Sixth Ecumenical Council (Third Council of Constantinople)

[mardukm]

If he does not cite Maximus in his article, then his claim is unsubstantiated.

The Catholic Encyclopedia cites that it is in a Letter to Marinus. FYI, St. Maximus has several letters addressed to Marinus, and more than one regards the monothelite controversy. I don’t know if the excerpt that brother Vico quoted is from the same letter that contains the defense of Pope Honorius, so it would be dubious for you to base your conclusions on that.

But Vico did provide a footnote from Dom Chapman’s book that states that the specific Letter to Marinus at issue mentions the report of Pope Honorius’ scribe. Dom Chapman gives the reference to the letter, contained in Mansi x. 695. If you can read Latin, have a field day.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

The Catholic Encyclopedia cites that it is in a Letter to Marinus. FYI, St. Maximus has several letters addressed to Marinus, and more than one regards the monothelite controversy. I don’t know if the excerpt that brother Vico quoted is from the same letter that contains the defense of Pope Honorius, so it would be dubious for you to base your conclusions on that.

But Vico did provide a footnote from Dom Chapman’s book that states that the specific Letter to Marinus at issue mentions the report of Pope Honorius’ scribe. Dom Chapman gives the reference to the letter, contained in Mansi x. 695. If you can read Latin, have a field day.

Blessings,
Marduk

I. Maximus The Confessor, Andrew Louth, Routledge, May 22, 1996 - 230 pages

In that book, p. 48, has: "Maximus owes his title ‘Confessor’ to his defence of the Orthodox doctrine of the Person of Christ,against the theological view, emanating from theological circles in Constantinople, and endorsed by imperial authority, that suggested language of one activity, or one will, in Christ, as a compromise with the Monophysites. It is, however, a striking fact that it is with apparent reluctance that Maximus becomes involved in this controversy. Although he follows Sophronius’ lead in rejecting the Alexandrian Pact of Union of 633, to begin with he abides by the Psephos of Patriarch Sergius, defending it as implicitly condemning the Alexandrian Pact-which seems somewhat disingenuous. It is only from 640 that he explicitly attacks Monothelitism, and even then he seems anxious to defend Pope Honorius, the originator of the Monothelite formula, from any personal charge of heresy. (1)
(1) Maximi Confessoris Opuscula theologica et polemica 20. Patrologia Graeca 91:237CD, 244C–245A; 28:328C–329B
syriac.ca/Library/Still%20to%20be%20added/from%20fr%20ken/Maximus%20the%20Confessor.pdf

scribd.com/doc/58362079/Andre-Louth-Maximus-the-Confessor

II. And from Life of St. Maximus, Paul Jungwirth, 13th March 2006, Bibliography, are given some useful sources: Opuscula Theologica et Polemica (Theological and Polemical Minor Works).​

Twenty-seven short works from throughout Maximus’ career, most of them falling in the crucial period of the 630s and 640s when monoenergism grew into monothelitism. These are important for understanding Maximus’ christology.
CE: Migne. PG 91.9–285.
CE: C. Steel and B. Markesinis, unpublished.
T: “Opuscula 3 and 7.” Trans. Louth, Maximus the Confessor. Early Church Fathers. New York:Routledge, 1996. Based on Steel and Markesinis. 9
T: “Opusculum 6.” On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ: Selected Writings from St. Maximusthe Confessor. Trans. Paul M. Blowers. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 2003. Basedon Migne.
T: The Theological and Polemical Works of Our Father among the Saints, Maximus the Confessor.Trans. Bishop Photios (Joseph P.) Farrell. Catoosa, OK: Seven Councils, 2001. Based on Migne.Unpublished, of doubtful quality.
Key: critical editions (CE) and translations (T)

scribd.com/doc/94115249/St-Maximus-Bibliography

 

[Apotheoun]

Hello,

Just wanted to ask what you all thought about the Council as far as Pope Honorius I. How are we to reconcile the anathema of the Pope with Vatican I and it’s claims? Wouldn’t there be a contradiction or some kind of proof that even the Pope can error when it comes to faith and/or morals?

Pope Honorius, when asked to officially clarify a point of doctrine, taught heresy, and was condemned for it; and so as far as infallibility is concerned, the popes were not held at that time (i.e., in the 7th century) to be infallible, nor are they infallible today. Even Pope Adrian VI did not know that the popes were supposed to be infallible, for as he wrote:

“If by the Roman Church is understood its head, that is the pope, it is certain that it can err, even in those matters which concern the Faith, by publishing heresy in its decisions and decrees. For many Roman Pontiffs have been heretics. Of recent times it is reported that Pope John XXII publicly taught, declared, and commanded to be believed by all, that purified souls do not have the clear vision of God before the Final Judgment” (Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Defensio declarationis Conventüs cleri gallicani, page 29, section 28).

 

[Trebor135]

Pope Honorius, when asked to officially clarify a point of doctrine, taught heresy, and was condemned for it; and so as far as infallibility is concerned, the popes were not held at that time (i.e., in the 7th century) to be infallible, nor are they infallible today.

If I may ask, how then can you remain “an Orthodox in communion with Rome” as a Melkite?

Even Pope Adrian VI did not know that the popes were supposed to be infallible, for as he wrote:

“If by the Roman Church is understood its head, that is the pope, it is certain that it can err, even in those matters which concern the Faith, by publishing heresy in its decisions and decrees. For many Roman Pontiffs have been heretics. Of recent times it is reported that Pope John XXII publicly taught, declared, and commanded to be believed by all, that purified souls do not have the clear vision of God before the Final Judgment” (Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Defensio declarationis Conventüs cleri gallicani, page 29, section 28).

jaw drops

Did Vatican I discuss this citation from Pope Adrian VI?–It is a prime candidate for the status of incontestable show-stopper vis-à-vis the doctrine of papal infallibility.

 

[Apotheoun]

If I may ask, how then can you remain “an Orthodox in communion with Rome” as a Melkite?

Actually I remain in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, which accepts the primacy - but not the supremacy - of the bishop of Rome. To put it another way, as a simple layman I am not in communion with Rome; instead, I am in communion with my bishop, who is in communion with the Melkite Patriarch and synod, and it is the Melkite Patriarch who is in communion with the bishop of Rome (and vice versa).

Did Vatican I discuss this citation from Pope Adrian VI?–It is a prime candidate for the status of incontestable show-stopper vis-à-vis the doctrine of papal infallibility.

I am sure that the bishops at Vatican I, which is merely a particular synod of the Roman Church, discussed many of the problematic texts that have been written over the centuries in connection with the primacy of the Roman bishop, and so they may even have touched upon the one I quoted.

 

[Trebor135]

Actually I remain in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, which accepts the primacy - but not the supremacy - of the bishop of Rome. To put it another way, as a simple layman I am not in communion with Rome; instead, I am in communion with my bishop, who is in communion with the Melkite Patriarch and synod, and it is the Melkite Patriarch who is in communion with the bishop of Rome (and vice versa).

All right. Let me restate the question: if I may ask, how then can you remain “an Orthodox in communion with Rome by means of your bishop and patriarch” as a Melkite?

I am sure that the bishops at Vatican I, which is merely a particular synod of the Roman Church, discussed many of the problematic texts that have been written over the centuries in connection with the primacy of the Roman bishop, and so they may even have touched upon the one I quoted.

Sure. But that “particular synod of the Roman Church” taught the doctrine of papal infallibility as being a dogmatic article of faith for all Catholics–Latin, Eastern, and Oriental–on pain of excommunication. You stated in post #22, “the popes were not held at that time (i.e., in the 7th century) to be infallible, nor are they infallible today”–it is completely baffling how you can both remain Eastern Catholic and deny papal infallibility at the same time.

 

[Apotheoun]

All right. Let me restate the question: if I may ask, how then can you remain “an Orthodox in communion with Rome by means of your bishop and patriarch” as a Melkite?

The question is still improperly formulated. I am a Melkite Catholic, which means I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, which happens to be in communion with the bishop of Rome. That said, I have no real connection to the Pope other than that he is in communion with my Patriarch and Church, and should he chose to break communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, I would remain a member of the Melkite Church.

Sure. But that “particular synod of the Roman Church” taught the doctrine of papal infallibility as being a dogmatic article of faith for all Catholics–Latin, Eastern, and Oriental–on pain of excommunication. You stated in post #22, “the popes were not held at that time (i.e., in the 7th century) to be infallible, nor are they infallible today”

I agree with Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby who said: “. . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a ‘general’ synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone” [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, “Ecumenical Reflections”]. Thus the theory of papal infallibility is merely a modern Western theological opinion, and one that I do not accept as valid or necessary.

–it is completely baffling how you can both remain Eastern Catholic and deny papal infallibility at the same time.

Why should I leave the Melkite Catholic Church over a non-dogmatic issue? I am quite happy as a Melkite Catholic and see no need to change Churches just because Rome has an exaggerated opinion of its own importance.

 

[mardukm]

jaw drops

Did Vatican I discuss this citation from Pope Adrian VI?–It is a prime candidate for the status of incontestable show-stopper vis-à-vis the doctrine of papal infallibility.

According to Dom Chapman, only 4 issues were regarded by the Fathers to have had any substance - 1) the case of Pope Vigilius; 2) the case of Pope Honorius; 3) declarations concerning the Sacraments from Pope Eugenius IV; 4) Pope Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam.

Pope Adrian VI’s comment was not regarded as anything extraordinary because he was not making a declaration of Faith on the matter, but expressed a private opinion. In fact, he did not even express it in his capacity as a bishop, much less as the Pope, but during his tenure as a teacher at a university in 1512 (Pope Adrian VI was Pope from 1522 - 1523). His reference to Pope John XXII trying to enforce his teaching on the Church is contradicted by Pope John XXII himself, who had asserted that his statement on the matter of the Beatific Vision was not a formal decree, but was only mentioned by him in a sermon.

As to brother Apotheoun’s claim that papal infallibility did not exist in the mind of the Church in the 7th century, read the following, which details statements from individual non-Latin bishops and local synods on this matter from the Patriarchal Sees of Jerusalem and Constantinople in the 7th century: archive.org/stream/a62053…puoft_djvu.txt

Lesson - if your jaw drops on a matter that contradicts the Catholic Faith, rest assured there is a good explanation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

According to Dom Chapman, only 4 issues were regarded by the Fathers to have had any substance - 1) the case of Pope Vigilius; 2) the case of Pope Honorius; 3) declarations concerning the Sacraments from Pope Eugenius IV; 4) Pope Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam.

Pope Adrian VI’s comment was not regarded as anything extraordinary because he was not making a declaration of Faith on the matter, but expressed a private opinion. In fact, he did not even express it in his capacity as a bishop, much less as the Pope, but during his tenure as a teacher at a university in 1512 (Pope Adrian VI was Pope from 1522 - 1523). His reference to Pope John XXII trying to enforce his teaching on the Church is contradicted by Pope John XXII himself, who had asserted that his statement on the matter of the Beatific Vision was not a formal decree, but was only mentioned by him in a sermon.

As to brother Apotheoun’s claim that papal infallibility did not exist in the mind of the Church in the 7th century, read the following, which details statements from individual non-Latin bishops and local synods on this matter from the Patriarchal Sees of Jerusalem and Constantinople in the 7th century: archive.org/stream/a62053…puoft_djvu.txt

Lesson - if your jaw drops on a matter that contradicts the Catholic Faith, rest assured there is a good explanation.

Blessings,
Marduk

The link isn’t working for me

 

[Dollinger]

Pope Adrian VI’s comment was not regarded as anything extraordinary because he was not making a declaration of Faith on the matter, but expressed a private opinion. In fact, he did not even express it in his capacity as a bishop, much less as the Pope, but during his tenure as a teacher at a university in 1512 (Pope Adrian VI was Pope from 1522 - 1523).

So Pope Adrian was not aware, in 1512, of this pious apostolic doctrine?

As to brother Apotheoun’s claim that papal infallibility did not exist in the mind of the Church in the 7th century, read the following, which details statements from individual non-Latin bishops and local synods on this matter from the Patriarchal Sees of Jerusalem and Constantinople in the 7th century: archive.org/stream/a62053…puoft_djvu.txt

The item you have requested has a problem with one or more of the metadata files that describe it, which prevents us from displaying this page.

If you would like to report this problem as an error report, you may do so here.

I agree with Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby who said: “. . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a ‘general’ synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone” [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, “Ecumenical Reflections”]. Thus the theory of papal infallibility is merely a modern Western theological opinion, and one that I do not accept as valid or necessary.

According to Vatican I decrees, you are a heretic:

The translation found here is that which appears in **Decrees of the Ecumencal Councils **

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

---

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

You may be quite happy as a Melkite Catholic, but you are under anathema of Rome. And it is a dogma:

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

Honorius did not define or condemn anything. He was later condemned for negligence not for teaching heresy but for failure in extinguishing a heresy.

Then, “those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names shall also be cast out of the holy Church of God, that is, Sergius, who was prelate of this God-protected and royal city, and was the first to write about this impious dogma, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who presided on the throne of this God-protected city, and who held the same views as the others, and also Theodore, who was Bishop of Pharan; all which persons were mentioned by Agatho, the most holy and blessed Pope of elder Rome, in his letter to the most pious and divinely strengthened and great Emperor, and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema. And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things and confirmed his wicked dogmas.”

He did not merely lack of authority to destroy the heresy, he followed Sergius opinion and confirmed his execrated dogmas(monothelism).

John Chapman wrote:

**The words of the Council are accurate. The Roman legates raised no objection. **

John Chapman, again:

**It has been sometimes said that St. Leo in these words interprets the decision of the Council about Honorius in a mild sense, or that he modifies it. It is supposed that by “permitted to be polluted” Leo II means no positive action, but a mere neglect of duty, grave enough in a Pope, but not amounting to the actual teaching of heresy. If Leo II had meant this, he would have been mistaken. Honorius did positively approve the letter of Sergius, as the Council pointed out. Further, the merely negative ruling of the typus had been condemned as heresy by the Lateran Council.56

As a fact the words of Leo II are harsher than those of the Council. He declares that Honorius did not publish the apostolic doctrine of his See, and he represents this as a disgrace to the Church of Rome itself, as a pollution of the unspotted.**

He continues:

It is still more important that the formula for the oath taken by every new Pope from the 8th century till the 11th adds these words to the list of Monothelites condemned: "Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions."57 Unquestionably no Catholic has the right to deny that Honorius was a heretic (though in the sense that Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia were heretics), a heretic in words if not in intention.

All quotes from Chapman are taken from here: pugiofidei.com/honorius.htm

 

[Dollinger]

About the ex cathedra issue, this is what Meyendorff says:

**This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenmical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries. Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists at Vatican I in 1870 would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. *They also point out quite anachronistically *that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope’s good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly **(John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir’s, 1989), p. 353).

 

[Trebor135]

So Pope Adrian was not aware, in 1512, of this pious apostolic doctrine?

To be fair, St. John Chrysostom denied the total purity from sin of St. Mary.

The item you have requested has a problem with one or more of the metadata files that describe it, which prevents us from displaying this page.

If you would like to report this problem as an error report, you may do so here.

I got the same message.

According to Vatican I decrees, you are a heretic:

Likewise according to the Eastern Code of Canon Law.

From
this interview between Jeremy (Basil) Dannnebohm, who went Latin Catholic → Eastern Catholic → Eastern Orthodox → Eastern Catholic → Eastern Orthodox, and Kevin Allen, host of the Illumined Heart show on Ancient Faith Radio:

Kevin: … My discussion with Father James Babcock, which I know you’ve listened to a couple of times, is that they’re truly orthodox,(*) they’re in communion with Rome, they take their faith very seriously and so on. I’m not trying to soften your statement but they wouldn’t see themselves as even a branch of the Roman Catholic Church.

They would prefer you to describe them as separate churches in communion with Rome and not necessarily adhering even, we’ll get into more of a discussion with this in a bit, but even in some variance with what appears to me fairly straightforward Latin Western Roman doctrine.

Basil: Really you contracted yourself by saying that you’re essentially Orthodox but Roman Catholic. There can be no such thing. John Paul II laid that out very clearly in the Eastern Code of Canons which, unfortunately, I don’t know how many people have read but it definitely states that the Eastern Catholics are indeed Roman Catholics who adhere to Eastern traditions of worship.

When it comes to theology the canons state it very clearly. They are Roman Catholic canons.

Kevin: So your understanding, Basil Dannebohm, is that individual Catholic or Melkite or Byzantine or Ukrainian Catholics, theologians, or priests, or individual faithfuls really don’t have the freedom to contradict or not accept the fullness of Roman and Latin canonical and doctrine and dogma?

Basil: That’s absolutely the case. They all live under the code of canons of the Eastern churches which teaches in canon 597 papal infallibility. The Pope is responsible for approving all Eastern bishops in the Catholic churches, even those in patriarchal churches according to canons 181 through 185.

To argue that point, unfortunately what I see is a lot of people misunderstand the faith. That was even the case in the Catholic Church. To really study you might be surprised what you learn. That includes certain dogmas that the Catholic Church might hold.

It was very clearly outlined in those canons that even as a so-called Eastern Catholic the only thing that makes you Eastern really, at the heart of the matter, is your worship, but everything else you have to accept everything that the Pope says including his infallibility.

(The transcript of a radio interview is not a scholarly source by any means–I’ll have to find the particular Eastern canons I saw quoted just in the past few days.)

 

[Dollinger]

To be fair, St. John Chrysostom denied the total purity from sin of St. Mary.

Yes, but there is overwhelming evidence from the Fathers about her total purity. Wich is not the case about what Pope Adrian denied.

(The transcript of a radio interview is not a scholarly source by any means–I’ll have to find the particular Eastern canons I saw quoted just in the past few days.)

Canon 597 - §1. The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.
§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallible teaching authority if the bishops, gathered in an ecumenical council, exercise their teaching authority, and, as teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, declare that a doctrine of faith or morals must be definitively held; they also exercise it scattered throughout the world but united in a bond of communion among themselves **and with the successor of Peter when together with that same Roman Pontiff **in their capacity as authentic teachers of faith and morals they agree on an opinion to be held as definitive.
§3. No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.
jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html

 

[Trebor135]

According to Dom Chapman, only 4 issues were regarded by the Fathers to have had any substance - 1) the case of Pope Vigilius; 2) the case of Pope Honorius; 3) declarations concerning the Sacraments from Pope Eugenius IV; 4) Pope Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam.

Thanks for this useful list.

Pope Adrian VI’s comment was not regarded as anything extraordinary because he was not making a declaration of Faith on the matter, but expressed a private opinion. In fact, he did not even express it in his capacity as a bishop, much less as the Pope, but during his tenure as a teacher at a university in 1512 (Pope Adrian VI was Pope from 1522 - 1523). His reference to Pope John XXII trying to enforce his teaching on the Church is contradicted by Pope John XXII himself, who had asserted that his statement on the matter of the Beatific Vision was not a formal decree, but was only mentioned by him in a sermon.

Ahh, thanks for filling in the gaps in my knowledge on those points.

As to brother Apotheoun’s claim that papal infallibility did not exist in the mind of the Church in the 7th century, read the following, which details statements from individual non-Latin bishops and local synods on this matter from the Patriarchal Sees of Jerusalem and Constantinople in the 7th century: archive.org/stream/a62053…puoft_djvu.txt

There’s an elipsis (…) in the URL, and as has been previously mentioned, the link is broken. Do you have a URL on file that still works, or a copy of the link’s contents saved on your computer?

Lesson - if your jaw drops on a matter that contradicts the Catholic Faith, rest assured there is a good explanation.

Forgive my bluntness, but… I am still absolutely baffled as to how papal infallibility can be regarded as anything but an innovation.

 

[Cavaradossi]

To be fair, St. John Chrysostom denied the total purity from sin of St. Mary.

St. Basil once said in a homily that the belief that the Virgin Mary went on to have more children does not contradict the faith (of course, he believed in the ever-virginity), because what she did after the virgin birth did not have any bearing on the mystery of the Incarnation. These are good words to meditate on. Whether Mary was sinless or not has has no impact upon the salvation of mankind, because Jesus did not require a sinless vessel in order to become incarnate (the Tome of Pope Leo says that his conception without human seed guaranteed that Christ would be free of sinful nature).

This is why St. John Chrysostom’s view, while it is a minority opinion cannot be shown to be wrong. The Church is not invested with the authority to declare the truth of historical data not connected to the mystery of our salvation. Thus, the Church cannot tell us with certainty whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun revolves around the Earth, whether the Earth is flat or round, if quantum mechanics and general relativity can be reconciled, or if Lee Harvey Oswald really shot JFK. That being said, both beliefs are pious doctrines which have been largely accepted without controversy, so the Church, therefore, teaches them with the confidence that they are reflective of the general consensus of the fathers.

 

[Trebor135]

Yes, but there is overwhelming evidence from the Fathers about her total purity. Wich is not the case about what Pope Adrian denied.

Good point.

Canon 597 - §1. The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.
§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallible teaching authority if the bishops, gathered in an ecumenical council, exercise their teaching authority, and, as teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, declare that a doctrine of faith or morals must be definitively held; they also exercise it scattered throughout the world but united in a bond of communion among themselves **and with the successor of Peter when together with that same Roman Pontiff **in their capacity as authentic teachers of faith and morals they agree on an opinion to be held as definitive.
§3. No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.
jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html

That must be one of the canon laws I was thinking of.

 

[Trebor135]

St. Basil once said in a homily that the belief that the Virgin Mary went on to have more children does not contradict the faith (of course, he believed in the ever-virginity), because what she did after the virgin birth did not have any bearing on the mystery of the Incarnation. These are good words to meditate on. Whether Mary was sinless or not has has no impact upon the salvation of mankind, because Jesus did not require a sinless vessel in order to become incarnate (the Tome of Pope Leo says that his conception without human seed guaranteed that Christ would be free of sinful nature).

This is why St. John Chrysostom’s view, while it is a minority opinion cannot be shown to be wrong. The Church is not invested with the authority to declare the truth of historical data not connected to the mystery of our salvation. Thus, the Church cannot tell us with certainty whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun revolves around the Earth, whether the Earth is flat or round, if quantum mechanics and general relativity can be reconciled, or if Lee Harvey Oswald really shot JFK. That being said, both beliefs are pious doctrines which have been largely accepted without controversy, so the Church, therefore, teaches them with the confidence that they are reflective of the general consensus of the fathers.

That’s a perspective worth pondering…

If a great controversy arose in the ninth century over the total purity of St. Mary, would the Church have been wrong to make a solemn declaration on the subject?

And which are those doctrines that you consider to be “connected to the mystery of our salvation”?

 

[Cavaradossi]

That’s a perspective worth pondering…

If a great controversy arose in the ninth century over the total purity of St. Mary, would the Church have been wrong to make a solemn declaration on the subject?

And which are those doctrines that you consider to be “connected to the mystery of our salvation”?

Anything which can be shown to make our salvation impossible would be a heresy. For each of the doctrines defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils and also the essence-energies distinction, it can be shown by reason why our salvation through deification would be impossible if we deny the dogma.

 

[Trebor135]

Anything which can be shown to make our salvation impossible would be a heresy. For each of the doctrines defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils and also the essence-energies distinction, it can be shown by reason why our salvation through deification would be impossible if we deny the dogma.

So you aren’t very optimistic about the fate of adherents of the Assyrian and Ancient Churches of the East (who refuse Ephesus), of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (who object to Chalcedon), and of Calvinist and Zwinglian Protestant denominations (who reject Nicea II)?

 

[Cavaradossi]

So you aren’t very optimistic about the fate of adherents of the Assyrian and Ancient Churches of the East (who refuse Ephesus), of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (who object to Chalcedon), and of Calvinist and Zwinglian Protestant denominations (who reject Nicea II)?

God is merciful and just. I’m simply presenting the historical perspective of what constitutes a heresy. I don’t personally think that God will condemn all who believe in heresies to hell, but I simply mean to say that the logical consequence of heretical doctrines is that there is no true salvation. The state of the souls of people like Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, etc., is not really for us to judge.