J
josephdaniel29
Guest
We have gone off on quite a few tangents. My apologies.
- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
Okay.I know it was quite a few hours and a lot of posts ago, perhaps you have forgotten your post that got this entire series of posts going? If so I will remind you.
You didnât say provide a non-infallible âofficially defined dogma.â You said a ânon-fallible teaching.â
Of course if you are going to define âteachingâ as âofficially defined dogmaâ then there is not going to be an example of one not being considered infallible by the Church. Otherwise why would it be âofficially definedâ to begin with.
If you define âteachingâ as something that at one point was taught itâs an entirely different question. I never said or made the case that Limbo is or was an âofficially definedâ dogma. I never said it wasnât âtheological speculation.â What I am saying is that at one time it was taught. The Baltimore Catechism, an object of study in Catholic households for almost a century certainly bears that out.
Now since Limbo is a teaching in the sense that it was taught, and since it has not been infallibly defined, then it meets the requirements of your original question i.e. to give you a ânon-infallible teaching.â
N
Nicea325
Guest
I respect your view,but I beg to differ.
W
Wesley7
Guest
What makes him a Saint?I am intrigued.
Do you as a Catholic think that Saint Constantine is not a saint?
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
Thanks for the kind words.
This is something that I take seriously. When I last went through a period of thinking seriously about the Orthodox as an alternative (I always think seriously about them in the same way Catholics doâas brothers and sisters in Christ whose separation from us is unfortunate and from whom we have much to learn), a Catholic scholar named William Tighe (who can be found hanging out on Anglican blogs quite a bit) made the argument that there was no good reason to take the âEOâ claims more seriously than those of the âOO.â That wasnât the main reason I gave up the thought of becoming Orthodox at the time, but it played some role.
Part of Tigheâs argument was that there are no good grounds to accept Chalcedon but reject Florence. I would now say (I know Catholics hate to hear Orthodox and Orthodox sympathizers say this) that Prof. Tigheâs argument was based in an overly âjuridicalâ understanding of how Councils work. What matters is not whether a Council meets some external set of criteria for validity, but whether the Church eventually discerns that it proclaims the Truth. I used to find this too vague and loosey-goosey, but Iâve changed in that regard.
The other part of Tigheâs argument, as I remember it, was that the OOâs get ignored because there arenât many of them and most Westerners arenât aware of them. He made the excellent point that this was true of the EOâs a hundred years ago or so. This is still a relevant consideration for me in thinking of Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism. I donât necessarily accept the claim that the Roman Communion must be Catholic and the Communion of Constantinople not because the former is found in more places than the latter. But on a practical level Iâm going to give considerable benefit of the doubt to a Communion that is found right down the street from me, over against one that would require me to drive 45 minutes to another town. (This isnât about the trouble, but about the nature of the Church as a local community gathered around the Eucharistâa very Orthodox principle!) And of course, by the same token Iâm going to look for very strong proof before traipsing off to Indianapolis to join the Copts, or for that matter to Chicago to join the Church of the East!
C
Contarini
Guest
So what it boils down to is this: I reject categorically the idea that people are obligated to figure out what all the religions of the world claim and decide the question among them on purely objective grounds. There are people who claim to have done this, but I have never been given any reason to believe them. It would take too long, for one thing, and it isnât possible to be entirely objective, for another. It is right to place the burden of proof on the tradition that is âfarther awayâ from one in any sense.
To put my spiritual pilgrimage briefly: I started out in what amounted to a house church in the Wesleyan Holiness tradition. I became convinced that Holiness sectarianism was mistaken, and I saw no reason to become Methodist rather than Anglican, so I became an Anglican. There I have remained for twelve years now, with some fitful jerks in the direction of Rome. I place the burden of the proof on any tradition that asks me to leave my present affiliation and join it. Any of the four apostolic traditions can, in my opinion, meet that burden of proof on its own. Until recently, I would have said that Rome and the Orthodox had approximately equal claims, but that Orthodoxy had a higher burden of proof compared to Rome because of its greater remoteness. Now I would say that the Orthodox claim is probably somewhat stronger, but itâs still a very even thing.
I canât, on the other hand, see any reason for joining the OO tradition that comes close to meeting the requisite burden of proof. The strongest point in their favor is that they are less contaminated by state power than either of the other two major contenders. I also take seriously Robert Jensonâs criticisms of Pope Leoâs formulation (though Jenson tries to stop short of actually condemning Chalcedon!), and I can see how the OOâs could make the same appeal to mystery against Chalcedon (we donât know how Christ can have one nature without humanity being swallowed up, but we believe that He does) that the Orthodox make against the West and Catholics against Protestants. But on the other hand, I see value in the Antiochene tradition, and given that Chalcedon is the âdefaultâ option for me, I see no reason to abandon it, when in fact the Chalcedonian tradition is rooted in the attempt to do justice to both sides of the coinâthe mystical Alexandrian emphasis on God truly taking on flesh (which admittedly has a greater appeal for me), and the Antiochene affirmation of Christâs real humanity.
Furthermore, the OOâs themselves do not make as strong claims over against Chalcedonians as the Orthodox make against the West or both Orthodox and Catholics against Anglicans. The OOâs appear to seek for a union in which both sides recognize the other as orthodox without abandoning their characteristic language. I hope for such a union too.
One consideration that does influence me toward Rome is that many of the OO churches have united with Rome over the centuries. I have very little practical experience of âOrientalâ Christian traditions (i.e., non-Byzantine Eastern), having attended one Coptic and part of one âJacobiteâ liturgy in my life. But I am concerned by the extent to which âOrthodoxyâ is identified with the sphere of influence of the former Byzantine Empire, and the fact that the Eastern traditions that fell outside of that sphere or resisted the Empire have some representatives in union with Rome is a powerful argument in Romeâs favor, for me. So in short, Iâm unlikely to become OO, but my respect for the OO traditions does weigh against Constantinople.
Finally, I have also give some (not too much) thought to the âChurch of the East.â However, as far as I can tell the âNestoriansâ recognize all the âapostolicâ traditions (including Anglicans and even Lutherans!) as valid, and do not seek converts. Furthermore, while I think the Antiochene theologians were very badly treated, and while I respect the amazing history of Nestorianism and its freedom from state control, I donât find the âNestorianâ Christology to be persuasive. They seem to me to be too unwilling to recognize the basic paradox of the Incarnation. I can gladly accept that they are not fundamentally heretical but simply a bit too cautious in their terminology, but I see no advantage to their terminology.
Edwin
To put my spiritual pilgrimage briefly: I started out in what amounted to a house church in the Wesleyan Holiness tradition. I became convinced that Holiness sectarianism was mistaken, and I saw no reason to become Methodist rather than Anglican, so I became an Anglican. There I have remained for twelve years now, with some fitful jerks in the direction of Rome. I place the burden of the proof on any tradition that asks me to leave my present affiliation and join it. Any of the four apostolic traditions can, in my opinion, meet that burden of proof on its own. Until recently, I would have said that Rome and the Orthodox had approximately equal claims, but that Orthodoxy had a higher burden of proof compared to Rome because of its greater remoteness. Now I would say that the Orthodox claim is probably somewhat stronger, but itâs still a very even thing.
I canât, on the other hand, see any reason for joining the OO tradition that comes close to meeting the requisite burden of proof. The strongest point in their favor is that they are less contaminated by state power than either of the other two major contenders. I also take seriously Robert Jensonâs criticisms of Pope Leoâs formulation (though Jenson tries to stop short of actually condemning Chalcedon!), and I can see how the OOâs could make the same appeal to mystery against Chalcedon (we donât know how Christ can have one nature without humanity being swallowed up, but we believe that He does) that the Orthodox make against the West and Catholics against Protestants. But on the other hand, I see value in the Antiochene tradition, and given that Chalcedon is the âdefaultâ option for me, I see no reason to abandon it, when in fact the Chalcedonian tradition is rooted in the attempt to do justice to both sides of the coinâthe mystical Alexandrian emphasis on God truly taking on flesh (which admittedly has a greater appeal for me), and the Antiochene affirmation of Christâs real humanity.
Furthermore, the OOâs themselves do not make as strong claims over against Chalcedonians as the Orthodox make against the West or both Orthodox and Catholics against Anglicans. The OOâs appear to seek for a union in which both sides recognize the other as orthodox without abandoning their characteristic language. I hope for such a union too.
One consideration that does influence me toward Rome is that many of the OO churches have united with Rome over the centuries. I have very little practical experience of âOrientalâ Christian traditions (i.e., non-Byzantine Eastern), having attended one Coptic and part of one âJacobiteâ liturgy in my life. But I am concerned by the extent to which âOrthodoxyâ is identified with the sphere of influence of the former Byzantine Empire, and the fact that the Eastern traditions that fell outside of that sphere or resisted the Empire have some representatives in union with Rome is a powerful argument in Romeâs favor, for me. So in short, Iâm unlikely to become OO, but my respect for the OO traditions does weigh against Constantinople.
Finally, I have also give some (not too much) thought to the âChurch of the East.â However, as far as I can tell the âNestoriansâ recognize all the âapostolicâ traditions (including Anglicans and even Lutherans!) as valid, and do not seek converts. Furthermore, while I think the Antiochene theologians were very badly treated, and while I respect the amazing history of Nestorianism and its freedom from state control, I donât find the âNestorianâ Christology to be persuasive. They seem to me to be too unwilling to recognize the basic paradox of the Incarnation. I can gladly accept that they are not fundamentally heretical but simply a bit too cautious in their terminology, but I see no advantage to their terminology.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Josie, a monothelite is someone who says Jesus had one will.
Honorius said Jesus had one will.
Therefore, Honorius was a monothelite.
His intentions are irrelevant. We arenât discussing whether he was a formal heretic, but whether he was a material one.
I will grant that youâve shown that a number of people, from Maximus to the later Popes, were concerned to deny that he was a Monothelite, and that the language of the Council is vague on the matterâprobably intentionally. However, it looks to me as if this was a choice (in my opinion an entirely reasonable and admirable choice) to avoid offending Rome.
To all practical effect he does: when he says âone will in our Lord Jesus Christ,â that is most reasonably taken to refer to the Person unless clearly indicated otherwise.
If Honorius had not been the bishop of Rome, I donât think anyone would be disputing this. Itâs very telling that Hefele changed his position after Vatican I, at a time when he was under suspicion for his earlier opposition to the infallibility definition.
I donât think I obfuscated anything, because as far as I can see the reason he goes on to give was one shared by the Monothelites as a whole. I didnât and donât see that his reason affects the question of whether he was a Monothelite. They were all concerned to deny that Jesus had something in Him contrary to the divine will. I was not trying to hide the fact that he goes on to give a perfectly admirable reason for his viewâbut then, I do not hold the odd view (which you seem to hold) that real heretics donât have admirable reasons for their heresies:shrug:
I was using a source open to everyone and so assumed that anyone who wanted could and would look up the context. In fact, I appear to be the only one who has taken the trouble to go and look up Hefele, who quotes the primary sources at length, and I have linked to Hefele even though in the second edition he takes a view opposed to mine (and argues for it much better than anyone else Iâve seen so far). So I resent your suggestion that Iâm trying to hide the full context. It is not my habit to quote at length from sources that anyone can go and look up for themselves.
However, youâre right that under the circumstances it would have been better to quote the passage and bold the part I thought was important.
How? By special divine revelation? Because the text as we have it is vague. Thatâs the strongest point in your favor, so donât weaken it by saying that you know what the Council Fathers intended.
Edwin
N
Nicea325
Guest
Ah no! The issue at hand is very clear:
An Orthodox clearly made the claim Honorius was a âsecretiveâ MonotheliteâŚenough said!
Where are the sources supporting Honorius was without a doubt a âsecretiveâ Monothelite?
KEY WORD: Secretive
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Josie,
The Orthodox Churches are not one monolithic construct but consist of a union of Particular, autocephalous Churches. Not all of them are based on national lines - there are several autocephalous Greek Churches. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine, for example, was and is based in Kyiv, but included Christians from many nationalities, including Siberians. The fact that it was in Ukraine did not make it âfor Ukrainians only.â
St John Maximovych in the 18th century even translated the Divine Liturgy into Chinese and others reached out to Alaskans and others. The great teacher of the Jesus Prayer, St Paisius Velichkovsky (ancestor of the Catholic martyr, Bl. Bishop Basil Velichkovsky whose shrine is in Winnipeg), included disciples from ten national groups including Chalcedonian Armenians. The great and union-minded Kyivan Orthodox Metropolitan Peter Mohyla was a Moldavian whose mother tongue was Roumanian.
The Orthodox Churches also have an exact idea as to their canonicity which is both clear and definite.
Speaking as an Eastern Catholic, I admire how traditional Orthodox Christians truly are. Yes, they donât have a central personal authority in the Pope of Rome. But I find all kinds of nonsensical things done and said by Catholics which makes one wonder how âCatholicâ they truly are.
It is not that the Orthodox deny the primacy of Peter - they do not. But their ecclesiology is a Conciliar one with the pope of Rome, in the first millennium, occupying the first seat in an ecumenical council.
A number of points raised in this thread, and Iâm not only referring to you, are issues that have long been put to rest in ecumenical talks between Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians.
How we as laity especially view one another should reflect that irenical spirit, I believe. The Orthodox have lived under many difficult regimes, including, truth be told, national Roman Catholic ones that have been inimical toward them.
It is time for us all to put that behind us with a great deal more sensitivity toward our Orthodox brothers and sisters, from whose spiritual waters we can all drink deeply and profitably.
I pray that all Catholics would reflect the same spiritual sobriety and seriousness that the Orthodox Christians I have had the privilege to know in my life have.
Alex
The Orthodox Churches are not one monolithic construct but consist of a union of Particular, autocephalous Churches. Not all of them are based on national lines - there are several autocephalous Greek Churches. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine, for example, was and is based in Kyiv, but included Christians from many nationalities, including Siberians. The fact that it was in Ukraine did not make it âfor Ukrainians only.â
St John Maximovych in the 18th century even translated the Divine Liturgy into Chinese and others reached out to Alaskans and others. The great teacher of the Jesus Prayer, St Paisius Velichkovsky (ancestor of the Catholic martyr, Bl. Bishop Basil Velichkovsky whose shrine is in Winnipeg), included disciples from ten national groups including Chalcedonian Armenians. The great and union-minded Kyivan Orthodox Metropolitan Peter Mohyla was a Moldavian whose mother tongue was Roumanian.
The Orthodox Churches also have an exact idea as to their canonicity which is both clear and definite.
Speaking as an Eastern Catholic, I admire how traditional Orthodox Christians truly are. Yes, they donât have a central personal authority in the Pope of Rome. But I find all kinds of nonsensical things done and said by Catholics which makes one wonder how âCatholicâ they truly are.
It is not that the Orthodox deny the primacy of Peter - they do not. But their ecclesiology is a Conciliar one with the pope of Rome, in the first millennium, occupying the first seat in an ecumenical council.
A number of points raised in this thread, and Iâm not only referring to you, are issues that have long been put to rest in ecumenical talks between Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians.
How we as laity especially view one another should reflect that irenical spirit, I believe. The Orthodox have lived under many difficult regimes, including, truth be told, national Roman Catholic ones that have been inimical toward them.
It is time for us all to put that behind us with a great deal more sensitivity toward our Orthodox brothers and sisters, from whose spiritual waters we can all drink deeply and profitably.
I pray that all Catholics would reflect the same spiritual sobriety and seriousness that the Orthodox Christians I have had the privilege to know in my life have.
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Nicea325,
While Rome never condemned Pope Honorius as a Monothelite, it did,at one time, anathematize him - an anathema that was repeated by successive popes for some years afterwards. There is no reason why Honorius should be considered a âmonotheliteâ since he clearly never was.
Rome also excluded Pope Liberius from the list of papal saints on a similar charge of laxity toward heresy. However, the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches honour Liberius as a Saint, nevertheless.
Alex
While Rome never condemned Pope Honorius as a Monothelite, it did,at one time, anathematize him - an anathema that was repeated by successive popes for some years afterwards. There is no reason why Honorius should be considered a âmonotheliteâ since he clearly never was.
Rome also excluded Pope Liberius from the list of papal saints on a similar charge of laxity toward heresy. However, the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches honour Liberius as a Saint, nevertheless.
Alex
J
jam070406
Guest
Alex,
I have a question for you. For you, personally, why be Greek Catholic and not Orthodox? This is a sincere question. I would like to hear your opinion.
God bless.
P
patricius79
Guest
Iâve been praying about these issues and trying to review the joint consultation more:
one of the things Iâve noted is the staetment says:
Photiosâs opposition to the Filioque was based upon his view that it signifies two causes in the Trinity
then the statement goes on to say:
It is also not true that mainstream Latin theology has traditionally begun its Trinitarian reflections from an abstract, unscriptural consideration of the divine substance, or affirms two causes of the Spiritâs hypostatic existence
And also
It is not true, for instance, that mainstream Orthodox theology conceives of the procession of the Spirit, within Godâs eternal being, as simply unaffected by the relationship of the Son to the Father
usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml
I would honestly like to understand this better: I mean: how do the Orthodox undertand the way the Fatherâs relationship to the Son affects the procession of the Spirit?
one of the things Iâve noted is the staetment says:
Photiosâs opposition to the Filioque was based upon his view that it signifies two causes in the Trinity
then the statement goes on to say:
It is also not true that mainstream Latin theology has traditionally begun its Trinitarian reflections from an abstract, unscriptural consideration of the divine substance, or affirms two causes of the Spiritâs hypostatic existence
And also
It is not true, for instance, that mainstream Orthodox theology conceives of the procession of the Spirit, within Godâs eternal being, as simply unaffected by the relationship of the Son to the Father
usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml
I would honestly like to understand this better: I mean: how do the Orthodox undertand the way the Fatherâs relationship to the Son affects the procession of the Spirit?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Honorius was a Monothelite, pure and simple. It wasnât secret, it was publically known. He sent a representative, deacon Gaios, to the Cyprus Synod in 634 to advocate this position along with Sergius and the gang. So he not only advocated Monothelitism in letters, he fought for it. The emperor took the side of Monothelitism and in doing so really was going along with Sergius and Honorius. So Honorius was, IMO, teaching from The Chair as pope.
He was condemned as a heretic after his death and anathemized. It was kept in the Roman breviery for centuries, future popes upheld the condemnation, Monothelitism was condemned and so was one of its sponsors, Honorius.
People can try to do a song and dance around this guy but the facts are the fact, as ugly as they are and hard to accept.
He was condemned as a heretic after his death and anathemized. It was kept in the Roman breviery for centuries, future popes upheld the condemnation, Monothelitism was condemned and so was one of its sponsors, Honorius.
People can try to do a song and dance around this guy but the facts are the fact, as ugly as they are and hard to accept.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Precisely! Now trying convincing those who claim he was one?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
The burden of proof is to prove he WASNâT one since itâs painfully obvious by his condemnation, advocacy of Monothelitism in writing and in sending a representative to a synod to support it that he was indeed a Monothelite. As Contarini (Edwin) said accurately, if he werenât a pope of Rome, we wouldnât be having this discussion. Catholics would condemn him a Monothelite without a second thought were he a bishop of Rome.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Ah no Honorius was NOT a Monothelite! Where was he labeled,called,confirmed as an OPEN- Monothelite? Arius was an open Arian and condemned for it! Novatian was an open Novatian and his teachings condemned. Theodotus of Byzantium and his teachings of Adoptionism were also condemned.
H
Harpazo
Guest
I know this and you know this, but it still wonât stop some of our more colorful friends on here from vehemently trying to talk themselves out of it.
I found this written by Fr. Ambrose, a priest who used to post on here until almost all the Orthodox were booted. He wrote this on another board:
In Christ,
Andrew
N
Nicea325
Guest
Ah no! The burden of proof is to PROVE he was officially condemned for being an OPEN Monothelite!
Honorius probably should have known the implications of using the âone willâ formula; he could have found out by writing a letter to Sophronius of Jerusalem. But he was no heretic.
And as josie L already displayed accurately how Contarini deliberately left out some important words,thus giving the presentation of a smoking gunâŚenough said!
C
Contarini
Guest
No, it doesnât, as Hefele recognized even when desperately scrambling to revise his position in the wake of Vatican I.
It makes no sense to say ânothing makes his language monothelite except the mention of one will.â Itâs like saying, âNothing makes his language polytheistic except the mention of several gods.â And yes, someone might use âgodsâ in the plural in a certain context without being a polytheist.
The problem with that explanation is that Honoriusâs concern appears to be the same as that of the undisputed monothelites. I will grant that he fell into monothelitism fairly casually and only in one letter that we have from him. I am happy to agree that his problem was failing to think the issue through carefully enough. I have no interest in passing a harsh judgment on him. But the fact is that he used monothelite language, and that there is no good reason to believe that he meant something by it significantly different than what others meant who used the same language.
Edwin
- Status