Question:Why be Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

[Nicea325]

They have several clues, which contradict each other

But I’m not even talking about that. I’m talking about the Pope’s non-infallible teaching, to which Catholics must nonetheless assent with “will and intellect.”

Edwin

Provide one non-infallible teaching?

 

[Nicea325]

Good grief Josie this is bordering on the ridiculous. Here is the text of the infallible, ireformable Sixth Ecumenical Council as accepted by your Church.

To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! ***To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! *** To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!

And

Therefore we declare that in him there are two natural wills and two natural operations, proceeding commonly and without division: but we cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous novelties as well as their inventors: to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius and Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter (who were archbishops of Constantinople), moreover Cyrus, who bore the priesthood of Alexandria, and with them Honorius, who was the ruler (πρόεδρον) of Rome, as he followed them in these things.

And from the Imperial Edict

The heresy of Apollinaris, etc., has been renewed by Theodore of Pharan and confirmed by Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, who also contradicted himself.

And

so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy

And from the answer of the Monothelites themselves given at the Sixth Council

We have brought out no new method of speech, but have taught whatever we have received from the holy Ecumenical Synods, and from the holy approved Fathers, as well as from the archbishops of this imperial city, to wit: Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, as also from Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, and from Cyrus who was Pope of Alexandria, that is to say with reference to will and operation, and so we have believed, and so we believe, so we preach; and further we are ready to stand by, and defend this faith.

Here is the link to all of the documents I just referenced.

The council didn’t say something like, “to Honorius, for not speaking up when he should have, anathema!” or anything like that. It says, to Honorius, THE HERETIC. It is completely unambiguous. There is absolutely no question that the council condemned him as a heretic.

I thought that once something was defined infallibly by an Ecumenical Council it was beyond question? Since as a Catholic apparently you feel you have the right to question the findings of the Sixth Council do you have the right to question other councils such as Vatican I and it’s pronouncement on Papal Infallibility? I’m trying to understand your position because something isn’t adding up.

Either way I’m not going to argue this anymore. The evidence is clear to anyone without a vested interest to deny that Honorius was a heretic. It can speak for itself.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Ah no! One of your fellow Orthodoxs stated he was a ‘secretive’ Monothelite,so where are sources confirming his secretive beliefs?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Provide one non-infallible teaching?

Limbo?

 

[josie_L]

Good grief Josie this is bordering on the ridiculous. Here is the text of the infallible, ireformable Sixth Ecumenical Council as accepted by your Church.

To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! ***To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! *** To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!

And

Therefore we declare that in him there are two natural wills and two natural operations, proceeding commonly and without division: but we cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous novelties as well as their inventors: to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius and Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter (who were archbishops of Constantinople), moreover Cyrus, who bore the priesthood of Alexandria, and with them Honorius, who was the ruler (πρόεδρον) of Rome, as he followed them in these things.

And from the Imperial Edict

The heresy of Apollinaris, etc., has been renewed by Theodore of Pharan and confirmed by Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, who also contradicted himself.

And

so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy

And from the answer of the Monothelites themselves given at the Sixth Council

We have brought out no new method of speech, but have taught whatever we have received from the holy Ecumenical Synods, and from the holy approved Fathers, as well as from the archbishops of this imperial city, to wit: Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, as also from Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, and from Cyrus who was Pope of Alexandria, that is to say with reference to will and operation, and so we have believed, and so we believe, so we preach; and further we are ready to stand by, and defend this faith.

Here is the link to all of the documents I just referenced.

The council didn’t say something like, “to Honorius, for not speaking up when he should have, anathema!” or anything like that. It says, to Honorius, THE HERETIC. It is completely unambiguous. There is absolutely no question that the council condemned him as a heretic.

I thought that once something was defined infallibly by an Ecumenical Council it was beyond question? Since as a Catholic apparently you feel you have the right to question the findings of the Sixth Council do you have the right to question other councils such as Vatican I and it’s pronouncement on Papal Infallibility? I’m trying to understand your position because something isn’t adding up.

I never said he was not condemned as a heretic but it was clarified in what sense he was condemned, therefore, you repeating things out of context (not showing all the facts presented) even though both St. Agatho and Pope St. Leo II qualified his condemnation (which was confirmed by the council) when he confirmed the council of Constantinople.

                   HE WAS NOT CONDEMNED AS A MONOTHELITE.

Note: Please read the article I posted 2 pages back for further information.

 

[josie_L]

Limbo?

That was a theological speculation not a non-infallible teaching.

 

[Nicea325]

Limbo?

Nope! Now try again…

 

[josephdaniel29]

Nope! Now try again…

So then it is an infallible teaching?

 

[josie_L]

They have several clues, which contradict each other

But I’m not even talking about that. I’m talking about the Pope’s non-infallible teaching, to which Catholics must nonetheless assent with “will and intellect.”

Edwin

He failed to teach Edwin that is the whole point of his condemnation, i.e., he followed Sergius by allowing the rule of silence and confirmed him in his doctrines by not giving an authoritative teaching when he had the chance to.

p.s. Why didn’t you put the whole sentence utilized by Honorius with regard to “one will” ? Seems a little suspicious that you didn’t don’t you think?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m really glad you mention this. Anna Scott and I were recently asking what the difference is between being forced to agree with ‘infallible’ dogma or else be anathemized AND being forced to assent with ‘will and intellect’ on all the rest? Doesn’t that amount to believing all of it 24/7 no ifs ands or buts and every single thing is really infallible? :hypno:

They have several clues, which contradict each other

But I’m not even talking about that. I’m talking about the Pope’s non-infallible teaching, to which Catholics must nonetheless assent with “will and intellect.”:hypno::hypno::hypno:

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

Ah no! One of your fellow Orthodoxs stated he was a ‘secretive’ Monothelite,so where are sources confirming his secretive beliefs?

Exactly Nicea!

 

[jlhargus]

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.

JL: I don’t see a problem with what Constantine did good or bad, before he repented and was baptized. The problem I see was Constantine’s faith Arian or was it just the bishop who baptized him who was Arian?

 

[josephdaniel29]

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?

JL: I don’t see a problem with what Constantine did good or bad, before he repented and was baptized. The problem I see was Constantine’s faith Arian or was it just the bishop who baptized him who was Arian?

My friend the Church didn’t ask your opinion on the subject. The Church has decided he is a saint, you should trust it.

 

[Harpazo]

I never said he was not condemned as a heretic but it was clarified in what sense he was condemned, therefore, you repeating things out of context (not showing all the facts presented) even though both St. Agatho and Pope St. Leo II qualified his condemnation (which was confirmed by the council) when he confirmed the council of Constantinople.

                   HE WAS NOT CONDEMNED AS A MONOTHELITE.

Note: Please read the article I posted 2 pages back for further information.

He was condemned as a heretic. So which heresy did he endorse? The council is quite clear and even the Roman Breviary was until about 2 centuries ago.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[josie_L]

He was condemned as a heretic. So which heresy did he endorse? The council is quite clear and even the Roman Breviary was until about 2 centuries ago.

In Christ,
Andrew

Read the last two or three pages of my posts and you’ll get your answer, i.e., I’ve already answered in what manner he was condemned ad nauseum.

 

[Aramis]

Best advice I can give to the OP: Timeline out the events in the Gospels following the Crucifixion. Note where John 21 falls in it… (and note also that the timing is grounded in John 20…)

 

[Contarini]

Josie,

Since you want me to “respond” to the “Guilty Only of Failure to Teach” article, I’ll do so, but with the caveat that I do not claim that the case of Honorius contradicts papal infallibility, which is the critique primarily being addressed by the article. I do disagree with a good deal of the article’s analysis, and I’m happy to explain why. (In fact, I have already responded to some of it in my previous posts.)

The dispute centered over whether in Christ the human nature, like the divine nature, had its own will and operation.

Right, but “energeia” and “thelesis” are two different concepts–the article confuses them from the start, which of course obscures Honorius’s role in suggesting the term “one will” as a way of settling the controversy over “one energy.”

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.

Again, confusion between two related but distinct concepts. Furthermore, the article is unfair to the monenergists/monothelites (with the weasel word “essentially” to cover up the unfairness). They taught that there was one “theandric”–divine-human–activity. It was their opponents (whom we now consider the “orthodox”) who insisted that the monenergist position did away with human activity. Again, this confusion helps the article build a specious defence for Honorius. If we construct a straw-man case of “monothelites” who didn’t believe Jesus had a true human will/activity, then of course we can show that Honorius intended to do no such thing. But as far as I can see, no one did. All the evidence of which I’m aware indicates that the Monothelites generally had exactly the same laudable intention as Honorius–to deny that there were two contrary wills in Jesus. Therefore, again, Honorius is clearly a Monothelite, and the attempts by Catholic apologists to deny this are wholly specious.

. To this end, Sergius sought and received the approval for this rule of silence from Pope Honorius (625–638).

Yes, and Honorius not only approved but suggested the expression “one will” as an orthodox solution to the controversy.

I omit those sections which argue against Webster’s use of this case to argue against papal infallibility, since I agree that Webster is wrong there.

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.

As the CE says, there’s no good reason to portray Sergius as wilfully misleading Honorius. Like Honorius, he was trying to find a compromise solution.

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).

Right, and in the same letter he said, "therefore we confess one will. . . . " Unless you’re going to pin your argument on the difference between “define” and “confess,” the argument that Honorius didn’t define anything fails.

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.

This is not convincing. He doesn’t say “one will in the human nature of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” The only reason to read this into Honorius’s statement is the inconvenience caused by the more likely interpretation. There’s no reason to suppose that he meant anything different by it than the monothelites did–or as I would say, the other monothelites! Hefele provides a long argument attempting to prove that he wasn’t a monothelite (in contrast to his own earlier argument in the first edition of his History of the Councils!). You can find it here.

 

[Contarini]

Note that the second edition of Hefele’s work was written post-Vatican-I. I find his earlier position more convincing. He argues from Honorius’s second extant letter that Honorius clearly linked will to the distinct natures–but in fact Honorius never speaks of two wills in the second letter either. Hefele deduces this from Honorius’s adoption (in both letters, but more clearly in the second) of Pope Leo’s language about each nature working what is proper to it. But that’s not the same thing as to say that will goes with nature rather than person. I think it is reasonable to say that Honorius’s position in the second letter is more orthodox than that expressed in the first, and Hefele’s first edition reasonably speculated that Sophronius’s letter (written in the meantime) may have had an effect on Honorius.

See also Schaff’s treatment of the subject. I agree with him that Hefele and other Catholics engaged in strained exegesis of Honorius’s letters, but as I said I don’t agree that the case of Honorius overturns papal infallibility (Schaff consistently failed to appreciate the limited nature of the papal claim.)

I am citing 19th-century scholars because I don’t think I have a detailed contemporary treatment of the question at hand–these guys are available on the Internet, and they are two 19th-century scholars whose work is still respected by scholars today.

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.

But did the Monothelites uniformly deny a human will in Christ? If they did, then why was a standard argument against them (which you can find in Hefele, as linked above, pp. 68 and 80) that Jesus’ one will had to be either human, divine, or mingled, with all three options being heretical? It appears that some did, and indeed that the “monothelites” were not a monolithic, consistent group. But their uniform concern seems to be to maintain the unity of Jesus’ person *and *to make it clear that He was free from the disordered movements of will to which we are subject. Your source is creating a straw-man picture of Monothelitism in order to whitewash Honorius.

 

[Contarini]

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).

Yes indeed, and it’s understandable that they would do so. Maximus accepted the idea you suggested, that Honorius was only talking about one will of Jesus’ human nature. But even Hefele says that that’s not a reasonable interpretation–his own view is more like that of John IV. John IV’s view is not exactly wrong, in my opinion–that does seem to have been Honorius’s point. But what you are missing is that Honorius, like the Monothelites as a whole, saw no way to deny contrary wills without using the expression “one will.”

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”. . . . ]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.

No, you haven’t shown that he explicitly counted Honorius among his orthodox predecessors. You’re building this on the use of the word “all,” which is unconvincing. He may have meant “all the ones who were orthodox,” not counting Honorius as a true predecessor. Or the Council may not have been thinking of that one little word when they accepted the letter. This is an extremely flimsy basis on which to construct an argument.

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).

This is a stretch again. He is indeed being grouped with Sergius, because he agreed with him.

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

I don’t dispute that the Popes put things that way–naturally they would. It would appear that there were two views on Honorius–one dominant at the Council, that he was actually a heretic, and one held by Maximus and the Popes, who wanted to think more charitably of him. Holders of these two views had no reason to fight with each other, since they agreed on the point of doctrine, and they agreed that Honorius’s language was wrong.

I don’t have time to respond to the rest, and I think most of it addresses the infallibility issue.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Provide one non-infallible teaching?

I don’t care whether it’s infallible or not. That’s something that members of your Communion can and do debate endlessly.

Catholics must submit to the teaching that women cannot be ordained, for instance. Yes, I know that you think it’s infallible. Fine. Not my concern.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

He was condemned as a heretic. So which heresy did he endorse? The council is quite clear and even the Roman Breviary was until about 2 centuries ago.

In Christ,
Andrew

Condemned as a ‘secretive’ Monothelite? That is the whole issue what I asked from the get-go. Where are the sources stating he was a ‘secretive’ Monothelite?

Key word: SECRETIVE