To our beloved, Orthodox brethren...

[Hesychios]

Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and that anathema was confirmed by papal oath for centuries…

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…

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

UltraMontanism was on the rise…

…rising like smoke.

 

[prodromos]

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?

I would suggest you quoted what they actually said instead of misrepresenting them as you did. Let’s look at what you wrote…

From the first moment the EO party disembarked at Constantinople, the whole episode was fraught with uncanonical AND unethical irregularities.

If you have read the above mentioned book as you claim, then you ought to agree that your statement better describes the proceedings of the Coucil of Florence! It was a debacle from beginning to end.

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.

What they actually said was “We have sold our faith, we have exchanged Orthodoxy for heterodoxy, and losing our former pure faith have become azymites”. Nothing about being “forced” to become azymites you liar. (you have no qualms about accusing St Mark of being a liar)

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 said nothing to the people regarding purgatorial fire. Once again** it is you who lies**.

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.

Once again you speak shameless falsehood you liar. Read the book again and you will find nothing of the sort in his circulars to all Christians written after the false council. No where does he say they are “forced” to believe anything. All he does is contrast the doctrines of the false council with those of Orthodoxy.

So the populace was incited with all these exaggerated misrepresentations of the Council.

Thus far the only misrepresentations are your own.

The populace could not be controlled, and souces say that locals had been incited to the point of violence.

Which ‘sources’? Certainly not the book you claim as your source for it suggests no such thing. What is stated is that nobody would have anything to do with those who had signed the decrees of Florence. The clergy who had remained in Constantinople would not even officiate with them.

Many bishops were forced from their sees by the animus of their flock, even if they repented for having signed on at Florence

So you claim, yet no such thing is stated in the book which you claim as your source.

Thus it stands that in order to argue your position, you have posted a long stream of falsehood. The truth needs no such defense.

John

 

[prodromos]

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.

That is not what Apostolic Canon 34 says, but why should that stop you from claiming such, judging by your earlier post

 

[John_Larocque]

I don’t have the title off hand, but St. Vladimir’s press has a book on the “azymite” controversy. There’s a professor John Erickson who wrote something about that as well, but I’m not sure he’s the author. I came across the book reference when I was hunting around in google for material. Ah here it is…

amazon.com/gp/product/0881413208/ref=cm_rdp_product

It’s a general history book.

 

[Mickey]

Thus it stands that in order to argue your position, you have posted a long stream of falsehood. The truth needs no such defense.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

 

[josie_L]

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.

But how are we to know these individuals are speaking the truth, how are we to decipher that this person rather than that person is correct, this would be like the tower of Babel, confusion? Furthermore, the episcopacy was/is given a special charism to protect the truth, and yes they are human, but when they work in tandem with the bishop of Rome, the see of Peter, they are safeguarded from error (this is how it functioned for the first millenia). Moreover, Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (throughout time) as such the successors of the apostles will be be guided into all truth. This is scriptural.

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.

The Bishops when in council should represent the truth plain and simple, this has nothing to do with the people per se. Furthermore, the episcopate does not dictate truth, it delineates on behalf of the laity through the workings of the Holy Spirit present in the bishops who are the successors to the apostles. And I do find that definition nebulous because practically speaking such a view does not vibe with scripture, Tradition, or history.

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?

The pope cannot teach error, he can however neglect teaching truth (as was the case with Pope Honorius) but he cannot teach error (there is no example of a pope actually teaching error on faith and morals for which he made binding on all Christians).

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.

Of course, He will provide the truth but the truth was said to be preserved by means of the magisterium (the bishops) in communion with Rome through the Holy Spirit. This is scriptural.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Yours in Christ
Josie

 

[josephdaniel29]

The pope cannot teach error, he can however neglect teaching truth (as was the case with Pope Honorius) but he cannot teach error (there is no example of a pope actually teaching error on faith and morals for which he made binding on all Christians).

Apparently this discussion has nothing to do with Orthodox ecclesiology and everything to do with papal infallibility. Take the idea that the Pope can never teach error out of the equation. We have no infallible bishop and we’re not in communion with you so your beliefs about the Pope or the Magisterium are not relevant to a discussion of our ecclesiology. If one of your bishops or a council taught something clearly opposed to Tradition would you follow them?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John,

I would suggest you quoted what they actually said instead of misrepresenting them as you did. Let’s look at what you wrote…
If you have read the above mentioned book as you claim, then you ought to agree that your statement better describes the proceedings of the Coucil of Florence! It was a debacle from beginning to end.
What they actually said was “We have sold our faith, we have exchanged Orthodoxy for heterodoxy, and losing our former pure faith have become azymites”. Nothing about being “forced” to become azymites you liar. (you have no qualms about accusing St Mark of being a liar)
Mark of Ephesus said nothing to the people regarding purgatorial fire. Once again** it is you who lies**.
Once again you speak shameless falsehood you liar. Read the book again and you will find nothing of the sort in his circulars to all Christians written after the false council. No where does he say they are “forced” to believe anything. All he does is contrast the doctrines of the false council with those of Orthodoxy.
Thus far the only misrepresentations are your own.
Which ‘sources’? Certainly not the book you claim as your source for it suggests no such thing. What is stated is that nobody would have anything to do with those who had signed the decrees of Florence. The clergy who had remained in Constantinople would not even officiate with them.
So you claim, yet no such thing is stated in the book which you claim as your source.

Thus it stands that in order to argue your position, you have posted a long stream of falsehood. The truth needs no such defense.

John

You should read the Letter of Mark of Ephesus of the False Council. He says everything that I said he stated. Do you have a copy of it or have access to it online? Don’t depend on JUST second-hand sources like the book from Popoff I referred to. Wasn’t it you who said to “expand your reading” or something like that? Just take your own advice.

As far as being “forced,” EVERY EO account I have read of Florence paints the acquiesence of the EO bishops at Florence (except for St. Isidore of Kiev who really did want reunion) as being forced, not physically, but by psychological and moral pressure. I guess these EO accounts are lying - according to you anyway.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

That is not what Apostolic Canon 34 says, but why should that stop you from claiming such, judging by your earlier post

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and DO NOTHING OF CONSEQUENCE WITHOUT HIS CONSENT;… but neither let him do anything without the consent of all; FOR SO THERE SHALL BE UNANIMITY.

I guess you interpret those words differently.

Or perhaps you think the canons of the Church are just “suggestions” so there’s really no NECESSITY to follow them.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[happilycatholic]

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

Well, if said Pope made an ex cathedra address to amount to such a position, then it would present a totally unique problem. Since this hasn’t happened in 2000 years.

But, if said Pope just said it, then someone would be carting him straight to the Vatican’s doc to check out his noggin!

HC

 

[josie_L]

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and DO NOTHING OF CONSEQUENCE WITHOUT HIS CONSENT;… but neither let him do anything without the consent of all; FOR SO THERE SHALL BE UNANIMITY.

I guess you interpret those words differently.

Or perhaps you think the canons of the Church are just “suggestions” so there’s really no NECESSITY to follow them.

Blessings,
Marduk

Maybe this has already been answered but what council was this wherein the canon was set? God bless, Marduk.

 

[josie_L]

Apparently this discussion has nothing to do with Orthodox ecclesiology and everything to do with papal infallibility. Take the idea that the Pope can never teach error out of the equation. We have no infallible bishop and we’re not in communion with you so your beliefs about the Pope or the Magisterium are not relevant to a discussion of our ecclesiology. If one of your bishops or a council taught something clearly opposed to Tradition would you follow them?

Yours in Christ
Joe

Well, you brought up the examples of the pope being wrong, not I. And I am discussing Orthodox ecclesiology but it’s hard to this without making comparisons with our own ecclesiology (and my understanding of scripture, tradition and history). And if one of my bishops taught something clearly opposed to Tradition (realistically this could not happen with the Pope, the successor of Peter), I would not follow him, furthermore, a council of bishops as I said must be in communion with Rome in order that it may be validated. God bless.

 

[mardukm]

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).

Yes, I agree with 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. The problem with the EO ecclesiology, ISTM, is that they make the laity an entity separate from their God-appointed teachers. Thus, they don’t have a problem with what happened after Florence. In the Catholic understanding, the laity is inherently included in the Church’s teaching on the sensus fidelium, and should never be considered apart from their God-appointed teachers.

That 's the main difference between the EO ecclesiology and the Catholic ecclesiology. Though we both accept the role of ALL members of the Church in the defense and preservation of the Faith, the EO seem to think that the laity can act on their own apart from their God-appointed ecclesiastical leaders, but we Catholics believe that the concerns of the laity must be addressed through their God-appointed ecclesiastical leaders. It’s not about the laity being the final judge of the Faith, nor about the laity being involved in the preservation of the Faith. Those are just straw man arguments. The real issue is about whether the laity can act apart from their God-appointed ecclesiastical leaders or not.

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.

Here’s the issue I have with what you have written. You connect St. Athanasius’ appeal to the Pope with papal infallibility. However, I don’t see anything in the episode that fully meets the conditions of papal infallibility defined by Vatican 1. At best, one can infer from the episode papal primacy. The only infallibility I see exhibited during the Arian controversy is the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. Thus, it is my belief that all orthodox bishops during the Arian controversy were exhibiting the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, and papal infallibility did not even come into play.

That’s one of the “Latin excesses” I mentioned, painting everything that went right in the early Church in terms of papal infallibility. In fact, the only time I see papal infallibility being utilized in the early Church was the Tome of Pope St. Leo. We need to have a more collegial understanding of the Church. Catholic apologists should learn to express REGULARLY the orthodoxy of the early Church in terms of either the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, the infallibility of the Church as a whole, or the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council in their apologetics. This is a necessity if we are to have any chance of becoming reunited with our apostolic brethren.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Maybe this has already been answered but what council was this wherein the canon was set? God bless, Marduk.

No Council gave us these ancient canons. These canons came to us during the apostolic age of the Church. The canons were added to progressively, but Tradition assigns its primordial contents (or at least its codification) to Pope St. Clement of Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother josephdaniel,

I understand why you have to believe that because the idea that a Pope cannot fall into heresy is central to your entire ecclesiology.

That is not the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church. It’s not that the Pope cannot fall into heresy, it’s that he cannot ever publicly and formally teach heresy to the Church. I suppose there are Catholics who think that the Pope cannot fall into heresy, or even that this is a teaching of the Church, but I’m not one of those Catholics. I think such a belief is restricted to the Latin Catholic Church. Even then, I think the more sensible Latin Catholics do not believe this. Personally, I doubt sister Josie holds to that belief.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josephdaniel29]

Well, you brought up the examples of the pope being wrong, not I. And I am discussing Orthodox ecclesiology but it’s hard to this without making comparisons with our own ecclesiology (and my understanding of scripture, tradition and history). And if one of my bishops taught something clearly opposed to Tradition (realistically this could not happen with the Pope, the successor of Peter), I would not follow him, furthermore, a council of bishops as I said must be in communion with Rome in order that it may be validated. God bless.

Then what we really disagree on is the nature of the papacy. You can’t discuss our ecclesiology within the framework of yours. If we believed a single bishop or council of bishops was inherently infallible then things would be different but we don’t.

Let me ask you another question. I assume you believe Orthodox bishops have valid Apostolic Succession. If the heads of all the Orthodox Churches met in council do you believe that council would be infallible?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear brother josephdaniel,

That is not the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church. It’s not that the Pope cannot fall into heresy, it’s that he cannot ever publicly and formally teach heresy to the Church. I suppose there are Catholics who think that the Pope cannot fall into heresy, or even that this is a teaching of the Church, but I’m not one of those Catholics. I think such a belief is restricted to the Latin Catholic Church. Even then, I think the more sensible Latin Catholics do not believe this. Personally, I doubt sister Josie holds to that belief.

Blessings,
Marduk

I have even read that some put forward the idea, although I don’t think it’s an official teaching, that if a Pope does teach heresy at that very instant he ceases to be Pope.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother josephdaniel,

Then what we really disagree on is the nature of the papacy. You can’t discuss our ecclesiology within the framework of yours. If we believed a single bishop or council of bishops was inherently infallible then things would be different but we don’t.

At the EO-CC theological colloquy in Ravenna (the one that the ROC left), it was admitted that an ecumenical Council is inherently infallible because of the working of the Holy Spirit. I guess the matter is still theologoumena in the EOC?

Let me ask you another question. I assume you believe Orthodox bishops have valid Apostolic Succession. If the heads of all the Orthodox Churches met in council do you believe that council would be infallible?

You have to understand the Catholic teaching on infallibility first. Contrary to popular and polemic belief, the infallibility that the Catholic Church believes in is the INFALLIBILITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM. The only thing inherently infallible according to the teaching of the Church is the Magisterium and nothing else. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of God. Where this Magisterium is exhibited, then there is guaranteed to be infallibility. That is why the Catholic Church formally teaches that infallibility is co-extensive with the divine deposit of Faith. It is also the reason why V1 specifically changed the title of the decree on papal infallibility from “the Infallibility of the Pope” to “the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope.”

Having said that, permit me to answer your question as a Catholic.

An Orthodox Council can teach infallibly insofar as it’s teaching is consonant with the deposit of Faith. But unless it is united to its head, the Pope:
(1) it cannot be stated to be infallible (i.e., to actually represent the infallible Magisterium; NOTE: the infallibility of a Council does not come by virtue of papal infallibility, but by the nature of a Council as a body with a head);
(2) one cannot be absolutely certain that it is teaching infallibly. The Catholic Church recognizes that unity is a sign of infallibility. That is why the Catholic Church teaches that the ordinary Magsterium of bishops is infallible even while dispersed throughout the world if it teaches definitively and unanimously. I’m certain that is also the reason why our Lord taught that unity itself is necessary for the world to know that He was sent by the Father.

BTW, I would appreciate your comments to my post #135 to sister Josie (if you don’t mind).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josie_L]

Dear brother josephdaniel,

At the EO-CC theological colloquy in Ravenna (the one that the ROC left), it was admitted that an ecumenical Council is inherently infallible because of the working of the Holy Spirit. I guess the matter is still theologoumena in the EOC?

You have to understand the Catholic teaching on infallibility first. Contrary to popular and polemic belief, the infallibility that the Catholic Church believes in is the INFALLIBILITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM. The only thing inherently infallible according to the teaching of the Church is the Magisterium and nothing else. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of God. Where this Magisterium is exhibited, then there is guaranteed to be infallibility. That is why the Catholic Church formally teaches that infallibility is co-extensive with the divine deposit of Faith. It is also the reason why V1 specifically changed the title of the decree on papal infallibility from “the Infallibility of the Pope” to “the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope.”

Having said that, permit me to answer your question as a Catholic.

An Orthodox Council can teach infallibly insofar as it’s teaching is consonant with the deposit of Faith. But unless it is united to its head, the Pope:
(1) it cannot be stated to be infallible (i.e., to actually represent the infallible Magisterium; NOTE: the infallibility of a Council does not come by virtue of papal infallibility, but by the nature of a Council as a body with a head);
(2) one cannot be absolutely certain that it is teaching infallibly. The Catholic Church recognizes that unity is a sign of infallibility. That is why the Catholic Church teaches that the ordinary Magsterium of bishops is infallible even while dispersed throughout the world if it teaches definitively and unanimously. I’m certain that is also the reason why our Lord taught that unity itself is necessary for the world to know that He was sent by the Father.

BTW, I would appreciate your comments to my post #135 to sister Josie (if you don’t mind).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I have even read that some put forward the idea, although I don’t think it’s an official teaching, that if a Pope does teach heresy at that very instant he ceases to be Pope.

Yes, I have heard of that. I think a more standard view, from a Catholic perpective, was the one put forth by St.Robert Bellarmine (a Doctor of the Church). He stated that if a Pope does or teaches something that would endanger the Church (obviously, heresy falls into this category), we are bound to not only disagree with him, but actively oppose him. According to Bellarmine, however, this would not entail the loss of the papal office. It would be a matter of opposing an action of the Pope, not of judging him personally.

I guess the assumption is that the correction will cause the Pope to change. If the Pope does not repent, I believe he can be persuaded (even forcefully) to abdicate by his brother bishops (one or two Popes have actually abdicated in that manner - happened during the Middle Ages when there was more than one Pope). There’s certainly nothing in the history or canons of the Catholic Church that states that the Pope is above correction.

Blessings,
Marduk