriel

I was told on this website it does not matter if you was a Roman catholic or a Eastern orthodox catholic. SALVATION. Can be found in both of the Churches.
Maybe there are faults in both churches. From what i understand the orthodox wants to keep the teachings as Origional as possible. That is why there was a split
As we Know Peter was married. It seems to me that RC seem to change things over Time. In the 1200 century RC church decided that bishops and priests are not allowed to be married. Surely changes caused the split and as time has gone on with more changes
Will only make it more harder for the 2 churches to come together as One
Where can you find a complete list of these changes with the dates showing when these changes took place.
I want to become catholic myself and want to make up my mind which way

 

[josephdaniel29]

One tends to forget how the Western Catholic Church and her Popes defeated the Eastern heretics and hersies that came from the Eastern Church, and how the Pope was able to defend and keep the Apostolic faith from falling victim into these Eastern heresies.

Gabriel, I will repost the response made by one of your fellow Catholics (Eastern) just a few months ago to a statement similar to yours. He says it much better than I ever could.

I’m almost in laughter over this statement. Sure, there were many heresies that arose in the East, but it’s not fair to state that they amount to the Eastern Churches falling into heresy, or that these heresies were corrected by the Pope of Rome (who wasn’t present at any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (most of the bishops who were present and condemned the heresies were Eastern, BTW). The great defenders against the heresy of Arianism during the fourth century were St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers (all Eastern bishops). The great champion of orthodoxy against the heresy of Apollinaris was St. Gregory the Theologian (one of the Cappadocians, and an Eastern bishop). The Cappadocian Fathers and St. Athanaius were also the great defenders of the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the heresy of the pneumatomachi. The heresy of Nestorius was opposed most strongly by St. Cyril of Alexandria (Eastern). In the case of the monophysite heresy, which was refuted at Chalcedon, I’ll give the nod to Pope St. Leo the Great, but don’t overlook the importance of Eusebius of Dorylaeum (another Eastern bishop). Then, at the Second Council of Constantinople, the bishops who reaffirmed the condemnation of Nestorianism and condemned some of the errors of Origen were overwhelmingly Eastern. The great champion of orthodoxy against the error of monothelitism, which was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople, was St. Maximus the Confessor, an Eastern monk. Finally, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (The Second Council of Nicea), the bishops who condemned the iconoclastic heresy were overwhelmingly Eastern. So I’m at a bit of a loss as to exactly how it was that the Popes of Rome who constantly had to correct the Eastern Churches when they fell into heresy during the first millenium, since all of the Seven Ecumenical Councils occurred in the East, were presided over by Eastern bishops, and were composed mainly of Eastern bishops.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Madaglan]

JL: I thought Constantine was baptized on his death bed as and by an Arian bishop. Two of his sons who suceeded him tried to impose Arianism on the whole Church. Not a very good example to follow, how could he be called a saint if he did not hold the faith of the Church?

St. Constantine was responsible for the Edict of MIlan (313) that ended the widespread persecution of Christians. He donated money and buildings for the purpose of Christian places of worship (e.g. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Lateran Palace). Before the battle of Milvian Bridge, he had a vision in which he was ensured victory by the [Chi Rho] sign of Christ. He called the First Ecumenical Council that condemned the Arian heresy and upheld the orthodox faith defended by the Holy Fathers. What his sons did is to their own merit or damnation. St. Paul was no less the saint when certain spiritual sons of his fell into grave sin and even apostasy. No different for the saints following the Apostles.

While St. Constantine was not baptized until near death, he voluntarily had become a catechumen before his baptism and throughout his life had been supportive of Christianity in the Roman Empire. During the time of St. Constantine baptism was often held off until later in life.

 

[josie_L]

Josie,

We don’t know that *any *of the Monothelites meant to deny Jesus’ human will. Many of the great heretics may have had good intentions. (The Catholic Encyclopedia disagrees with your claim that Sergius deliberately misled Honorius.) What is condemned is language, not intention. The “one will” language is not compatible with the affirmation of Jesus’ full humanity. Honorius used that language. Therefore he was a Monothelite. The case is open and shut, and the only reason you’re disputing it is that Honorius happened to be the bishop of Rome! If he’d been the Patriarch of Constantinople, Catholic apologists would be citing this as one more example of how prone to error that particular See was!

Ok, Edwin, I’d like for you to respond to this article that I will break into specific parts for you:

In the early seventh century, Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, with the consent of Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, attempted to reunite the monophysites to the Church through a heretical formulation that claimed in Christ there was “one operation.” Controversy loomed when Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, raised objections regarding the orthodoxy of this new expression. The dispute centered over whether in Christ the human nature, like the divine nature, had its own will and operation.

The orthodox belief is that each nature has its own will and operation, hence the expressions “two wills” or “two operations” were adopted by the orthodox. The opposing view is that the divine will and operation essentially took the place of the human will and operation, hence the expressions “one will” or “one operation” from which the heresy of “monothelitism” takes its name.

Faced with controversy over an expression that he himself had approved and desirous to safeguard the false reconciliation of the monophysites, Sergius proposed that all parties refrain from using the new terms in order to maintain the peace of the Church. To this end, Sergius sought and received the approval for this rule of silence from Pope Honorius (625–638).

Now this parts interest me because it states that the reason Sergius wrote to Honorius was to receive confirmation for a rule of silence:

Sergius wrote to Honorius to obtain not a dogmatic teaching but a rule of silence that Sergius misrepresented as necessary to end needless wrangling over disputed expressions. Honorius, without further investigation, accepted Sergius’s presentation at face value, seeing the dispute as “an idle question” to be left to the “grammarians who sell formulae of their own invention” (Scripta fraternitatis vestrae, quoted by Fernand Hayward in A History of the Popes, 90). It is no surprise, therefore, that Honorius wrote that “on account of the simplicity of man and to avoid controversies, we must, as I have already said, define neither one nor two operations in the mediator between God and man” (Scripta dilectissimi filii quoted by William Shaw Kerr in A Handbook on the Papacy 196; emphasis added).

These words make it clear Honorius did not address the nascent heresy as the “teacher of all Christians” defining what ought to be believed. On the contrary, the pope declines to “define” anything and merely follows Sergius’s suggestion in saying neither expression should be spoken of. Whether Honorius’ letters later “affected the whole Church,” as Webster claims, is immaterial to the question of infallibility.

to be continued. . . .

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Constantine also had his son, Crispus, put to death by poison, his wife Fausta boiled to death, and was quite the war-monger. I’m not sure he’s “saintly” material but I guess I’m not in charge of these things

St. Constantine was responsible for the Edict of MIlan (313) that ended the widespread persecution of Christians. He donated money and buildings for the purpose of Christian places of worship (e.g. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Lateran Palace). Before the battle of Milvian Bridge, he had a vision in which he was ensured victory by the [Chi Rho] sign of Christ. He called the First Ecumenical Council that condemned the Arian heresy and upheld the orthodox faith defended by the Holy Fathers. What his sons did is to their own merit or damnation. St. Paul was no less the saint when certain spiritual sons of his fell into grave sin and even apostasy. No different for the saints following the Apostles.

While St. Constantine was not baptized until near death, he voluntarily had become a catechumen before his baptism and throughout his life had been supportive of Christianity in the Roman Empire. During the time of St. Constantine baptism was often held off until later in life.

 

[josie_L]

I am willing to be shown wrong, but I think that “one will” was always a compromise to avoid pushing either “one energy” or “two energies.” In other words, as I said earlier, you and other Catholics are deliberately confusing monergism and monothelitism in order to avoid having to say that Honorius was a monothelite. If we distinguish these two things, then so far from not being one, he seems to have been the original monothelite, suggesting this language to Sergius as a way of avoiding the controversy that surrounded “energeia.”

He said: “Wherefore we acknowledge one will of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” (you did NOT quote the whole sentence). By any normal definition of the word, this is a teaching. He’s asked for an opinion by a fellow bishop; he uses the official “we”; and he proposes an answer to an important doctrinal controversy. How is this not teaching?

Now compare what you have said with what is said here:

Sufficient as the grounds above are to defend the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility, there is no reason to concede Honorius was a monothelite. The claim is based on his seemingly positive words to Sergius regarding the expression “one will”: “**Wherefore we acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin” **(Scripta fraternitatis vestrae quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume VII, 453).

Though used by the monothelites, the expression “one will” also admits of an orthodox interpretation. In his letter to the Romans, Paul writes of two wills at work within man—the “inner being” which delights in the law of God on the one hand, and the “different law” at work in the body which makes one a prisoner to the law of sin on the other (cf. Romans 6:21–23). Such a conflict of wills within Jesus Christ’s human nature is impossible, as Honorius explains, since God assumed that human nature that existed before the fall—“the nature which was created before sin”—and not the human nature that was corrupted by sin. Honorius uses “one will” in relation to Christ’s human nature and not, as did the monothelites, to his person. If Honorius had denied a human will in Christ, there would have been no need to make such a distinction between the wills of pre- and post-fallen human nature.

The seeming basis of Webster’s certitude that Honorius was “no doubt” a monothelite is that the monothelites cited the deceased pope to support their doctrine. Webster’s line of reasoning appears to proceed as follows: The monothelites cited Honorius, therefore Honorius must be a monothelite. This is no proof at all. The monothelites cited not only Honorius, they—like heretics throughout the ages—cited various scriptures and Church fathers to support their position.

The truth is, although monothelites such as Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople, did cite Honorius after his death, the Pope had orthodox defenders who insisted upon his orthodoxy and rejected the attempts of heretics to misuse his words. Maximus the Confessor, who was martyred by the monothelites, wrote that heretics “lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming Honorius to be one with their cause” (Ad Petrum illustrem, quoted in the online Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent). Pope John IV (640–642) defended Honorius, saying he meant only to deny “contrary wills of mind and flesh” (Apologia pro Honorio Papa, quoted by Joseph Costanzo, S.J., in The Historical Credibility of Hans Küng, 105).

These defenders were virulent opponents of monothelitism who would not dare countenance an expression they condemned unless they were convinced Honorius had in fact used it in an orthodox sense. No one ever accused them of heresy for having defended Honorius’s use of “one will.”

to be continued . . . . .

 

[josie_L]

Josie,

We don’t know that *any *of the Monothelites meant to deny Jesus’ human will. Many of the great heretics may have had good intentions. (The Catholic Encyclopedia disagrees with your claim that Sergius deliberately misled Honorius.) What is condemned is language, not intention. The “one will” language is not compatible with the affirmation of Jesus’ full humanity. Honorius used that language. Therefore he was a Monothelite. The case is open and shut, and the only reason you’re disputing it is that Honorius happened to be the bishop of Rome!

And the last bit but quite frankly my favorite, is this:

In his letter to the Emperor that was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agatho (678–681) asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see and stated that he and all of his predecessors, thus inclusive of Honorius, “have never ceased to exhort and warn them (i.e. the monothelites) with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma” (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 328–339). Honorius did indeed resist the heresy insofar as he urged “silence” with regard to the expression “one operation,” which he rightly considered Eutychian.

The Council professed its agreement with Agatho’s letter, anathematized any who rejected it, and said its condemnations were in accordance with it. Therefore, any conciliar condemnation of Honorius must be understood in light of such agreement. Consequently, since Agatho counted Honorius among his orthodox predecessors, so too did the council.

Though Agatho asserted the orthodoxy of all his predecessors and the infallibility of the apostolic see, he left open the possibility that a pope is nonetheless liable to judgment should he “neglect to preach the truth” to the faithful. Agatho thereby provided the tacit basis for the condemnation of Honorius on these grounds: that by neglecting to preach the truth, Honorius left the Lord’s flock exposed to ravaging wolves, as indeed the monothelite Eastern Patriarchs were and under whom the faithful suffered for many years.

The council’s judgment is consistent with Agatho’s letter. It made a distinction between the fault of Sergius and Cyrus on the one hand and that of Honorius on the other. A reading of the condemnation reveals Honorius is neither grouped with nor shares the same fault of those “whose doctrines” were execrated—i.e., Sergius, Cyrus, etc. While Honorius is anathematized “with them”—that is, sharing a similar punishment—it is not because of any doctrine attributable to him. Honorius is condemned because of what the council “found written by him to Sergius;” in which letters Honorius “followed his [Sergius’s] view and confirmed his [Sergius’s] impious doctrines”(Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 343).

**When confirming the council, Pope Leo II (682–683) faulted Honorius because he “did not endeavor to preserve” the faith and for having “permitted” it to be assaulted, but not for having either invented, taught, or adhered to the heretical doctrine **(Paul Bottalla, S.J., Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and History, 111–112). Elsewhere, Leo blames “Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence” (Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispanie in the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume VII, 455; emphasis added). In sum, Honorius failed to teach.

Webster adduces two final points against Honorius: that the condemnation of this pope “was ratified by two succeeding ecumenical councils” and that Honorius was condemned “by every new pope up through the eleventh century who took the oath of papal office.” In response to the former charge, as demonstrated above, Honorius was condemned for negligence. Whether two or two thousand subsequent councils ratify that sentence is immaterial, since such a sentence is not incompatible with the doctrine of papal infallibility. **With regard to the papal oath, it stated only that Honorius was condemned because he had “added fuel to their [the monothelites’] wicked assertions” (Liber diurnus, ibid., 455)—a charge which does not substantially differ from earlier statements that Honorius had fostered heresy by his negligence. **

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea5.asp

 

[Madaglan]

Constantine also had his son, Crispus, put to death by poison, his wife Fausta boiled to death, and was quite the war-monger. I’m not sure he’s “saintly” material but I guess I’m not in charge of these things

Well, like the Prophet Samuel and holy Phineas, he wasn’t afraid to use violence where he saw it warranted.

To my understanding, Constantine’s execution of his son was amid intrigue, deception and conspiracy. Even if it were in fact a gross injustice on his part, of which I do not find sure evidence, it shouldn’t blacklist him from saintliness. King David did just as much in killing Uriah and stealing his wife, and even after this, he remains a man after God’s own heart.

The charge of foul crimes is about as unclear as that leveled against St. Cyril for the murder of Hypatia.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yeah, so the guy boils his lady and poisons his kid, kills many on the battle field and used Christianity for expediency and to win in warfare with a chi ro on the shields. Definite saintly material!

But like I said, warmongers and killers I wouldn’t canonize but I’m not in charge of this stuff! But then again if they’re willing to try and make Clovis, Charlemagne and those guys holy, anyone can get in!

Well, like the Prophet Samuel and holy Phineas, he wasn’t afraid to use violence where he saw it warranted.

To my understanding, Constantine’s execution of his son was amid intrigue, deception and conspiracy. Even if it were in fact a gross injustice on his part, of which I do not find sure evidence, it shouldn’t blacklist him from saintliness. King David did just as much in killing Uriah and stealing his wife, and even after this, he remains a man after God’s own heart.

The charge of foul crimes is about as unclear as that leveled against St. Cyril for the murder of Hypatia.

 

[josie_L]

Maximus didn’t.

Yes, Maximux upheld the truth (and we are forever beholden to him for that), in fact, he was martyred, but let’s get this straight he did not end Monothelitism. Monothelitism ended with the Sixth ecumenical council when Pope St. Agatho’s authoritative teaching in his letter to the emperor/council was accepted/affirmed as orthodox.

p.s. Maximus also held a strong belief in papal primacy in ways very similar to the Catholic faith.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Contarini;6984553]It’s of some importance–it doesn’t really affect the basic issue being argued here. But obviously if Honorius had been excommunicated and deposed, that would raise one set of issues; if he’d been condemned and backed down from his position, that would raise another set; as it stands, of course, he went to his grave thinking that his position was orthodox. Any of these cause huge problems for the Catholic concept of the Papacy (not for papal infallibility per se, but for the more general idea that orthodoxy can be discerned by looking at the position taken by the Pope).

Look at it this way: Honorius erred, and his successors corrected the error. That shows the Papacy working as it should.

I believe you miss the whole concept of the historical matter here in regards to Honorius letters being condemned. Here I will simplify it for you. The Pope’s office as successor of Peter did not get condemned, but the “man” Honorius was condemned 40 years after his death.

Your assumption of the Chair of Peter in the Popes does not adequatelly deduce what Popes have done in history as acting as men. Honorius never acted as Pope in his dealings with his letters, for the Letters themselves prove his participation as a man, not as a Pope, for a Pope would of immediately bounded the heresy, Honorius did not do this as Pope, his letters is the only living witness, not the Pope.

I know it may be hard to distinguish what belongs to God is God’s and what belongs to man is man here. I believe the councils condemnation saved the day from the spread of heresy at the expense of a dead Honorius 40 years later after he was a pope.

The Chair of Peter has not been tainted as you incorrectly suppose through Honorius. Now there are great things Honorius did acting as Pope, but these things get overlooked when he defeated heretics trying to infect the West. Besides Peter our first Pope denied Christ 3 times, I don’t think any Pope can out do Peter here, but yet Jesus promised that satan will come against Peter and his church but these evil gates from hell will never prevail. This is a promise from Jesus, not man.

Honorius is living proof of Jesus Words coming to pass in Peter’s successors in the Popes throughout history. Praise be Jesus Christ both now and forever…

Peace be with you

 

[Wesley7]

Is the Holy Mother Church the Vatican where the Diocese of Rome is . .?

 

[dvdjs]

I think what Harpazo is referring to is the fact that Orthodox do not view councils as being inherently infallible as Catholics would see a council called and approved by the pope. This quote from Fr Sergius Bulgakov sums it up well.

But all ecclesiastical assemblies are not councils, however much they pretend to be or fulfill the exterior conditions requisite to that end, for example, the pseudo-councils of Ephesus, the iconoclastic council of 754, the council of Florence, which the Orthodox Church does not recognize as councils. It must be remembered that even ecumenical councils are not external organs established for the infallible proclamation of the truth and instituted expressly for that. Such a proposition would lead to the conclusion that, without councils, the Church would cease to be “catholic” and infallible. Apart from this consideration, the mere idea of an external organ to proclaim the truth would place that organ above the Church, it would subordinate the action of the Holy Spirit to an external fact, such as an ecclesiastical assembly. Only the Church in its identity with itself can testify to the truth and the knowledge of conciliarity. Is a given assembly of bishops really a council of the Church which testifies in the name of the Church, to the truth of the Church? Only the Church can know. It is the Church which pronounces its yes. It is the Church which agrees, or not, with the council. There are not, and there cannot be, external forms established beforehand for the testimony of the Church about itself.

The life of the Church is a miracle which cannot be explained by external factors. The Church recognizes or does not recognize a given ecclesiastical assembly representing itself as a council: this is a known historical fact. Another historical fact is that to be accepted by the Church as such, it is not sufficient for an ecclesiastical assembly to proclaim itself as a council. It is not a question of a juridical and formal acceptance. This does not mean that the decisions of the councils should be confirmed by a general plebiscite and that without such a plebiscite they have no force. There is no such plebiscite. But from historical experience it clearly appears that the voice of a given council has truly been the voice of the Church or it has not: that is all. There are not, there cannot be, external organs or methods of testifying to the internal evidence of the Church; this must be admitted frankly and resolutely. Anyone who is troubled by this lack of external evidence for ecclesiastical truth does not believe in the Church and does not truly know it. The action of the Holy Spirit in the Church is an unfathomable mystery which fulfils itself in human acts and human consciousness. The ecclesiastical fetishism which seeks an oracle speaking in the name of the Holy Spirit and which finds it in the person of a supreme hierarch, or in the Episcopal order and its assemblies — this fetishism is a terrible symptom of half-faith.

I like the quote but there are major problems in its application in this discussion.

First, it is just the opinion on one Orthodox author, and therefore, in your terminology, lacks any “inherent” weight. Indeed the problem with this line of thinking is made clear in the OrthoWiki article that I linked.

Second, I did mention that the vast majority of (as opposed to every) Orthodox take the findings of ecumenical councils as infallible and irrreformable - that is the voice of the church, not some formula about meetings upon which belief hinges. (But again see the problems discussed in the Wiki).

The biggest problem lies is you assumption about the uniqueness of that character in the east. You claim “that Orthodox do not view councils as being inherently infallible as Catholics would see a council called and approved by the pope.” I think that you are way off base in your understanding of the way that the Catholic Church also sees itself as a mystical organism. You may have become so accustomed to thinking in stereotypes of the legalistic west, that you project legalism onto it inappropriately. What Bulgakov writes about the east, could easily be said of the west. The west has perhaps clearer statements on irreformablility, but the magsterium is not an address in the Vatican.

So yes, of course, we get Bulgakov’s point. But it answers no question raised.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel

Can you be more specific as to what changes interest you?

I pray for your discernment into Truth, and may the Holy Spirit protect you and guide you in His Truth amen.