Question:Why be Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

[Contarini]

I read an article here at catholic answers to the effect that for fifty years the eastern hierarchy was thoroughly infected by the monothelite heresy. Is that true? And is it true that they were rescued from this heresy largely–as with the Monophysite heresy–through the Papacy?

And if so: then how could anyone use Pope honorius as an argument against the Papacy?

Because the position we’re arguing isn’t that the Papacy is always wrong or the East is always right. It’s that no single See can be counted on always to be right. And the case of Honorius proves this, whether or not his endorsement of “one will” can be read in an orthodox sense or not. (I’m still not convinced by the exegesis, but I grant that this attempt to exculpate him goes back to Maximus himself.)

Edwin

 

[Madaglan]

I would honestly like to understand this better: I mean: how do the Orthodox undertand the way the Father’s relationship to the Son affects the procession of the Spirit?

According to Gregory of Cyprus, a 13th century Patriarch of Constantinople, the procession of the Holy Spirit is not a simple movement out from the Father but is telos-oriented, with the end being the Son, upon whom the Spirit eternally abides. Other Orthodox bishops and saints have spoken of a necessary relationship between the Son and the Spirit–the two are never separated.

Regarding the relationship between Father and Son: the relationship is that of the Father begetting the Son. Begetting is a hypostatic property of the Father and not the same as the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Father’s begetting of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father are both pre-eternal events, with neither the begetting of the Son nor the procession of the Holy Spirit coming before the other. It’s not the Father first begetting the Son and then, out of that relationship, the Holy Spirit proceeding as a secondary effect; but rather, the Son being begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeding are coeternal events not well understood by human logic.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Ah no! The burden of proof is to PROVE he was officially condemned for being an OPEN Monothelite!

I will grant that the intention of the Council cannot be proven. As I said earlier to Josie, they may have wished to leave the question vague, and clearly they wanted to make Sergius the primary villain.

That is very understandable and plausible.

Quote:
So in other words, he is was one in theory,but not in practice?

No, he was one in fact but probably not in intention

I accept your view,but disagree whole-heartedly.

 

[Nicea325]

Anyone that ends their statements on online forums or in real life with “end of discussion!” or “period, done!” or “next issue!” I don’t take seriously anyway. Your argument is hardly compelling based on the wealth of evidence shown in this thread and beyond. Don’t imply I have an “issue” because I don’t agree with your wishful conclusion. We disagree but neither of us has “issues,” just disagreement. Your statement shows a tribal “us against them” triumphalism that bothers me. Anything dissenting from your view is “anti-Catholic” and hostile and enemy.

And yours is not compelling at all either, because it has been heard a billion of times. I have no need to post scores of references,it has been done over and over here and in the past. No gurney,it is called revisionism in order to prove an agenda against the papacy. Nothing new and nothing surprising. No where is the man condemned as an open and practicing Monothelite and those are the facts,whether you care to accept them or not.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ve never heard of rejecting an argument because it’s been used “billions of times?” How many kugilians of times have we heard Matthew 16:18 quoted in this forum? My goodness. Your head will spin from how many times we hear that. Yet is it cliche and untrue for you? So I reject that line of thinking. You also imply that because the argument has been made before that the person making the argument lacks vision or truth. Again, not true.

Let me ask you a question, make this simple and try not to spin it.

Did Honorius send deacon Gaios to the Synod of Cyprus in 634 with the pro-monothelite position to be presented at the synod? Yes or no? Did he or did he not send a legate with the pro-monthelite position to be fought for at the synod? Yes or no?

If I send someone in my stead to fight for a position than for goodness sakes, Nicea, then I ME PERSONALLY yours truly must believe it, right? Isn’t that what legates and representatives are for? And this was a synod where heresies are discussed and doctrine formulated. So I am then fighting for a heretical position, right? How is this NOT (??) being a monothelite? It’s not passive, it’s active? You can’t just say “I don’t agree” you need to answer yes or no and prove why you disagree. Saying something is cliche or an old argument doesn’t wash.

And then for goodness sakes read the actual anathema at the Third Council of Constantinople against him…the most important part: “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”. LOL! The anathema names off a bunch of the Monothelite heretics and then Honorius who FOLLOWED THEM IN ALL THINGS!!

That’s like naming off Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, who followed Hitler in all things and saying, “yeah, but that doesn’t make Himmler a Nazi!” :newidea:

I’d like you to take my post here line by line and address it please, if you want to make a good argument here and not just generalize with brushing it off at the top in vague disses. Please address the argument and we can seriously debate this guy. Honorius was a Monothelite, a heretic, and a failure.

And yours is not compelling at all either, because it has been heard a billion of times. I have no need to post scores of references,it has been done over and over here and in the past. No gurney,it is called revisionism in order to prove an agenda against the papacy. Nothing new and nothing surprising. No where is the man condemned as an open and practicing Monothelite and those are the facts,whether you care to accept them or not.

 

[shaky]

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.

Hi Gabriel

The Changes that interest me is the Subject on divorce and remarriage. The Fact that i am
divorced and my ex wife is with somebody else. I was never with anybody else. but becoming Roman catholic would mean i would not be allowed to re-marry ever again:shrug: When was this rule formed??. I was told on a orthodox website i would be allowed to re-marry
what about people who are divorced and remarried and are in the middle of bringinging there children up in a family home.
Also Orthodox bishops and priests; If east and west come together that would mean it would have a affect on them.
I have no problem with roman catholic priests and bishops makeing a free choice
But forceing others to make a choice in there different circumstances seems wrong.
If rules were one way in the beginning why make changes??

 

[Contarini]

I’ve never heard of rejecting an argument because it’s been used “billions of times?”.

Apologetics Rule 1203:

If something has been said on your side many times, that makes it true.
If something has been said on the other side many times, that makes it false.

This, of course, is a variant of Rule 1:

Any argument promoting your side is right;
Any argument hurting your side is wrong.

Edwin

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel

The Changes that interest me is the Subject on divorce and remarriage. The Fact that i am
divorced and my ex wife is with somebody else. I was never with anybody else. but becoming Roman catholic would mean i would not be allowed to re-marry ever again:shrug: When was this rule formed??. I was told on a orthodox website i would be allowed to re-marry
what about people who are divorced and remarried and are in the middle of bringinging there children up in a family home.
Also Orthodox bishops and priests; If east and west come together that would mean it would have a affect on them.
I have no problem with roman catholic priests and bishops makeing a free choice
But forceing others to make a choice in there different circumstances seems wrong.
If rules were one way in the beginning why make changes??

Woo, hang on there shaky; Marriage is a huge topic here in our societies today, and man has complicated marriage in both law of the land and morally.

Jesus is the one who made this rule “no divorce”, “If a man divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery” = Jesus. The Catholic Church just obeys Christ;

The Catholic church follows the teachings of Jesus, there is no divorce in a valid sacramental marriage. If an Orthodox told you divorce is allowed in a valid sacramental marriage, then that Orthodox does not hold to the true biblical and apostolic Traditional teachings and principles of Marriage in holy matrimony. If you are speaking about an Orthodox who is separated from the unity with the Pope, then these allow certain circumstances on contraception “killing of life at conception”, abortion etc… some have mixed views on divorce. This is something you may have to get an official statement from an Orthodox because remember these Orthodox Churches are anthocephalus (independent) from one another in authority which can lead to many misunderstandings between what is cultural understandings with faith.

As far as the Catholic church is concerned “there is no divorce in the Catholic Church”, no man can put asunder what God has joined together (Mark 10:9)

The key for you I think, is to investigate first what constitutes a valid sacramental marriage recognized by the Catholic church? If it is proven your first marriage was not a valid marriage, then the Catholic Church would never consider you married the first time and your divorce carries no validity with it, which means in the eyes of the Church you were never married. There other examples following this line of understanding involving a marriage outside of the God’s Church which the Catholic church would not recognize.

I don’t think you want to reveal all your personal business on these forums. So I would recommend you speak to a Catholic priest first, preferably a canon lawyer priest if possible. To discuss your first marriage to see if it was valid, and steps you can take through the Church to confirm if the marriage was valid, or steps you can take to prove its invalid status, which may only require a disposition from bishop, or annulment which proves your marriage never took place “valid wise”.

If this first marriage is holding you back from making your decision, please do not get moved by every wind of here say, that comes by you on this topic. But seek the Truth from the Source you inquire about in the Catholic church, it will cost you nothing to speak to a priest on these matters, who can help you understand if your marriage is valid, or not, maybe all it needs is a disposition from a bishop? in order to confirm you are free to marry.

The Catholic church has not made any changes to marriage since Jesus elevated Holy Matrimony to a sacrament between a man and woman only.

Yes, the Eastern church priests marry, but there bishops are elected by its people who are never married. Once a married priest becomes a widower, he cannot remarry. But these are only disciplines subject to change any time in both East and West Church. The Catholic today has married priest who converted from other protestant faiths. This is not a difficult barrier between East and West in unity, because both respects each other’s disciplines, except for the Orthodox not in communion with the Pope may have negative reservations against celibate priest in the Catholic church. Besides celibacy is taught and practiced in the New Testament.

If you need more assistance on this before taking a step, you can PM me, so I can give you some terminology that the Church uses on this topic of marrige that may NOT have the same definition as a lay person, because unless you ask the priest he may continue explaining without you truly understanding the definitions of the terms, if you don’t ask him? Or we can speak hypothetically here on particular marriage examples.

 

[Vico]

Honorius was a Monothelite, pure and simple. It wasn’t 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.

I read that on New World Encyclopedia:

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pope_Honorius_I

Vatican I proponents of Papal Infallibility said Pope Honorius I did not speak ex cathedra of his beliefs. This is believable since he was found to be lax.

Read Denzinger # 251 and # 252 which are letters by Honorius I:

catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma3.php

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=gurneyhalleck1;6992338]I’ve never heard of rejecting an argument because it’s been used “billions of times?” How many kugilians of times have we heard Matthew 16:18 quoted in this forum? My goodness. Your head will spin from how many times we hear that. Yet is it cliche and untrue for you? So I reject that line of thinking. You also imply that because the argument has been made before that the person making the argument lacks vision or truth. Again, not true.

I think it is quite simple really, the Orthodox not in communion with the pope should not use Honorius the man condemned 40 years after his death as a reason to discredit the Chair of Peter and his successors, This is always a losing battle because it kicks against the goad. Especially at the Promise Jesus made to Peter (how is this scripture for redundancy)

Mathew 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 **and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. **19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Luke 22:31
10 11** “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32
but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail;** and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

So I just don’t get it, what is the reason why protestants try and use Honorius who is condemned after 40 years of death, never while he lived, as a proof to discredit Peter’s Successors, when Peter himself was the greatest sinner of not only his successors, but all the faithful, because he denied Jesus Christ 3 TIMES… to his face.

Why don’t the protestants make a fuss about our first Pope Peter’s denial of Jesus 3 times?

What purpose did it serve to condemn a man after 40 years of death, is the real purpose of the council to defeat heretics and heresies at that time. The condemnation never came to discredit Peter and his successors in the popes as Orthodox and protestants falsely assume here.

This confuse and divide tactic by Orthodox members is what Nicea did a great job of exposing. The specifics you inquire never equate to discrediting the chair of Peter and his successors when interpreted from the original council.

Peace be with you

 

[shaky]

Woo, hang on there shaky; Marriage is a huge topic here in our societies today, and man has complicated marriage in both law of the land and morally.

Jesus is the one who made this rule “no divorce”, “If a man divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery” = Jesus. The Catholic Church just obeys Christ;

The Catholic church follows the teachings of Jesus, there is no divorce in a valid sacramental marriage. If an Orthodox told you divorce is allowed in a valid sacramental marriage, then that Orthodox does not hold to the true biblical and apostolic Traditional teachings and principles of Marriage in holy matrimony. If you are speaking about an Orthodox who is separated from the unity with the Pope, then these allow certain circumstances on contraception “killing of life at conception”, abortion etc… some have mixed views on divorce. This is something you may have to get an official statement from an Orthodox because remember these Orthodox Churches are anthocephalus (independent) from one another in authority which can lead to many misunderstandings between what is cultural understandings with faith.

As far as the Catholic church is concerned “there is no divorce in the Catholic Church”, no man can put asunder what God has joined together (Mark 10:9)

The key for you I think, is to investigate first what constitutes a valid sacramental marriage recognized by the Catholic church? If it is proven your first marriage was not a valid marriage, then the Catholic Church would never consider you married the first time and your divorce carries no validity with it, which means in the eyes of the Church you were never married. There other examples following this line of understanding involving a marriage outside of the God’s Church which the Catholic church would not recognize.

I don’t think you want to reveal all your personal business on these forums. So I would recommend you speak to a Catholic priest first, preferably a canon lawyer priest if possible. To discuss your first marriage to see if it was valid, and steps you can take through the Church to confirm if the marriage was valid, or steps you can take to prove its invalid status, which may only require a disposition from bishop, or annulment which proves your marriage never took place “valid wise”.

If this first marriage is holding you back from making your decision, please do not get moved by every wind of here say, that comes by you on this topic. But seek the Truth from the Source you inquire about in the Catholic church, it will cost you nothing to speak to a priest on these matters, who can help you understand if your marriage is valid, or not, maybe all it needs is a disposition from a bishop? in order to confirm you are free to marry.

The Catholic church has not made any changes to marriage since Jesus elevated Holy Matrimony to a sacrament between a man and woman only.

Yes, the Eastern church priests marry, but there bishops are elected by its people who are never married. Once a married priest becomes a widower, he cannot remarry. But these are only disciplines subject to change any time in both East and West Church. The Catholic today has married priest who converted from other protestant faiths. This is not a difficult barrier between East and West in unity, because both respects each other’s disciplines, except for the Orthodox not in communion with the Pope may have negative reservations against celibate priest in the Catholic church. Besides celibacy is taught and practiced in the New Testament.

If you need more assistance on this before taking a step, you can PM me, so I can give you some terminology that the Church uses on this topic of marrige that may NOT have the same definition as a lay person, because unless you ask the priest he may continue explaining without you truly understanding the definitions of the terms, if you don’t ask him? Or we can speak hypothetically here on particular marriage examples.

Hi Gabriel

I was going by Matthew 19:9 where Jesus Gives a exception on; fornication=porneia=sexual Immorality.

I was trying to find out when the roman catholic church decided not to include your partner
commiting illicit sex=sexual immorality as grounds for divorce. while the Orthodox still keeps to this as grounds for divorce.

 

[Nicea325]

I’ve never heard of rejecting an argument because it’s been used “billions of times?” How many kugilians of times have we heard Matthew 16:18 quoted in this forum? My goodness. Your head will spin from how many times we hear that. Yet is it cliche and untrue for you? So I reject that line of thinking. You also imply that because the argument has been made before that the person making the argument lacks vision or truth. Again, not true.

Let me ask you a question, make this simple and try not to spin it.

Did Honorius send deacon Gaios to the Synod of Cyprus in 634 with the pro-monothelite position to be presented at the synod? Yes or no? Did he or did he not send a legate with the pro-monthelite position to be fought for at the synod? Yes or no?

If I send someone in my stead to fight for a position than for goodness sakes, Nicea, then I ME PERSONALLY yours truly must believe it, right? Isn’t that what legates and representatives are for? And this was a synod where heresies are discussed and doctrine formulated. So I am then fighting for a heretical position, right? How is this NOT (??) being a monothelite? It’s not passive, it’s active? You can’t just say “I don’t agree” you need to answer yes or no and prove why you disagree. Saying something is cliche or an old argument doesn’t wash.

And then for goodness sakes read the actual anathema at the Third Council of Constantinople against him…the most important part: "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things". LOL! The anathema names off a bunch of the Monothelite heretics and then Honorius who FOLLOWED THEM IN ALL THINGS!!

That’s like naming off Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, who followed Hitler in all things and saying, “yeah, but that doesn’t make Himmler a Nazi!” :newidea:

I’d like you to take my post here line by line and address it please, if you want to make a good argument here and not just generalize with brushing it off at the top in vague disses. Please address the argument and we can seriously debate this guy. Honorius was a Monothelite, a heretic, and a failure.

And was Honorius condemned while he LIVED?
Again, no where was he condemned while ALIVE as an open and practicing Monothelite. If it did happen while he lived,then show me.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is the logic you’re using here. You’re saying that the argument is moot because Peter cannot err. That’s it. We have a guy who’s a Monothelite. That’s a heresy. He was a proponent of it in writing to Sergius and he was a proponent of it in actuality sending his legate to fight for the position. Exhibit A and B. He was condemned, as you said, decades after his death by a council. This council was upheld by other popes!! It was not contested by Rome but accepted and upheld for centuries.

So how is this a divide and conquer type of argument when Rome herself upheld the anathema and kept him condemned? Your argument is centered around, “well I just don’t believe it! He couldn’t be a heretic! He just couldn’t be!” There’s no rationale behind it or evidence. The guy was a heretic in writing and in action. In encouraging the monothelite heresy in a synod, he was teaching ex cathedra.

I don’t see what Peter denying Christ three times has to do with Honorius. Peter denied Christ three times before the cock crowed. Then when Jesus was risen, He forgave Peter. Peter acknowledged his sin. He didn’t adopt a heresy and tell the other apostles he thought it was a good position and then try to take it to a council. Apples and oranges I think.

Blessings to you too, Gabe!

I think it is quite simple really, the Orthodox not in communion with the pope should not use Honorius the man condemned 40 years after his death as a reason to discredit the Chair of Peter and his successors, This is always a losing battle because it kicks against the goad. Especially at the Promise Jesus made to Peter (how is this scripture for redundancy)

Mathew 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 **and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. **19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Luke 22:31
10 11** “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32
but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail;** and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

So I just don’t get it, what is the reason why protestants try and use Honorius who is condemned after 40 years of death, never while he lived, as a proof to discredit Peter’s Successors, when Peter himself was the greatest sinner of not only his successors, but all the faithful, because he denied Jesus Christ 3 TIMES… to his face.

Why don’t the protestants make a fuss about our first Pope Peter’s denial of Jesus 3 times?

What purpose did it serve to condemn a man after 40 years of death, is the real purpose of the council to defeat heretics and heresies at that time. The condemnation never came to discredit Peter and his successors in the popes as Orthodox and protestants falsely assume here.

This confuse and divide tactic by Orthodox members is what Nicea did a great job of exposing. The specifics you inquire never equate to discrediting the chair of Peter and his successors when interpreted from the original council.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel

I was going by Matthew 19:9 where Jesus Gives a exception on; fornication=porneia=sexual Immorality.

Mt. 19:9
**I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery." **
10
[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11
He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, 8 but only those to whom that is granted.
12
**Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” **

Verse 9 deals with what the Catholic church calls “invalid” or unlawful in the eyes of God. What protestants take this to mean is Law of the land to justify a divorce which those who followed Moses law of divorce comes deals with the flesh. Now this unlawful marriage from the bible has a huge theological Hebrew aspect which Jesus reveals in verse 11 “Not all can accept this word”. In the law deals with the flesh, while Jesus reveals these mysteries in marriage are “only those to whom that is granted” when He shifts the topic to the heavenly gift of “celibacy” if one is called not to marry by God.

Jesus introduces the validity of celibacy in answer to the Pharisees comment in verse 10 “It that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry”

What we are dealing with here are two different covenants of marriage, the old covenant law allowed divorce to which Jesus was explaining “unless the marriage was unlawful” which pertains to Jews getting married to pagans as incestuous (cf. Lev 18). According to the rabbinicial tradition also included impedements which meant that those who converted and who were already married was not that the marriage could ever be dissolved, but that the marriage never took place. The “unlawful” is also transcribed to “unchastity” which connotes these dealings of marriage under the old covenant law.

You see the Catholic position is very biblical and ancient. What Jesus does to marriage in the new covenant is raised to a sacrament and placed matrimony where God originally created it for, to procreate in Love in the image of God between man and woman “only”.

The Catholic church cannot ever dissolve a marriage, like protestants allow divorce. The Catholic church takes the biblical position as recognizing a marriage as valid or invalid. She can never dissolve a marriage, but can only annul a marriage that is unlawful in the eyes of God, which defines that a marriage never took place.

Another point I would like to make here, is that “adultery” is never a reason given to annul a marriage. A separation can be granted, but the two wedded are never free to remarry, less they committ adultery as Jesus teaches.

In summary, because marriage mirrors the eternal union between Jesus and his bride the Catholic Church. God would never divorce his Bride (church) on the reason of adultery, because God Loves unconditionally. Thus the Catholic Church will not or allow divorce in the body of Jesus Christ for a reason of adultery, only if the marriage was unlawful in eyes of God.

Now we get to the point what is a lawful marriage and what is an unlawful marriage in the new covenant established by Jesus Christ himself. A lawful marriage in the Catholic Church can never divorce, an unlawful marriage is never takes place and is annuled in the Catholic Church. You just need to be correctly informed was your marriage lawful or unlawful in eyes of God, not in the eyes of old covenant or the law of the land.

I will yeild here, because I am not sure if these topics is what you are wanting to discuss.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I am totally puzzled by the point you’re trying to make, Nicea. Does a heretic have to be condemned as such while he is alive for the anathema to take place? Let’s take Arius. Let’s pretend he died before he was declared a heretic. Or Nestorius, or Donatus, any of them. If they die committing a heresy and they’re declared a heretic after death, they’re a HERETIC!

You’re actually contradicting your own argument with your Roman approach to thinking and here’s why. You’re saying that a man cannot be condemned a heretic after death. If he wasn’t condemned in life, he gets off scott free. You’re also telling us that the Catholic Church and particularly the pope are infallible. Then why did the POPES themselves uphold the anathema and condemnation of Honorius for centuries and centuries and centuries!? You’re admitting the popes after him erred and the Church did as well in this argument?

I mean, Nicea, come on man, even LEO II condemned the guy as a heretic: “and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”.

Monothelitism was accepted by Emperor Heracleus thanks to suggestions by Sergius and the legate of Honorius to adopt Monothelitism. So it’s ex cathedra as well.

The guy was a heretic probably with good intentions. But a heretic nonethless. He wasn’t guilty just of a failure to teach, a sin of omission, but guilty for actually teaching a heresy. I don’t see how one can argue otherwise when he sent a legate to argue Monothetlitism?

If Obama sent a representative to the United Nations recommending we recognize Hezbollah, wouldn’t you say that Obama is in favor of recognizing Hezbollah because he’s the one who sent the ambassador to say as much? Are we just to blame the ambassador and not the man who sent him with the message?

Your argument is clearly one of shooting messengers, not the man who sent the message. It makes no sense.

And was Honorius condemned while he LIVED?
Again, no where was he condemned while ALIVE as an open and practicing Monothelite. If it did happen while he lived,then show me.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is the logic you’re using here. You’re saying that the argument is moot because Peter cannot err. That’s it. We have a guy who’s a Monothelite. That’s a heresy. He was a proponent of it in writing to Sergius and he was a proponent of it in actuality sending his legate to fight for the position. Exhibit A and B. He was condemned, as you said, decades after his death by a council. This council was upheld by other popes!! It was not contested by Rome but accepted and upheld for centuries.

My logic is not to make Peter and his successors “impecable”, my logic is Peter was a man holding a divinely given office by Jesus Christ and denied (sinned) Jesus while he was alive. Honorius also held this office at one time, but it was proven by Letters only after his death of 40 years brought the man Honorius condemnation. Honorius was never condemned in his lifetime.

This condemnation never removes the authenticity and validity of Peter’s chair and his successors in the popes, this is the end result of the council, to condemn a man named Honorius 40 years after his death, who once held the office of Peter.

This is the tactic of confuse and divide used by protestants against the chair of Peter from his condemnation from a council 40 years after his death, not divide and conquer.

40 years later after his death, the letters were in the possession of heretics who suggested apparently recieved them from Honorius. I question these Liars (heretics) if these letters were forged by deception?

In any case these heretics did not win the day, because they tried to prove Honorius a Pope 40 years prior agreed with their heretical teachings to validate their false teachings, instead the council condemned these heretics, the letters, and Honorius the man and others, leaving them no ground what so ever to stand on.

So how is this a divide and conquer type of argument when Rome herself upheld the anathema and kept him condemned? Your argument is centered around, “well I just don’t believe it! He couldn’t be a heretic! He just couldn’t be!” There’s no rationale behind it or evidence. The guy was a heretic in writing and in action. In encouraging the monothelite heresy in a synod, he was teaching ex cathedra.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Gabriel,
First off let me preface everything I say here with the fact that I think you’re one of the most charitable, nice folks on CAF. I think you’re awesome and always respect the kindness and charity you show posters of all opinions. I say this so you’ll know my post is not stated in a nasty tone or a biting anger. Sometimes it’s hard to “hear” someone’s tone on here so I like to remind folks, amidst a disagreement, that it’s not in ‘that’ tone.

That being said, I totally disagree with you here. When a pope speaks on behalf of the Church in an official capacity, it’s ex cathedra. That’s pretty simple IMO. A pope steps up and states that Mary is Immaculate, she’s Immaculate. A pope steps up and teaches that birth control is a mortal sin, it’s a mortal sin. These proclamations are from the Chair. Popes sent legates in all the first councils, right?

Popes never attended any of the ecumenical councils whether it was Nicea or Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc. Popes lived and died by legates, right? Popes never went anywhere in person. They always sent legates. Heck, it was legates that excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople that created the 1054 split!

So, legates bear the verbal seal of the papacy. They are mouthpieces taking an official statement by the pope.

Honorius sent a legate, a deacon, to advocate Monothelitism. This isn’t my opinion, Gabriel, it’s history, it’s recorded fact. He sent a legate to advocate a HERESY, a serious sinful teaching! That’s ex cathedra.

You’re ok with the pope sending a legate to fight against Arianism at Nicea, right?

Then why are you NOT ok with him sending a legate to fight IN FAVOR OF monothelitism? It’s the same principle? One is ok, the other isn’t? One is ex cathedra, the other isn’t?

I don’t care if the guy wasn’t condemned till post mortem, he was a heretic. Talk about technicalities. It’s like declaring Hitler a murderer after he died in the bunker. The guy’s still a murderer.

I believe your ex-cathedra is an assumption by you, or are you trying to make this a fact? Because ex-cathedra does not apply for a synod, ex-cathedra is when the Pope speaks on his own, protected by the Holy Spirit with sacred scripture and sacred Tradition from the Apostles always attached. A pope never needs a synod to speak Ex-cathedra.

 

[shaky]

Mt. 19:9
**I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery." **
10
[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11
He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, 8 but only those to whom that is granted.
12
**Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” **

Verse 9 deals with what the Catholic church calls “invalid” or unlawful in the eyes of God. What protestants take this to mean is Law of the land to justify a divorce which those who followed Moses law of divorce comes deals with the flesh. Now this unlawful marriage from the bible has a huge theological Hebrew aspect which Jesus reveals in verse 11 “Not all can accept this word”. In the law deals with the flesh, while Jesus reveals these mysteries in marriage are “only those to whom that is granted” when He shifts the topic to the heavenly gift of “celibacy” if one is called not to marry by God.

Jesus introduces the validity of celibacy in answer to the Pharisees comment in verse 10 “It that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry”

What we are dealing with here are two different covenants of marriage, the old covenant law allowed divorce to which Jesus was explaining “unless the marriage was unlawful” which pertains to Jews getting married to pagans as incestuous (cf. Lev 18). According to the rabbinicial tradition also included impedements which meant that those who converted and who were already married was not that the marriage could ever be dissolved, but that the marriage never took place. The “unlawful” is also transcribed to “unchastity” which connotes these dealings of marriage under the old covenant law.

You see the Catholic position is very biblical and ancient. What Jesus does to marriage in the new covenant is raised to a sacrament and placed matrimony where God originally created it for, to procreate in Love in the image of God between man and woman “only”.

The Catholic church cannot ever dissolve a marriage, like protestants allow divorce. The Catholic church takes the biblical position as recognizing a marriage as valid or invalid. She can never dissolve a marriage, but can only annul a marriage that is unlawful in the eyes of God, which defines that a marriage never took place.

Another point I would like to make here, is that “adultery” is never a reason given to annul a marriage. A separation can be granted, but the two wedded are never free to remarry, less they committ adultery as Jesus teaches.

In summary, because marriage mirrors the eternal union between Jesus and his bride the Catholic Church. God would never divorce his Bride (church) on the reason of adultery, because God Loves unconditionally. Thus the Catholic Church will not or allow divorce in the body of Jesus Christ for a reason of adultery, only if the marriage was unlawful in eyes of God.

Now we get to the point what is a lawful marriage and what is an unlawful marriage in the new covenant established by Jesus Christ himself. A lawful marriage in the Catholic Church can never divorce, an unlawful marriage is never takes place and is annuled in the Catholic Church. You just need to be correctly informed was your marriage lawful or unlawful in eyes of God, not in the eyes of old covenant or the law of the land.

I will yeild here, because I am not sure if these topics is what you are wanting to discuss.

Hi Gabriel

Matthew 19:9 Unless the marriage is unlawful That is not the words in my bible
And it is not in the original Greek and Hebrew bible. I was pointed to some where on this website that it was catholic teaching {porneia} Included incest was grounds for divorce which i thought meant illicit sex with a family member.
But you are talking about incestuous a Jew getting married to a pagan.
People look for all sorts of silly reasons for divorce which are not really valid: I would have thought Jesus was stopping this.

In my case i was not married in a catholic church; It was in a Anglican church. we separated 2 years later and my partner is with somebody else. 3 years after the separation i got a divorce.

I was told by the orthodox church that if a became a orthodox christian and i wanted to get married. It would be counted as my 1st marriage.

So what you are saying that when i become Roman catholic: There is a chance that my first marriage could be annulled.

Also what about people who were divorced and remarried in a register office and not a church and they are now married for years with children. If one wanted to become catholic
would they have to leave the marraige bed

 

[Nicea325]

I am totally puzzled by the point you’re trying to make, Nicea. Does a heretic have to be condemned as such while he is alive for the anathema to take place? Let’s take Arius. Let’s pretend he died before he was declared a heretic. Or Nestorius, or Donatus, any of them. If they die committing a heresy and they’re declared a heretic after death, they’re a HERETIC!

You’re actually contradicting your own argument with your Roman approach to thinking and here’s why. You’re saying that a man cannot be condemned a heretic after death. If he wasn’t condemned in life, he gets off scott free. You’re also telling us that the Catholic Church and particularly the pope are infallible. Then why did the POPES themselves uphold the anathema and condemnation of Honorius for centuries and centuries and centuries!? You’re admitting the popes after him erred and the Church did as well in this argument?

I mean, Nicea, come on man, even LEO II condemned the guy as a heretic: “and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”.

Monothelitism was accepted by Emperor Heracleus thanks to suggestions by Sergius and the legate of Honorius to adopt Monothelitism. So it’s ex cathedra as well.

The guy was a heretic probably with good intentions. But a heretic nonethless. He wasn’t guilty just of a failure to teach, a sin of omission, but guilty for actually teaching a heresy. I don’t see how one can argue otherwise when he sent a legate to argue Monothetlitism?

If Obama sent a representative to the United Nations recommending we recognize Hezbollah, wouldn’t you say that Obama is in favor of recognizing Hezbollah because he’s the one who sent the ambassador to say as much? Are we just to blame the ambassador and not the man who sent him with the message?

Your argument is clearly one of shooting messengers, not the man who sent the message. It makes no sense.

And despite all of your talk, you have yet to provide the sources I asked from the get-go,when an Orthodox stated he was a ‘secretive’ Monothelite. Where are the anicent sources proving he was a ‘secretive’ Monothelite,while he lived?

Not after his death,but during his life. I know what happened after that is not the issue here.

And where did I state one must be alive to be condemned? No where. Now was Arius alive? Yes! Donatus? I believe yes! Nestorius? I believe yes. Now,if you believe a dead man is not at a disadvantage,then it is you who makes no sense at all.

BTW: Read what Gabriel also said:

My logic is not to make Peter and his successors “impecable”, my logic is Peter was a man holding a divinely given office by Jesus Christ and denied (sinned) Jesus while he was alive. Honorius also held this office at one time, but it was proven by Letters only after his death of 40 years brought the man Honorius condemnation. **Honorius was never condemned in his lifetime./B]

Exactly Gabriel. The burden of proof is on those to prove he was an open and practicing Monothelite while lived,not after he was dead! It is obvious he was condemned after his death.

That is what I asked way back on this thread.**

 

[dvdjs]

I found this written by Fr. Ambrose, a priest who used to post on here until almost all the Orthodox were booted:

The implicit claim made in your remark is a blatant falsehood, and a nasty libel against your hosts here. I can only presume that you don’t know what you are talking about and are repeating errors of others.