L
LionHeart777
Guest
To be fair, they do try and back their positions up (not that I agree with them.) So I retract having said that “Both make mere assertions as well.”
- Status
M
malphono
Guest
Doesn’t look to me that there’s any “seems” about it. One look at the homepage is all it takes. Of course it’s typical of the sede beast that there are generally no names (or even pseudonyms) attached to articles, and the one I found that did have an attribution was from of the Dimond Brothers.
I’m not wasting more time looking at it, but I wouldn’t buy one word that site says even if they paid me.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
I would like to add though, I believe you are misunderstanding Vatican I’s “Pastor Aeternus”. I think you are referring to the part that says:
“For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor.”
Source: fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html
But you have to keep in mind what it says later:
“9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.” (Ibid.) (Emphasis mine)
You seem to want to absolutize the first citation, but this is to beg the question. You need to show that Vatican I means in the first citation what you think it does.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
You’re probably right, I saw the “SEDEVACANTISM RECONSIDERED” and thought maybe they hadn’t committed to that error. I’ll not be wasting my time there either.Doesn’t look to me that there’s any “seems” about it. One look at the homepage is all it takes. Of course it’s typical of the sede beast that there are generally no names (or even pseudonyms) attached to articles, and the one I found that did have an attribution was from of the Dimond Brothers.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Dear Marduk,
I still have received no response to my request for clarification. I shall ask again, in hopes of receiving a response.
In this question you asked of me,
I still have received no response to my request for clarification. I shall ask again, in hopes of receiving a response.
In this question you asked of me,
Are the Council Fathers referenced in this question the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council?
T
theistgal
Guest
Re the whole Pope-Honorius-was-a-heretic thing - unless you can prove that he promulgated an ex-cathedra doctrinal change to the Church which all Catholics had to accept, which doctrinal change was later reversed by another Pope, then really, so what? I have no problem saying maybe he was a heretic, but the point is he didn’t teach anything heretical as Pope, which is what all the hoopla is supposedly about.
T
tdgesq
Guest
Father, that isn’t what I’m taking issue with you about. Let’s assume that Helfe is wrong and that there is no other explanation for this statement than that Honorius taught material heresy to Sergius. Let’s also ignore the statements in the second letter where it appears Honorius is teaching two wills, not one. I am not disputing that it is a reasonable conclusion from the language of the first letter that Honorius taught Monothelitism, even though I draw a different conclusion.
What I dispute is your statement that: “Pope Honorius suggested in a letter to the Patriarch that it would be better to refer to Christ as having one will.” There is simply no suggestion found anywhere in the letters that Honorius is claiming it would be better to refer to Christ as having one will rather than ascribing one energy to Christ. He states that the two natures of Christ should be professed, not one or two energies. There is no warrant for your conclusion.
Neither is there any warrant for your statement that Honorius’ letter, “began the heresy of Montheliteism.” We have records from at least the time of Vigilius that the one will heresy was already being espoused. Do you have any scholarly source for the view that Honorius began the heresy of Monthelitism?
With respect, you are badly conflating concepts from Vatican I. Chapter 3, para 8 refers to the jurisdictional authority of the Roman Pontiff, not the personal theological opinions of a former Pope. Here it is:
- Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
You mean the authority of an ecumenical council (which requires the consent of the See of Rome, in this case Pope Agatho) to declare a private theological opinion of a former Pope to be heretical. I don’t dispute that, and Vatican I doesn’t prohibit that by it’s own language. Not every writing from every Pope throughout history has been orthodox. If Honorius had made an infallible pronouncement ex cathedra, then that would be a different matter. He didn’t. The case of Honorius was debated extensively by the First Vatican Council on that very issue.
I’m not asking you to accept Vatican I. What I am asking is that you provide some support for your allegations that Honorius was the origin of the Monothelite heresy. I’m also asking for an admission that an Ecumenical Council (and a Pope) could be mistaken in its judgment that a particular person is a heretic.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
I just picked something off the internet, because any reliable study of the subject will tell you the same thing, Pope Honorius played a role in the development of the Monothlite controversy. I am amazed at how Catholics are willing to distort history to defend the 1st Vatican Council and their doctrine of papal infallibility. Pope Honorius’ letters must have been well known and influential enough that the 6th Ecumenical Council found it necessary to officially condemn its author for heresy. How can you argue with an Ecumenical Council? Read the decisions and acts of the council itself ccel.org/fathers.html
Fr. John
P
Peter_J
Guest
I would go further than that: I don’t see how it can be proven about *any *papal statement. Oh, I realize that a lot of Catholics think they can prove that the statements that defined the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950) were ex cathedra … but it is my experience that, if you ask for the proof, they become very uncomfortable and don’t really answer (other than a “Isn’t it obvious?” type answer).
More than anything else, I think this shows the popular understanding of infallibility.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
Obviously the 6th Ecumenical Council thought otherwise. Of course he wrote his letters to Patriarch Sergus as Pope. He was responsible for changing the heresy from teaching that there was one energy in Christ to teaching that there was on will in Christ. Therefore, he was responsible for the heresy of Monothelitism. The hoopla is about the fact that the case of Pope Honorius shows that contrary to the claims of the 1st Vatican Council, Rome has indeed been blemished by doctrinal error. The concept of “ex cathdra” did not exist at that time. Therefore your argument is without basis.
Fr. John
Fr. John
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
For proof all you have to do is look at any standard history of Christianity. They all credit Pope Honorius with the origin of the heresy of Monothelitism. Even the New Advent Site admits that he wrote, “Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin.” The site also states, "Sergius, after receiving the pope’s letter approving his recent cautiousness, composed an “Ecthesis”, or exposition, which was issued by the emperor towards the end of 638. In conformity with the words of Honorius it orders all the subjects of Heraclius to confess one Will in our Lord, and to avoid the expressions “one operation” and “two operations”. " New Advent, an obviously site with a strong Catholic bias has to admit, “In the thirteenth session, 28 March, the two letters of Sergius were condemned, and the council added: “Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God”, that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious 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”. These last words are true enough, and if Sergius was to be condemned Honorius could not be rescued. The legates made no objection to his condemnation.”
Therefore even a Catholic site like New Advent has to admit that Pope Honorius was rightfully condemned for heresy.
In all my studies of Church history, I not know of one mistake that an Ecumenical Council has made in declaring someone an heretic.
Fr. John
L
LionHeart777
Guest
In Chapman’s article, “Pope Honorius I”, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, he writes:
Chapman, before he concludes thus, puts forth evidence from primary sources, all of which can be found under the heading “In what sense Honorius was condemned”.
I’m not aware of anyone “credit[ing] Pope Honorius with the origin of the heresy of Monothelitism” as you say Father John. It seems this is the conclusion you are drawing from what people have said, and the primary sources (unless you can cite someone to that effect?)
The Encyclopedia Britannica, whom I think we would both agree does not have a Catholic bias, mentions that, “… many scholars believe that it is debatable whether he was a heretic. They hold that he seems to have misunderstood the point at issue, noting that his language is partially vague.”
Source: britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/271104/Honorius-I
I also don’t see the article from the Encyclopedia Britannica “credit[ing] Pope Honorius with the origin of the heresy of Monothelitism”.
Regards,
Nick
Source: Chapman, John. “Pope Honorius I.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 25 Nov. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm.
Chapman, before he concludes thus, puts forth evidence from primary sources, all of which can be found under the heading “In what sense Honorius was condemned”.
I’m not aware of anyone “credit[ing] Pope Honorius with the origin of the heresy of Monothelitism” as you say Father John. It seems this is the conclusion you are drawing from what people have said, and the primary sources (unless you can cite someone to that effect?)
The Encyclopedia Britannica, whom I think we would both agree does not have a Catholic bias, mentions that, “… many scholars believe that it is debatable whether he was a heretic. They hold that he seems to have misunderstood the point at issue, noting that his language is partially vague.”
Source: britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/271104/Honorius-I
I also don’t see the article from the Encyclopedia Britannica “credit[ing] Pope Honorius with the origin of the heresy of Monothelitism”.
Regards,
Nick
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
The Encyclopedia Britannica is not a Church history book. It was Honorius who suggested that instead of speaking of one energy in Christ that it was better to speak of on will, thereby laying the foundation for the growth of the heresy of Monothelitism. Only a few Catholics question this historical fact, because it undermines the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Fr. John
L
LionHeart777
Guest
1st, no the facts don’t undermine Papal Infallibility. And 2nd, I’m sure if I dug I could find more but, the Wikipedia article, “Monothelitism”, assuming it gives his view correctly, cites John Bagnell Bury, and says:
“A side issue over the statements of Pope Honorius I and his condemnation by the council arose in discussions concerning papal infallibility. In the view of historians such as John Bagnell Bury, Honorius, with a traditional Latin dislike for dialectics, did not fully comprehend the issues.[8] The question of Monoenergism, as presented by Patriarch Sergius, seemed to Honorius to be a matter of grammar rather than theology. Though he used the expression ‘one will’, he was no Monothelite, for he placed ‘one energy’ and ‘two energies’ on exactly the same footing. Further, in his second letter to Sergius, what he wrote was by and large orthodox.[8]”
Now, if you go to the Wikipedia article on John Bagnell Bury, you will see he was not a Catholic, and to quote the article, “At Cambridge, Bury became mentor to the medievalist Sir Steven Runciman…”
Although Wikipedia arguably isn’t a scholarly source, one would think it would be up to the task of citing John Bagnell Bury accurately and getting some of the basics about him correct.
A
AndyP2010
Guest
frjohnmorris
Honorius doesn’t work as a counter example because, Vatican I requires that the Pope has to require that the whole Church believe the new Doctrine, he doesn’t. The council also limited infallible statements to be in keeping with both Divine Tradition and Holy Scripture and Honorius letter isn’t. So your right Honorius laid down the groundwork for a heresy but he didn’t declare a new dogma/doctrine that fits the criteria that Vatican I requires that would make his statements a counter example.
Honorius doesn’t work as a counter example because, Vatican I requires that the Pope has to require that the whole Church believe the new Doctrine, he doesn’t. The council also limited infallible statements to be in keeping with both Divine Tradition and Holy Scripture and Honorius letter isn’t. So your right Honorius laid down the groundwork for a heresy but he didn’t declare a new dogma/doctrine that fits the criteria that Vatican I requires that would make his statements a counter example.
T
theistgal
Guest
With all due respect, Father, I think you don’t really understand what the concept of an “ex cathedra” teaching is. Unless you can prove that Catholics at that time were bound by the sitting Pope to assent to a heretical teaching, which teaching was changed by a later Pope, you have not proven your point.
The real problem with Pope Honorius is that he did NOT speak definitively and authoritatively about the concept of Monothelism and therefore left the faithful confused about the whole issue. It was thus left to a later Pope to speak authoritatively (“ex cathedra”) about the doctrine and settle it once and for all (which is what Popes are supposed to do).
The Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent has a very good and detailed page about this: newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
The decree of Vatican I claims that the papacy has “persevered unblemished” by false teaching. If a Pope was condemned for heresy by an Ecumenical Council. The papacy has not been “unblemished” by false teachings regardless of the circumstances. Once again Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople wrote a letter to Pope Honorius I asking for his advice on a doctrinal matter. His response defined a new heresy, Monothlitism. Regardless of the circumstances, Pope Honorius taught heresy.
The major problem with Vatican I is that it declares that the Pope is unaccountable to the Church or its Bishops, but sets up the Pope as an authority over the Church, not subject to the Church. To Eastern Orthodox no Bishop, no matter how high an office he holds, is not accountable to the Church or the other Bishops of the Church. Vatican I completes the process of making the Pope an absolute monarch over the Church. That is completely in violation of Holy Tradition, which teaches that the even an Ecumenical Council is subject to the authority of the Church. That is why the Council of Chalcedon could over turn the decisions of the Council of Ephesus of 449. The decrees of each Ecumenical begin with a list of the councils that it recognizes as Ecumenical Councils. The case of the Robber Council shows that the Church can reject a council that claims to be an Ecumenical Council. If the Church can reject a council that claims to be an Ecumenical Council it certainly can review and reject a papal declaration even one made “ex cathedra.”
The problem is that like Protestants, Catholics, at least the ones who post here, have no real commitment to the historic Church and its beliefs and practices. Before 1054 the 4 Eastern Patriarchs were an important part of the Church. They never recognized the universal jurisdiction or infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. Therefore the modern papal claims violate the Holy Tradition of the Church. You and others here are reading church history through lenses colored by Vatican I. As a result you show a profound misunderstanding of church history.
Fr. John
T
theistgal
Guest
With all due respect, Father John, you are simply incorrect. But that’s not surprising - I’ve noticed that a lot of Orthodox don’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches, and criticize how things aren’t more than how things are.
A
AndyP2010
Guest
frjohnmorris
The Orthodox claim that the Pope is the first among equals, correct?
The Orthodox claim that the Pope is the first among equals, correct?
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
He was until Rome went into schism. As second in rank, Constantinople has inherited the position once held by the Bishop of Rome. All that is needed for reunion is for Rome to go back to the position he held during the age of the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils and to reject any Catholic doctrine not held at that time by the whole Church.
Fr. John
Fr. John
- Status