To our beloved, Orthodox brethren...

[mardukm]

Dear brother John,

Dear mardukm, you have continued to misrepresent the Orthodox faith in these statements of yours. The Council of Florence was rejected by the Church, which is made up of Bishops, Priests, Deacons and the Laity. Acceptance of the judgements of the Council of Florence in the East was always going to be determined by a subsequent council of bishops in the East. That acceptance never occurred, quite the contrary in fact.

This whole concept of the ‘primacy’ of the laity is a complete strawman fallacy. I know that some Orthodox may have erroneously put forward such a view in the past, but it is not what we believe. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, all of the Church. Not just the bishops, not just the priests and deacons, not just the laity, but all of them together.

I don’t think you’ve been reading my posts very carefully. I have admitted that the EO claim that it is not just the laity, but rather the entire hierarchy involved in a decision for the Church. What I have a problem with is the whole MANNER in which the Council of Florence was rejected by EO’xy at that time.

From the first moment the EO party disembarked at Constantinople, the whole episode was fraught with uncanonical AND unethical irregularities. According to sources, some bishops complained to the laity when they disembarked that they had been forced to become “azymites.” That, brother John, was a lie. The Council never forced the use of unleavened bread on the EO. Then we have Mark of Ephesus telling people that they were now forced to believe in Purgatorial fire. That, brother John, was also a lie - purgatorial fire was not even mentioned in the decree. Mark of Ephesus also tells the people that the they are forced to believe that the Son is the Source of the Spirit. That, brother John, is also a lie. Though there are indeed several problems (to say the least) with the Florentine decree on filioque, that is not one of them. The decree never assigns the Son the prerogative of being the “SOURCE” of the Holy Spirit, and actually explicitly affirms that the Father is the Source and Principle of ALL deity. And I’m sure, despite the complaints against papal primacy, none of the anti-Council party ever divulged the fact that the negotiators managed to extract from the Latins during their formal discussions/debates that the Pope should not have any prerogatives in the primacy different from what he had when the Church was united.

So the populace was incited with all these exaggerated misrepresentations of the Council (though there were certainly legitimate grievances). The populace could not be controlled, and souces say that locals had been incited to the point of violence. Many bishops were forced from their sees by the animus of their flock, even if they repented for having signed on at Florence (this had the unfortunate effect that when Metropolitan Metrophanes was intalled by the Emperor, he appointed Latin bishops to fill the vacant dioceses). All this things had already occurred before a merely titular council was finally called by three Patriarchs that made rulings against the Florentine Council and the bishops that supported it.

To repeat, I don’t deny that the EO in principle accept the hierarchical structure of the Church. And I don’t deny, but fully accept as a Catholic, the principle that the laity are involved in the defense of the Faith, not just the hierarchy. The problem I have is that these events after Florence were clearly aberrations from the good order established by Christ and the apostles and affirmed by the canons of the early Church. Yet every EO apologist always holds up these events as the ultimate exemplar for the principle that the laity have an active role in the preservation of the Faith. So, by bronzing these events so candidly, do EO support the actions of the laity in forcing out their God-appointed hierarchs even without benefit of a synod to judge them? That’s the problem I have with the EO ecclesiology (as far as this topic is concerned - the low Petrine view is another matter). Though in principle it sounds good, how can we sure you don’t actually support the kind of mob action that occurred after Florence?

I hope you understand my reservations.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Oh brother. I am hearing a child’s voice chanting, “nah, nah, nah, nah, nah”.

Yeah, I was trying to inject a little humor into that. Glad you caught it.

Blessings

 

[JesusforMadrid]

The same place he comes to the conclusion that in Orthodoxy conciliar decisions are “submitted” for “approval” by the laity. He is doing precisely what he accuses us of doing. Building up a giant straw man to tear down. How presumptuous and arrogant to tell us what we believe! I am used to that tactic from Protestant fundamentalist but not on CAF.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Too bad, in your generally well reasoned responses, your strongest aspersion is to accuse someone of acting like a “Protestant”.

 

[Mickey]

there were certainly legitimate grievances

Definitely.

I beleive that some of the main issues were: the procession of the Holy Ghost, the term *Filioque *of the Symbol, the Eucharistic tenet, the novissimi, and the papal supremacy.

Eventually the the entire Church (hierarchy and laity) decided against union.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us.

 

[prodromos]

Please read the acts of the Ecumenical Councils so you can see that both the head and the body are just as necessary in the divine working of an ecumenical council.

NOTE: If you read the acts of the Second Ecumenical Council, it might be hard for you to get the sense that the head bishop was necessary since he was not intially involved in the proceedings. To get a better understanding of the matter, move forward to the year 382 in your research, where you will discover that the Acts of said Council were indeed submitted to Pope St. Damasus for his confirmation.

Dear Mardukm, Pope Damasus (and several other bishops) was indeed informed of the decisions of the council as was right and proper, seeing as he (and they) was not present at the said council, but you should also note that the Church in the East did not wait with baited breath for the Pope’s confirmation before enacting the decisions of the council, so little did they believe that his confirmation was necessary, thus their actions demonstrate the weakness of your position.

John

 

[prodromos]

According to sources, some bishops complained to the laity when they disembarked that they had been forced to become “azymites.” That, brother John, was a lie. The Council never forced the use of unleavened bread on the EO. Then we have Mark of Ephesus telling people that they were now forced to believe in Purgatorial fire. That, brother John, was also a lie - purgatorial fire was not even mentioned in the decree. Mark of Ephesus also tells the people that the they are forced to believe that the Son is the Source of the Spirit. That, brother John, is also a lie.

Dear Mardukm, I suggest you broaden your sources before making such claims.

John

 

[mardukm]

Dear Mardukm, I suggest you broaden your sources before making such claims.

I got these facts directly from a book called “the History of the Council of Florence” by Basil Popoff, the letter of Mark of Ephesus on the False Council of Florence, with comparison to the text of the Decrees of Florence.

What else would you suggest?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear Mardukm, Pope Damasus (and several other bishops) was indeed informed of the decisions of the council as was right and proper, seeing as he (and they) was not present at the said council, but you should also note that the Church in the East did not wait with baited breath for the Pope’s confirmation before enacting the decisions of the council, so little did they believe that his confirmation was necessary, thus their actions demonstrate the weakness of your position.

His confirmation was NECESSARY for the unity of the Church on the matter. That’s what Apostolic Canon 34 says. I’m just amazed how blithely EO can so often minimize the importance of that.

And please don’t even try that “you minimize the authority of all other bishops” rhetoric with me. I’m not a Latin, but an Oriental and I don’t subscribe to those types of Latin excesses, and never have.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Definitely.

I beleive that some of the main issues were: the procession of the Holy Ghost, the term *Filioque *of the Symbol, the Eucharistic tenet, the novissimi, and the papal supremacy.

Eventually the the entire Church (hierarchy and laity) decided against union.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us.

What’s interesting to me is that in the Bull of Union with the Copts at Florence, the Pope explicitly recognized that the decree still required approval from the Coptic Orthodox (despite the CO delegation). If the Pope only made the same explicit recognition in the Bull of Union with the Easterns… The whole affair could definitely have been handled better by the Pope. I guess that really highlights the bad effects of caesoropapism for the Church in general. The secular powers should never be allowed to affect the purpose and decisions of the Church. One good thing that Mark of Ephesus did (from a purely Catholic perspective, of course )is that he repudiated the interference of the Emperor into the affairs of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josie_L]

Of course they were. The laity (or people of God) being represented by their bishops.

You seem to have a view of the episcopacy as being over and above the Church and dictating to it. That is a very gnostic concept my friend, that the bishops have some “secret” knowledge they “reveal” to the Church. Truth is truth regardless of who says it. The episcopacy defines the truth and makes it manifest but it is the Church that possesses that truth.

The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, not the episcopacy alone. No single person or specified group of people (clergy or laity) is inherently infallible. History bears that out. There have been robber councils, heretical Popes and Patriarchs and countless lay people have fallen into heresy, but miraculously through the Grace of God the truth of Orthodoxy always shines through.

Yours in Christ
Joe

So your saying that we the Church (everyone in it) are infallible because this is not my understanding when I read scripture as authority for loosing and binding was given to the apostles, i.e., the bishops of the Church and to Saint Peter (and his successors) it was given the keys (as well as feeding, tending and strengthening the brethren/sheep). You make the Church sound somewhat like a democracy wherein the people have a say in doctrinal issues just because bishops represent the laity (did they ask each individual what they believed and was it necessary to know to make a decision pertaining to doctrinal issues). I mean if you go by what you say then we would be Arians today as most of the Church was heretically inclined at the time. The Holy Spirit could not have saved the Church if he was not working through someone infallibly at the time and that person was none other than the Pope for how else would we know if Arianism was a heresy? Furthermore, there were no heretical popes for Pope Honorius never taught that Jesus had one will, he was comdemned rather for not having squelched the heresy as he should.

p.s. Some or most Eastern Orthodox view conciliarism as the infallible organ of the Church.

 

[josie_L]

His confirmation was NECESSARY for the unity of the Church on the matter. That’s what Apostolic Canon 34 says. I’m just amazed how blithely EO can so often minimize the importance of that.

And please don’t even try that “you minimize the authority of all other bishops” rhetoric with me. I’m not a Latin, but an Oriental and I don’t subscribe to those types of Latin excesses, and never have.

Blessings

Hi Mardukm, what do you mean by Latin excesses as I see you are in communion with Rome? God bless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Josie,

Hi Mardukm, what do you mean by Latin excesses as I see you are in communion with Rome? God bless.

You might get a sense of it from the response I will shortly give to your previous post. Also, if you want, do an advanced search on the terms “absolutist Petrine” with my user name. Make the time limit go back a month.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister josie,

So your saying that we the Church (everyone in it) are infallible because this is not my understanding when I read scripture as authority for loosing and binding was given to the apostles, i.e., the bishops of the Church and to Saint Peter (and his successors) it was given the keys (as well as feeding, tending and strengthening the brethren/sheep).

I feel you and brother josephdaniel are talking past one another. He just stated that he believes that no one person or group of people are inherently infallible, so I don’t see how you can accuse him claiming that “everyone in the Church is infallible.”

I would remind you of two things:

1. The Catholic Church does indeed teach that the Church collectively is graced with infallibility. This is the very source of the indefectibility of the Church. The laity have a legitimate voice in this determination, and it is accomodated in the Catholic teaching of the sensus fidelium. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Magisterium through the centuries has been solicitous enough to judge the teachings of even her lay theologians. If the hierarchical Magisterium did not think the beliefs of the lay Church mattered, and only the teaching of the hierarchy mattered, then they wouldn’t even pay attention to what the lowly theologian teaches. But in fact, the hierarchy does give heed to what the lay Church has to say, and it is partly through this mindful attention that the hierarchy is helped to define the Faith when necessary. Having said that, I do believe that what occurred after Florence among the EO was an aberration (not necessarily their grievances, but HOW it was handled), and until those actions are formally repudiated, people’s perception of EO ecclesiology will always be tainted and will hamper efforts at reunion.
2. The Church has never appealed to the keys nor the power to bind and loose as the basis for infallibility. You can read the V1 decree on infallibility to convince yourself of this.

You make the Church sound somewhat like a democracy wherein the people have a say in doctrinal issues just because bishops represent the laity (did they ask each individual what they believed and was it necessary to know to make a decision pertaining to doctrinal issues). I mean if you go by what you say then we would be Arians today as most of the Church was heretically inclined at the time.

I agree that, given the events at Florence, the EO ecclesiology has the subjective danger of devolving to a pure democracy, but I think it can legitimately be stated that EO’xy operates on the IDEAL of the hierarchical structure of the Church. The Arian comparison is rather extreme and invalid, IMO. The Eastern Church (at least the orthodox portion) was clearly still operating on the same principles as the Western Church at that time. So one can’t validly assume they weren’t. On the other hand, there are actually EO today (several here a while back when this Forum was still called the Eastern Christianity Forum) who appeal to the Arian schism to “disprove” papal primacy! They boast, “See! The East did not always accept the authority of Rome!” These particular “apologists” would rather side with heretics than admit papal primacy.

The Holy Spirit could not have saved the Church if he was not working through someone infallibly at the time and that person was none other than the Pope for how else would we know if Arianism was a heresy?

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about when I talk of “Latin excesses.” In your defense of the papacy, Latins sometimes have an uncanny knack of thinking that the bishop of Rome was the ONLY one involved in defense of the Faith. In fact, during the Arian controversy, we have (just as a small example) the shining lights of Pope St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers. Another example is when Catholic apologists use the statement from Augustine “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” In fact, the whole episode surrounding that statement demonstrates the COLLEGIAL nature of the Church in defining matters of Faith. Certainly, a whole series of local councils was involved in the defense of the Faith, and the decision of the Pope at the time was made in the context of a Roman Synod. Sometimes, some Latins just seem to forget the role of the rest of the Church when defending the papacy.

Some or most Eastern Orthodox view conciliarism as the infallible organ of the Church.

Conciliarism is the incorrect word. Concilarism is a heresy. The proper word would be “conciliarity.” Though I feel the view of some Eastern Orthodox can’t properly be called conciliarity. A true council of bishops always has a head, but there are not a few EO who think that a head bishop is unnecessary or that such a thing as a head bishop even exists.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josephdaniel29]

So your saying that we the Church (everyone in it) are infallible

No I’m saying no one is infallible. Why do you focus on the human aspect so much?

You make the Church sound somewhat like a democracy wherein the people have a say in doctrinal issues just because bishops represent the laity (did they ask each individual what they believed and was it necessary to know to make a decision pertaining to doctrinal issues).

The bishops should make the inherent truth that is possessed by the Church manifest. Where did I say the laity “votes” or that the bishops have to “ask” the laity about doctrinal issues?

I mean if you go by what you say then we would be Arians today as most of the Church was heretically inclined at the time.

Which makes my point. A large number of the bishops fell into heresy. What if it happened today that a large number of your bishops and the Pope fell into error? How would you know it was heresy and what would you do?

The Holy Spirit could not have saved the Church if he was not working through someone infallibly at the time and that person was none other than the Pope for how else would we know if Arianism was a heresy?

Wow that statement is breathtaking! The Holy Spirit could not save the Church and you wouldn’t have known Arianism was heresy without the Pope? So basically you are saying it’s not possible to know what is true and what is not without the Pope?

Furthermore, there were no heretical popes for Pope Honorius never taught that Jesus had one will, he was comdemned rather for not having squelched the heresy as he should.

I understand why you have to believe that because the idea that a Pope cannot fall into heresy is central to your entire ecclesiology. Unfortunately it’s not true. Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and that anathema was confirmed by papal oath for centuries

During the 17th century a manuscript of the Liber Diurnus was discovered in the monastery of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in Rome by the humanist Lucas Holstenius, who also obtained another manuscript from the Jesuit Collège de Clermont in Paris. The death of Holstenius and pressure from the ecclesiastical censors led to the edition printed at Rome in 1650 being withheld from publication, the copies being stored at the Vatican. The reason for so doing was apparently formula lxxxiv, which contained the profession of faith of the newly elected pope, in which the latter recognized the Sixth General Council and its anathemas against Pope Honorius for his Monothelism. In other words, it appeared to acknowledge that a pope was capable of heresy. Holstenius’s edition was reprinted at Rome in 1658; but was again withdrawn in 1662 by papal authority, though in 1725 Benedict XIII permitted the issue of some copies.

Source

And this.

The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., “smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.”

Source.

Not to mention that anathema was part of the lesson for the feast day of St Leo in the Roman Breviary until the 18th century.

This from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Pope Honorius.

The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth century.

It’s clear that Honorius was a heretic. It makes one wonder why these references were removed from the oath and the breviary?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josie_L]

Dear sister josie,

I feel you and brother josephdaniel are talking past one another. He just stated that he believes that no one person or group of people are inherently infallible, so I don’t see how you can accuse him claiming that “everyone in the Church is infallible.”

But doesn’t the Church need an infallible organ to be the voice of the Holy Spirit, and can this be, practically-speaking, the whole Church, I mean to say shouldn’t ultimate authority rest with the magisterium in communion with the Pope (obviously the Church can take into consideration what the lay theologians have/had to say, in fact, the Church has made much of the revelations and writings of saints).

I would remind you of two things:

1. The Catholic Church does indeed teach that the Church collectively is graced with infallibility. This is the very source of the indefectibility of the Church. The laity have a legitimate voice in this determination, and it is accomodated in the Catholic teaching of the sensus fidelium. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Magisterium through the centuries has been solicitous enough to judge the teachings of even her lay theologians. If the hierarchical Magisterium did not think the beliefs of the lay Church mattered, and only the teaching of the hierarchy mattered, then they wouldn’t even pay attention to what the lowly theologian teaches. But in fact, the hierarchy does give heed to what the lay Church has to say, and it is partly through this mindful attention that the hierarchy is helped to define the Faith when necessary. Having said that, I do believe that what occurred after Florence among the EO was an aberration (not necessarily their grievances, but HOW it was handled), and until those actions are formally repudiated, people’s perception of EO ecclesiology will always be tainted and will hamper efforts at reunion.
2. The Church has never appealed to the keys nor the power to bind and loose as the basis for infallibility. You can read the V1 decree on infallibility to convince yourself of this.

I mean simply that they (the apostles and their successors) were vested with authority not the laity, so in that respect I would assume they have the final say.

I agree that, given the events at Florence, the EO ecclesiology has the subjective danger of devolving to a pure democracy, but I think it can legitimately be stated that EO’xy operates on the IDEAL of the hierarchical structure of the Church. The Arian comparison is rather extreme and invalid, IMO. The Eastern Church (at least the orthodox portion) was clearly still operating on the same principles as the Western Church at that time. So one can’t validly assume they weren’t. On the other hand, there are actually EO today (several here a while back when this Forum was still called the Eastern Christianity Forum) who appeal to the Arian schism to “disprove” papal primacy! They boast, “See! The East did not always accept the authority of Rome!” These particular “apologists” would rather side with heretics than admit papal primacy.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about when I talk of “Latin excesses.” In your defense of the papacy, Latins sometimes have an uncanny knack of thinking that the bishop of Rome was the ONLY one involved in defense of the Faith. In fact, during the Arian controversy, we have (just as a small example) the shining lights of Pope St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers. Another example is when Catholic apologists use the statement from Augustine “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” In fact, the whole episode surrounding that statement demonstrates the COLLEGIAL nature of the Church in defining matters of Faith. Certainly, a whole series of local councils was involved in the defense of the Faith, and the decision of the Pope at the time was made in the context of a Roman Synod. Sometimes, some Latins just seem to forget the role of the rest of the Church when defending the papacy.

No, I was aware of St. Athanasius’s role in fighting Arianism, don’t get me wrong, what I do recall however, is how St. Athanasius appealed to the pope for help in fighting off the heresy, that to me speaks volumes.

Conciliarism is the incorrect word. Concilarism is a heresy. The proper word would be “conciliarity.” Though I feel the view of some Eastern Orthodox can’t properly be called conciliarity. A true council of bishops always has a head, but there are not a few EO who think that a head bishop is unnecessary or that such a thing as a head bishop even exists.

Blessings,
Marduk

My sentiments exactly. God bless.

 

[josie_L]

No I’m saying no one is infallible. Why do you focus on the human aspect so much?

Why shouldn’t I since the Holy Spirit has to speak through individuals in order to be heard? And these individuals of which I speak of, i.e., the magisterium in communion with the pope have the authority (as was given to the apostles and lives on in their successors) to determine matters of faith and morals.

The bishops should make the inherent truth that is possessed by the Church manifest. Where did I say the laity “votes” or that the bishops have to “ask” the laity about doctrinal issues?

You said that the laity are involved in doctrinal issues and ecumenical councils, how so? And saying that the bishops represent the laity does not suffice, as this is a nebulous definition and understanding of the role of the laity in matters of faith and morals.

Which makes my point. A large number of the bishops fell into heresy. What if it happened today that a large number of your bishops and the Pope fell into error? How would you know it was heresy and what would you do?

I would have the pope (the successor of Saint Peter) give the first or final say on the matter as was done in the past.

Wow that statement is breathtaking! The Holy Spirit could not save the Church and you wouldn’t have known Arianism was heresy without the Pope? So basically you are saying it’s not possible to know what is true and what is not without the Pope?

Yes, I believe that the Pope with the help of the Holy Spirit (alongside the few who were helping him) managed to keep the Church from falling into error. Moreover, I believe you need to be in communion with Rome in order to decipher truth (always keeping in mind that the Holy Spirit is working in them because of the authority vested by Jesus).

 

[josie_L]

I understand why you have to believe that because the idea that a Pope cannot fall into heresy is central to your entire ecclesiology. Unfortunately it’s not true. Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and that anathema was confirmed by papal oath for centuries

This from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Pope Honorius.

It’s clear that Honorius was a heretic. It makes one wonder why these references were removed from the oath and the breviary?

Yours in Christ
Joe

Firstly, this is what I found on the sixth ecumenical council on the Catholic Encyclopedia site:

"The council, attended in the beginning by 100 bishops, later by 174, was opened 7 Nov., 680, in a domed hall (trullus) of the imperial palace and was presided over by the (three) papal legates who brought to the council a long dogmatic letter of Pope Agatho and another of similar import from a Roman synod held in the spring of 680. They were read in the second session. Both letters, the pope’s in particular, insist on the faith of the Apostolic See as the living and stainless tradition of the Apostles of Christ, assured by the promises of Christ, witnessed by all the popes in their capacity of successors to the Petrine privilege of confirming the brethren, and therefore finally authoritative for the Universal Church."

Then there’s this:

“There has been in the past, owing to Gallicanism and the opponents of papal infallibility, much controversy concerning the proper sense of this council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius, the theory (Baronius, Damberger) of a falsification of the Acts being now quite abandoned (Hefele, III, 299-313). Some have maintained, with Pennacchi, that he was indeed condemned as a heretic, but that the Oriental bishops of the council misunderstood the thoroughly orthodox (and dogmatic) letter of Honorius; others, with Hefele, that the council condemned the heretically sounding expressions of the pope (though his doctrine was really orthodox); others finally, with Chapman (see below), that he was condemned”

**“because he did not, as he should have done, declare authoritatively the Petrine tradition of the Roman Church. To that tradition he had made no appeal but had merely approved and enlarged upon the half-hearted compromise of Sergius. . . Neither the pope nor the council consider that Honorius had compromised the purity of the Roman tradition, for he had never claimed to represent it. Therefore, just as today we judge the letters of Pope Honorius by the Vatican definition and deny them to be ex cathedra, because they do not define any doctrine and impose it upon the whole Church, so the Christians of the seventh century judged the same letters by the custom of their day, and saw that they did not claim what papal letters were wont to claim, viz., to speak with the mouth of Peter in the name of Roman tradition. (Chapman)” **

**"The letter of the council to Pope Leo, asking, after the traditional manner, for confirmation of its Acts, while including again the name of Honorius among the condemned Monothelites, lay a remarkable stress on the magisterial office of the Roman Church, as, in general, the documents of the Sixth General Council favour strongly the inerrancy of the See of Peter. **“The Council”, says Dom Chapman, “accepts the letter in which the Pope defined the faith. It deposes those who refused to accept it. It asks [the pope] to confirm its decisions. The Bishops and Emperor declare that they have seen the letter to contain the doctrine of the Fathers. Agatho speaks with the voice of Peter himself; from Rome the law had gone forth as out of Sion; Peter had kept the faith unaltered.” Pope Agatho died during the Council and was succeeded by Leo II, who confirmed (683) the decrees against Monothelism, and expressed himself even more harshly than the council towards the memory of Honorius (Hefele, Chapman), though he laid stress chiefly on the neglect of that pope to set forth the traditional teaching of the Apostolic See, whose spotless faith he treasonably tried to overthrow (or, as the Greek may be translated, permitted to be overthrown)."

newadvent.org/cathen/04310a.htm

 

[josephdaniel29]

Why shouldn’t I since the Holy Spirit has to speak through individuals in order to be heard? And these individuals of which I speak of, i.e., the magisterium in communion with the pope have the authority (as was given to the apostles and lives on in their successors) to determine matters of faith and morals

The Holy Spirit definitely speaks through different individuals at different times. Sometimes He speaks through councils and sometimes not. The episcopacy is given a special charism to protect the truth but they are still human and by that virtue imperfect and liable to error.

You said that the laity are involved in doctrinal issues and ecumenical councils, how so? And saying that the bishops represent the laity does not suffice, as this is a nebulous definition and understanding of the role of the laity in matters of faith and morals.

I said they are involved because they are represented by their bishops. Do you believe it is the role of the episcopate to dictate truth to the laity? You may call that definition nebulous I would call it mysterious and miraculous.

I would have the pope (the successor of Saint Peter) give the first or final say on the matter as was done in the past.

Then I will ask you again. If the Pope began teaching error, such as denying the real presence, would you follow him as the successor of St Peter?

Yes, I believe that the Pope with the help of the Holy Spirit (alongside the few who were helping him) managed to keep the Church from falling into error. Moreover, I believe you need to be in communion with Rome in order to decipher truth (always keeping in mind that the Holy Spirit is working in them because of the authority vested by Jesus).

Lots of people, with the aid of God have kept the Church from falling into error. That doesn’t mean He couldn’t have done it without those specific people. God will preserve the truth despite human fallibility.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Wildkit]

Then I will ask you again. If the Pope began teaching error, such as denying the real presence, would you follow him as the successor of St Peter?

Great question which has been answered how many times? And the issue of Pope Honorius has also been answered as to what he taught how many times?

Brother Mardukm sent me a private message and he pointed out that the Bishop of Rome has never publicly taught any falsehoods in that position, but the same could not be said for other patriarchs/bishops in their place of authority since the beginning of the Church.

My research did not prove otherwise. But then your question is one of speculation. I will leave it in my Lord’s hands and be one holy and apolstolic Church. It has worked for a while. But then, what is the issue(s) for not reuniting again?

Enjoy

 

[josephdaniel29]

Great question which has been answered how many times?

Well the person I asked hasn’t answered yet.

And the issue of Pope Honorius has also been answered as to what he taught how many times?

Brother Mardukm sent me a private message and he pointed out that the Bishop of Rome has never publicly taught any falsehoods in that position, but the same could not be said for other patriarchs/bishops in their place of authority since the beginning of the Church.

My research did not prove otherwise. But then your question is one of speculation. I will leave it in my Lord’s hands and be one holy and apolstolic Church. It has worked for a while. But then, what is the issue(s) for not reuniting again?

Enjoy

It’s pointless to argue this question. As you know it’s our position that the Pope has publicly taught error and currently teaches error. You disagree and that’s fine and I’m not going to argue it with you. The difference is the idea that one bishop can be wrong has no bearing on our faith or the infallibility of the Church.

Yours in Christ
Joe