F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
What do you think?
- Status
J
jemfinch
Guest
I’m really, honestly interested in the Orthodox response to what seems to me to be a serious philosophical issue with its definition of an ecumenical council. If you don’t have an answer, can you at least provide a link or two to someone who has provided an answer?
Jeremy
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
A Council is ecumenical when it is accepted as such by the Church which is “the pillar and ground of truth.”
Yes, I know that to a non-Orthodox that is a circular agrument. You see, much of what happens in the Church is indeed circular, no matter how much that thought gives any Western logician cardiac palpitations. Things makes sense only within the Church. And we are convinced, 500%, that we ARE the Church. We are convinced that the Holy Spirit guides us and protects us and maintains the faith which the Apostles gave us. The Church is infallible because it is the Body of Christ in which the Holy Spirit breathes.
To quote one of my signature lines:
This is the characteristic virtue of the Church - that it becomes comprehensible only when you adopt it.
~Saint Hilary of Poitiers
That is just a fact that we live with day in and day out in an experiential way.
You, as a Roman Catholic, don’t need any of that because you have the Pope. He is able to make all decisions and there is neither recourse nor appeal against them. Well, no doubt you are content with the certainty that the Pope brings and we are content with the Spirit.
J
jemfinch
Guest
I usually expect to see such false dichotomies only from my Protestant brethren.
Jeremy
J
Joannes
Guest
Hello Father Ambrose:
No, I said that papal approval of a council was necessary, but I allowed that in may be implicit rather explicit. Rome accepted some early councils in that she did not expressly reject them, but rather promulgated their decrees in the West, and so on.
Councils rejected by Rome were not accounted as ecumenical, such as the Latrocinium of Ephesus. Decrees even of legitimate councils were also not accounted as authoritative if Rome rejected them. Examples would include the infamous 28th canon of Chalcedon, which is missing from the oldest Acta of this council, both in the Greek and the Latin texts, because Pope Leo I expressly quashed it, though the Greeks deviously put it in later as they grew estranged from Rome. Rome finally accepted it only much later, in the time of the Latin Patriarch, as I recall, so until that time it was legally Alexandria that had the first place.in the East, although in the erastian Greek East it was (the Greek) Caesar’s power that ruled despite the canons and traditions.
Regards,
Joannes
No, I said that papal approval of a council was necessary, but I allowed that in may be implicit rather explicit. Rome accepted some early councils in that she did not expressly reject them, but rather promulgated their decrees in the West, and so on.
Councils rejected by Rome were not accounted as ecumenical, such as the Latrocinium of Ephesus. Decrees even of legitimate councils were also not accounted as authoritative if Rome rejected them. Examples would include the infamous 28th canon of Chalcedon, which is missing from the oldest Acta of this council, both in the Greek and the Latin texts, because Pope Leo I expressly quashed it, though the Greeks deviously put it in later as they grew estranged from Rome. Rome finally accepted it only much later, in the time of the Latin Patriarch, as I recall, so until that time it was legally Alexandria that had the first place.in the East, although in the erastian Greek East it was (the Greek) Caesar’s power that ruled despite the canons and traditions.
Regards,
Joannes
J
Joannes
Guest
Hello Fr. Ambrose:
No popes have ever taught heresy, and your won East has testified to this.
Pope Honorius did not ever teach heresy. He made the statement at issue in a private letter to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, who was a monophysite and who had falsified the issue to him as, I recall. Sergius did so in order to get the pope’s approval for his scheme of reconciling the parties in the East. So HONORIUS WAS NOT TEACHING, in fact he expressly said as much: I once saw the actual text, and I recall that he agreed with Sergius’ suggestion that, in order to obtain peace in the East, the issue NOT be defined: Honorius expressly said “Definire non debemus”, “We ought not to define.” This proves he was not intending to define anything when he wrote the statement at issue. Thus, papal infallibility was not involved even if Honorius had secretly approved of the heresy, which, as I have said, I do not grant.
I understand further that Honorius made his allegedly heretical statement in the context of addressing the question of whether there was a conflict between Christ’s human and divine wills, so that the statement that He had “one will” here could also have the orthodox meaning that there was no conflict, which is the Catholic doctrine… I after all could say that you and I had “one will” in some matter, meaning thereby that our (two separate) wills were in perfect accord. Certainly he was well defended by popes (Sts. Agatho and Maximus, whom you EO’s call saints, BTW), and St. Leo, who approved the Acts of the Council that wanted to anathematize him for “heresy”, expressly changed the Council’s grounds for the condemnation from heresy to negligence. There is no evidence that Honorius ever favored monothelitism or indeed had any contact with it before or beyond the letter of Sergius, and monothelitism was no problem at all in the West.
You think heretical Eastern bishops would be ousted? Well, when the commonly heretical bishops occurred in the great sees of the East in the first centuries these heretical lines of bishops and patriarchs commonly stayed in power for years and even decades. My friend Dave Armstrong has shown that for a century or more during the early centuries the Eastern patriarchates were in the hands of heretics a good percentage of the time. It could be shown that when orthodoxy won out eventually it was always through Roman intervention. Now, you have been fairly orthodox since the split, but not completely so, and as we have said before, your apparent orthodoxy would show cracks if today you attempted to be more explicit in your teaching.
Regards,
Joannes
No popes have ever taught heresy, and your won East has testified to this.
Pope Honorius did not ever teach heresy. He made the statement at issue in a private letter to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, who was a monophysite and who had falsified the issue to him as, I recall. Sergius did so in order to get the pope’s approval for his scheme of reconciling the parties in the East. So HONORIUS WAS NOT TEACHING, in fact he expressly said as much: I once saw the actual text, and I recall that he agreed with Sergius’ suggestion that, in order to obtain peace in the East, the issue NOT be defined: Honorius expressly said “Definire non debemus”, “We ought not to define.” This proves he was not intending to define anything when he wrote the statement at issue. Thus, papal infallibility was not involved even if Honorius had secretly approved of the heresy, which, as I have said, I do not grant.
I understand further that Honorius made his allegedly heretical statement in the context of addressing the question of whether there was a conflict between Christ’s human and divine wills, so that the statement that He had “one will” here could also have the orthodox meaning that there was no conflict, which is the Catholic doctrine… I after all could say that you and I had “one will” in some matter, meaning thereby that our (two separate) wills were in perfect accord. Certainly he was well defended by popes (Sts. Agatho and Maximus, whom you EO’s call saints, BTW), and St. Leo, who approved the Acts of the Council that wanted to anathematize him for “heresy”, expressly changed the Council’s grounds for the condemnation from heresy to negligence. There is no evidence that Honorius ever favored monothelitism or indeed had any contact with it before or beyond the letter of Sergius, and monothelitism was no problem at all in the West.
You think heretical Eastern bishops would be ousted? Well, when the commonly heretical bishops occurred in the great sees of the East in the first centuries these heretical lines of bishops and patriarchs commonly stayed in power for years and even decades. My friend Dave Armstrong has shown that for a century or more during the early centuries the Eastern patriarchates were in the hands of heretics a good percentage of the time. It could be shown that when orthodoxy won out eventually it was always through Roman intervention. Now, you have been fairly orthodox since the split, but not completely so, and as we have said before, your apparent orthodoxy would show cracks if today you attempted to be more explicit in your teaching.
Regards,
Joannes
J
Joannes
Guest
Hello Fr. Ambrose:
The reasons given are not stupid. You EO’s, who are fond of condemning the Latins for the Sack of Constantinople in 1204, conveniently omit the guilt of the Greeks for the anti-Latin riots that occurred about 20 years before. So yes, I think there may have been castrations of “guests” at some point before Cardinal Humbert’s charges, since I have heard that the papal representative was killed during these anti-Latin riots, and his head tied to the tail of a dog which then dragged it through the streets; certainly Latin churches were profaned and other atrocities were done to Latins before the 1204 Sack. But in any case, it was the Greeks in the 9th century, not the Latins, who first made the charges of heresy, so the Latins thereafter were simply replying in kind, were they not?
What happened to the dead body of Pope Formosus, disgusting as it was, is no argument at all. Formosus was dead, outside the Church’s jurisdiction. So, you are dead wrong: no pope or council has any jurisdiction over the dead, period, close the book! Anything applied to them, such as, say, an indulgence applicable to the souls in purgatory, is not done by way of jurisdiction, hence, the Church is unable to know or say how much credit God attaches to such an indulgence applicable to the dead, i.e., whether it is plenary or partial, and so on. Hence Tetzel,. if he really said “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, then a soul from purgatory springs”, as it is charged that he did, was not giving Catholic teaching, but rather his own erroneous opinion.
So you are manifestly in error: the dead are outside the jurisdiction of the Church on earth. This means that the anathema against Honorius that the Council attempted to pronounce, even had it not been modified by the pope, could not have been an excommunication.
Regards,
Joannes
The reasons given are not stupid. You EO’s, who are fond of condemning the Latins for the Sack of Constantinople in 1204, conveniently omit the guilt of the Greeks for the anti-Latin riots that occurred about 20 years before. So yes, I think there may have been castrations of “guests” at some point before Cardinal Humbert’s charges, since I have heard that the papal representative was killed during these anti-Latin riots, and his head tied to the tail of a dog which then dragged it through the streets; certainly Latin churches were profaned and other atrocities were done to Latins before the 1204 Sack. But in any case, it was the Greeks in the 9th century, not the Latins, who first made the charges of heresy, so the Latins thereafter were simply replying in kind, were they not?
What happened to the dead body of Pope Formosus, disgusting as it was, is no argument at all. Formosus was dead, outside the Church’s jurisdiction. So, you are dead wrong: no pope or council has any jurisdiction over the dead, period, close the book! Anything applied to them, such as, say, an indulgence applicable to the souls in purgatory, is not done by way of jurisdiction, hence, the Church is unable to know or say how much credit God attaches to such an indulgence applicable to the dead, i.e., whether it is plenary or partial, and so on. Hence Tetzel,. if he really said “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, then a soul from purgatory springs”, as it is charged that he did, was not giving Catholic teaching, but rather his own erroneous opinion.
So you are manifestly in error: the dead are outside the jurisdiction of the Church on earth. This means that the anathema against Honorius that the Council attempted to pronounce, even had it not been modified by the pope, could not have been an excommunication.
Regards,
Joannes
T
thefizzle656
Guest
The text of the 6th Ecumenical Council is quite clear in its anathematization of Honorius that he was a heretic. This may have already been posted, but here it is again.
These decrees are quite clear in stating that Pope Honorius was a heretic. Pope Agatho’s refusal to admit that he was a heretic is irrelevant. The Council read Honorius’ letters and found them to be heretical and confirmed that he followed the Monothelite heresy. End of story. The Council did NOT say “We condemn Honorius who didn’t believe in the heresy but just failed to proclaim the true faith”.
J
Joannes
Guest
Hello Fr. Ambrose:
You missed the point of my posts. I never said that “for Honorius to be a heretic he would have to have promoted something ex cathedra.” What I said that he was not a heretic, and that even if he had been one it would not have mattered, since it would not affect papal infallibility. One can be a heretic without teaching heresy, and a pope could teach heresy as long as he did not define or proclaim it as pastor and teacher of all Christians, i.e., in his universal ordinary or extraordinary magisterium: we have the case of John XXII and his sermon saying that the dead do not have the Beatific Vision until the final judgment, I believe, as an instance of this.
A (formal) heretic is also some one who is not merely wrong or mistaken , but contumaciously so, i.e., who deliberately persists in holding a doctrine condemned by the Church. We do not use the term for merely material heretics. There is no reason to suppose that Honorius was more than mistaken or negligent, and it is for this that he in the end was reproved…
Regards,
Joannes
You missed the point of my posts. I never said that “for Honorius to be a heretic he would have to have promoted something ex cathedra.” What I said that he was not a heretic, and that even if he had been one it would not have mattered, since it would not affect papal infallibility. One can be a heretic without teaching heresy, and a pope could teach heresy as long as he did not define or proclaim it as pastor and teacher of all Christians, i.e., in his universal ordinary or extraordinary magisterium: we have the case of John XXII and his sermon saying that the dead do not have the Beatific Vision until the final judgment, I believe, as an instance of this.
A (formal) heretic is also some one who is not merely wrong or mistaken , but contumaciously so, i.e., who deliberately persists in holding a doctrine condemned by the Church. We do not use the term for merely material heretics. There is no reason to suppose that Honorius was more than mistaken or negligent, and it is for this that he in the end was reproved…
Regards,
Joannes
J
Joannes
Guest
Hello Fizzle 656:
Pardon me, but you EO’s are not competent to say that “the 6th Ecumenical Council” said anything in particular, since you cannot say what constitutes a general council. I have asked your resident theologian Fr. Ambrose repeatedly, and all I get is the platitude, the circular (as he himself admits!) argument, that it is the Church’s approval that makes them ecumenical, but there is not a word about how the Church makes such a judgment and how we know what party is the Church and what is the heretical one.
You fellows are just like the Protestants and their “Sola Scriptura” theory, another horse-that-won’t-run if there ever was one! They say that the Bible is the sole authority, but they can’t say what constitutes the Bible, and they can’t say how to prove the Bible can be the sole authority, when the Bible itself says that the Church is that authority, nor can they define how to find the Church, since they themselves say it is invisible!
Similarly, you EO’s say that the ecumenical councils are the sole authority, even though you cannot know for sure what makes a council ecumenical and you cannot prove any particular council is ecumenical (you differ among yourselves in the number of ecumenical councils, after all) and apparently admit you cannot have any ecumenical councils anymore (since you never have had them since your schism from Rome). Your ecclesiology is chaotic and veers toward the Protestant theory of the invisible Church, and in truth it is not sufficient to unite your many separate EO churches into the one church that you claim to be: there is no center of unity.
So, NO, understood as a party of some bishops without the Pope, “the Council” was incompetent to make any decision, unless and until its proposals were approved by the Pope. In the case of Honorius the Council’s proposed grounds were adjusted by the Pope. See the enclosed quote from Satis Cognitum, the 1896 encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Section 15, fifth paragraph:
<<This power over the Episcopal College to which we refer, and which is clearly set forth in Holy Writ, has ever been acknowledged and attested by the Church, as is clear from the teaching of General Councils. “We read that the Roman Pontiff has pronounced judgments on the prelates of all the churches; we do not read that anybody has pronounced sentence on him” (Hadrianus ii., in Allocutione iii., ad Synodum Romanum an. 869, Cf. Actionem vii., Conc. Constantinopolitani iv). The reason for which is stated thus: “there is no authority greater than that of the Apostolic See” (Nicholaus in Epist. Ixxxvi. ad Michael. Imperat.)* wherefore Gelasius on the decrees of Councils says: “That which the First See has not approved of cannot stand; but what it has thought well to decree has been received by the whole Church” (Epist. xxvi., ad Episcopos Dardaniae, n. 5). It has ever been unquestionably the office of the Roman Pontiffs to ratify or to reject the decrees of Councils. Leo the great rescinded the acts of the Conciliabulum of Ephesus. Damasus rejected those of Rimini, and Hadrian 1. those of Constantinople. The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, by the very fact that it lacks the assent and approval of the Apostolic See, is admitted by all to be worthless. Rightly, therefore, has Leo X. laid down in the 5th council of Lateran “that the Roman Pontiff alone, as having authority over all Councils, has full jurisdiction and power to summon, to transfer, to dissolve Councils, as is clear, not only from the testimony of Holy Writ, from the teaching of the Fathers and of the Roman Pontiffs, and from the decrees of the sacred canons, but from the teaching of the very Councils themselves.” Indeed, Holy Writ attests that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone, and that the power of binding and loosening was granted to the Apostles and to Peter; but there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter. Such power they certainly did not receive from Jesus Christ. Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3).>>
Regards,
Joannes
Pardon me, but you EO’s are not competent to say that “the 6th Ecumenical Council” said anything in particular, since you cannot say what constitutes a general council. I have asked your resident theologian Fr. Ambrose repeatedly, and all I get is the platitude, the circular (as he himself admits!) argument, that it is the Church’s approval that makes them ecumenical, but there is not a word about how the Church makes such a judgment and how we know what party is the Church and what is the heretical one.
You fellows are just like the Protestants and their “Sola Scriptura” theory, another horse-that-won’t-run if there ever was one! They say that the Bible is the sole authority, but they can’t say what constitutes the Bible, and they can’t say how to prove the Bible can be the sole authority, when the Bible itself says that the Church is that authority, nor can they define how to find the Church, since they themselves say it is invisible!
Similarly, you EO’s say that the ecumenical councils are the sole authority, even though you cannot know for sure what makes a council ecumenical and you cannot prove any particular council is ecumenical (you differ among yourselves in the number of ecumenical councils, after all) and apparently admit you cannot have any ecumenical councils anymore (since you never have had them since your schism from Rome). Your ecclesiology is chaotic and veers toward the Protestant theory of the invisible Church, and in truth it is not sufficient to unite your many separate EO churches into the one church that you claim to be: there is no center of unity.
So, NO, understood as a party of some bishops without the Pope, “the Council” was incompetent to make any decision, unless and until its proposals were approved by the Pope. In the case of Honorius the Council’s proposed grounds were adjusted by the Pope. See the enclosed quote from Satis Cognitum, the 1896 encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Section 15, fifth paragraph:
<<This power over the Episcopal College to which we refer, and which is clearly set forth in Holy Writ, has ever been acknowledged and attested by the Church, as is clear from the teaching of General Councils. “We read that the Roman Pontiff has pronounced judgments on the prelates of all the churches; we do not read that anybody has pronounced sentence on him” (Hadrianus ii., in Allocutione iii., ad Synodum Romanum an. 869, Cf. Actionem vii., Conc. Constantinopolitani iv). The reason for which is stated thus: “there is no authority greater than that of the Apostolic See” (Nicholaus in Epist. Ixxxvi. ad Michael. Imperat.)* wherefore Gelasius on the decrees of Councils says: “That which the First See has not approved of cannot stand; but what it has thought well to decree has been received by the whole Church” (Epist. xxvi., ad Episcopos Dardaniae, n. 5). It has ever been unquestionably the office of the Roman Pontiffs to ratify or to reject the decrees of Councils. Leo the great rescinded the acts of the Conciliabulum of Ephesus. Damasus rejected those of Rimini, and Hadrian 1. those of Constantinople. The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, by the very fact that it lacks the assent and approval of the Apostolic See, is admitted by all to be worthless. Rightly, therefore, has Leo X. laid down in the 5th council of Lateran “that the Roman Pontiff alone, as having authority over all Councils, has full jurisdiction and power to summon, to transfer, to dissolve Councils, as is clear, not only from the testimony of Holy Writ, from the teaching of the Fathers and of the Roman Pontiffs, and from the decrees of the sacred canons, but from the teaching of the very Councils themselves.” Indeed, Holy Writ attests that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone, and that the power of binding and loosening was granted to the Apostles and to Peter; but there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter. Such power they certainly did not receive from Jesus Christ. Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3).>>
Regards,
Joannes
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
The evidence shows otherwise. We seem to be competent enough in judging our Ecumenical Councils -something to do with possessing the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.
I am not a theologian. I am a worm of a monk at the end of the world.
The appeal to the Pope’s authority is also a circular argument but I suppose you cannot see that.
This strange Protestant idea that every man is able to interpret the Bible is a run-on from Roman Catholicism. When the Pope broke contact with the Church, he took on the role of sole arbiter and sole interpreter of the Bible (and of Tradition.) At the time of the Protestant Reformation they took this mistake one step further. They refused to accept that this role was limited to one man in Rome and they made each and every man his own Pope, to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. This is one of the reasons that you will hear the Orthodox say that the Pope was the first Protestant. The Pope set in place a non-Church notion of private interpretation which came to fruition in an unexpected way with the Reformation.
M
Magicsilence
Guest
That would be the same spirit of Truth that leads the Orientals to reject FOUR of your Ecumenical councils.
Its not circular buddy
It’s based on scripture.Actually, you were the first protestants
You protested against the pope
Simple really.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
He may have been, but the evidence doesn’t seem to support such a conclusion. Nonetheless, while it doesn’t appear he was condemned for teaching monothelitism, he was indeed condemned for his negligence in allowing the heresy to grow and spread.
If you look at Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, par. 251, an excerpt of Honorius’ letter *Scripta fraternitatis vestrae *(AD 634) to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople appears under the heading: "Two Wills and Operation in Christ." Honorius stated there were not two wills in Christ. Yet, in Denzinger’s, par. 253, Pope John IV (640-642) explains that Honorius meant in his letter that there were not two **contrary **wills. Of course, the heretics used his letter to spread their error regardless of what was meant by Honorius, which is what his successor, Pope John IV had to contend with…
According to John IV:
Moreover, from the Catholic Encyclopedia article (see link below), the above defense of Honorius by Pope John IV is based upon “the witness of Abbot John Symponus, who wrote the letter for Honorius.”
(cf. newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm)
It was Pope Leo II who actually condemned Honorius, as no council had such authority.
From Warren Carroll, *The History of Christendom, *vol. 2: the Building of Christendom (Front Royal: Christendom College Press, 1987), p. 254:
Honorius was surely condemned. Why? For the reasons clearly stated by the actual pope who confirmed the decree condemning him.
J
Joannes
Guest
Hello Father Ambrose:
No, sorry, you EO’s are not “competent enough in judging (your) Ecumenical Councils,” something which is abundantly proven by your divergence of opinion both among yourselves (i.e., Eastern Orthodox), and between you EO’s and the Oriental Orthodox on one hand, and you EO’s and us Catholics on the other. Chaos! There is no agreement. Let me say again also: I am still waiting for you to give me your EO explanation of how you can tell without Rome that “the Church” has “accepted” a given council as ecumenical. Let’s see: would it be when your hierarchy signs the Acta, or would it be when your hierarchy goes back on its word under pressure from chauvinistic Greek mobs, or would it be after the Turks after 1453 made sure to install pro-Turkish anti-Latin prelates to ensure that the schism continued? I’d like to know how, by what mechanism you think God keeps your church from falling into error.
You think an appeal to papal authority is circular? Please explain. It strikes me that the papacy at least is visible and that we Catholics in a crunch know where to look: we know then that those bishops who are in union with Rome are the Catholic bishops, and that the others are not, and thus we know where the magisterium of the Church is. No mystery, no circularity here: when one is in doubt he looks to Peter! Please tell us what you EO’s do.
It is a bizarre argument – and, I think, a desperate one – to link the pope with Protestantism, as they are at different poles. The popes never endorsed “private interpretation”! Obedience is the essence of religion, but Protestantism in the end makes each man his own pope, hence, it leaves no earthly authority to render obedience to. Catholicism is a world away from this. Your Eastern Orthodox position, however, is all about denying the papacy: you keep saying “all bishops are equal” and suchlike, so all you have left is your nearly 20 separate autocephalous churches and their individual bishops, who have not generally had a good record in individually resisting the domination of Caesar. So, no, Protestantism (and Anglicanism-Episcopalianism) have nothing in common here with the papacy, but you EO’s do: you were, come to think of it, in fact the first episcopalians. And then you followed this up by swallowing whole many Protestant ideas.
Regards,
Joannes
No, sorry, you EO’s are not “competent enough in judging (your) Ecumenical Councils,” something which is abundantly proven by your divergence of opinion both among yourselves (i.e., Eastern Orthodox), and between you EO’s and the Oriental Orthodox on one hand, and you EO’s and us Catholics on the other. Chaos! There is no agreement. Let me say again also: I am still waiting for you to give me your EO explanation of how you can tell without Rome that “the Church” has “accepted” a given council as ecumenical. Let’s see: would it be when your hierarchy signs the Acta, or would it be when your hierarchy goes back on its word under pressure from chauvinistic Greek mobs, or would it be after the Turks after 1453 made sure to install pro-Turkish anti-Latin prelates to ensure that the schism continued? I’d like to know how, by what mechanism you think God keeps your church from falling into error.
You think an appeal to papal authority is circular? Please explain. It strikes me that the papacy at least is visible and that we Catholics in a crunch know where to look: we know then that those bishops who are in union with Rome are the Catholic bishops, and that the others are not, and thus we know where the magisterium of the Church is. No mystery, no circularity here: when one is in doubt he looks to Peter! Please tell us what you EO’s do.
It is a bizarre argument – and, I think, a desperate one – to link the pope with Protestantism, as they are at different poles. The popes never endorsed “private interpretation”! Obedience is the essence of religion, but Protestantism in the end makes each man his own pope, hence, it leaves no earthly authority to render obedience to. Catholicism is a world away from this. Your Eastern Orthodox position, however, is all about denying the papacy: you keep saying “all bishops are equal” and suchlike, so all you have left is your nearly 20 separate autocephalous churches and their individual bishops, who have not generally had a good record in individually resisting the domination of Caesar. So, no, Protestantism (and Anglicanism-Episcopalianism) have nothing in common here with the papacy, but you EO’s do: you were, come to think of it, in fact the first episcopalians. And then you followed this up by swallowing whole many Protestant ideas.
Regards,
Joannes
S
StRaphael
Guest
can you know more than the Popes who lived at the time of Honorius. They were in a position to judge him a heretic.
- His condemnation is found in the Acts of the 13th Session of the 6th Ecumenical Council.
- His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same Session.
- In the 17th session of the 6th Ecumenical Council, the Council Fathers proclaimed:
**The above clinches it, unless one wants to argue that an Ecumenical Council and the Popes who ratified them may err but in that case the burden of proof is on the person who opposes the Council and the papal ratification. **
Are Catholics not obliged to give intellectual assent to the Ecumenical Councils?
- In the decree of faith published at the 17th Session it is stated that “the originator of all evil the Devil…found a fit tool for his will in…Honorius, Pope of Old Rome…”
- The report of the Council to the Emperor says that “Honorius,
formerly bishop of Rome” they had “punished with exclusion and
anathema” because he followed the monothelites. - In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it “has slain Honorius with an anathema”
- The imperial decree speaks of the “unholy priests who
infected the Church and falsely governed” and mentions among them “Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.”
- Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.
- That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is
mentioned in the Trullan Canons. - So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the
anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts
the same is said. - Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)
- The Papal Oath as found in the *Liber Diurnus *taken by
each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh centuries, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II:
- The Catholic Encylopedia says that no Catholic may deny that Pope Honorius was a heretic.
Dear Fr. Ambrose, I deeply appreciate your vast knowledge of history! You have found the facts but you interpret them incorrectly. Read “The Unbreakable Pinata: Honorius and Protestant Polemic” by John Pacheco for The Catholic Legate @ catholic-legate.com/articles/honorius.html, upon which the following response is based:
Pope Honorius I of Rome [r. 10/27/625-10/12/638] was truly a heretic and was indeed anathematized as such, but the weak pope was neither a Monothelite nor even a Miathelite; he did not adhere to the false and heretical doctrine that Christ has but one will altogether. Honorius said that Christ has but one human will rather than two contrary human wills, as is expressly confirmed by his secretary the abbot John, Pope John IV, and St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople. The successors of Honorius I implied that Honorius I was personally orthodox: Servinus, John IV, Theodore, Martin I, and Agatho; Agatho said that all of his predecessors, Honorius included, have resisted Monothelitism by silence if not by explicit condemnation. The ecumenical council in which Honorius I was anathematized did not number him among the people “minded contrary to our orthodox faith.” The council did not say that Honorius followed, i.e. agreed with, the Monothelitism of the pernicious Sergius (many people misunderstand the ambiguous Latin translation of “in all respects he followed his view”), but said, as is obvious from the original Greek of the acts, that “in all respects [Honorius] followed [Sergius’s] counsel,” i.e. the request for and recommendation of silence by that deceitful Sergius.
So, stop falsely accusing Honorius of being a Monothelite who taught Monothelitism, but instead join us in condemning him for the right reason: his negligence (the softer sense of heresy which the Sixth Ecumenical Council attributes to Honorius) which was a profound disgrace to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!
May God bless you and yours with holiness, health, and happiness in the years to come! I pray that you one day enter the Catholic Church. I rest my case.
- Status