What makes Catholicism true compared to Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Cavaradossi]

The members of the Greek Orthodox Church believe that the only infallible authority is an ecumenical council of all the bishops of the world. They believe that there were only seven such councils held before Eastern Schism, when the Eastern churches split from Rome. They say the charism of infallibility is now inoperative or nonexistent and will be until the Eastern churches are reunited with Rome.

I haven’t the faintest clue what you’re talking about, as the Greek Orthodox believe in no such thing.

This is in stark contrast to their predecessors at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, who said “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo [the then-reigning Pope Leo I].The matter is closed. Let him who will not listen to Leo be anathema.”

“Peter has spoken through Leo” was only exclaimed after Pope Leo’s tome was read publicly and challenges to its orthodoxy were answered. Logically, you are engaging in induction here, attempting to derive some general conditions under which Popes may always definitively speak with the authority of Peter from specific instances of popes doing so which as a general rule is logically unsound.

 

[prodromos]

Don’t Orthodox believe in the infallibility of their patriarchs?

Only Christ is infallible, and by nature of being His body, the Church is infallible.

 

[ericc]

No, for Christ said where two or more gather in his name there he will be.

I didn’t ask for Bible verses and that verse does not prove that the gates of hades will not prevail if there is one true believer. You can not impose your interpretation of this to Mat 16:18 because you are not the authority for the Orthodox Church. Or may be you are! Who knows? But surely you have a source, the Church Fathers, some publication with authority from the Orthodox Church or some one with authority from the Orthodox Church? Otherwise I am afraid that you are just mouthing your own opinion.

I provided Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church for further understanding.

Is he authorized to speak on behalf of the Orthodox Church? If he is not, I would be wasting time reading stuff by unauthorized person which could be denied in an instant if he made an error. Or he is just your favorite author? I just need one authorized reference that can verify your claim.

You have two mutually exclusive positions. The Council declared Honorius a heretic. Therefore, their position is at odds with Maximus’, which is that Honorius was not a heretic. Either both are false or only one of them is true. You cannot logically say that both positions are true.

Your logic is faulty. The Council declared Honorius a heretic. Maximus was not trying to prove Honorius a non-heretic. He is trying to explain what Honorius wrote. The Council did not say Maximus is wrong. In fact there is no mention of Maximus at all! You made the error of concluding 2 independent anachronistic positions as 2 mutually exclusive positions.

You also have to take into account that Maximus first said that Honorius was referring to the human will in one letter. Then in another letter he said that there was simply a mistranslation, which isn’t probable given the version at the Council was approved by the papal representatives. If anything Maximus is using contradictory arguments to find a way to say Honorius wasn’t a heretic.

I do not know of “another letter” since you did not provide the reference. But that is not the point we are arguing. We are arguing whether did Honorius in his capacity as Pope TAUGHT heresy. Whether it is from the chair or not is another matter. He may be a heretic, he may be negligent, he may be overindulgent to Sergius, he may be many other things. But you have not proven in any manner that he taught heresy! You propose, extrapolate, assume but that is not sufficient to convict him of the error of teaching heresy. All those words, sentences that you put in bold, red, underline didn’t prove anything at all. At the minimum, give him the benefit of the doubt. Look at the statement he made after the alleged error, it is not pro monothelitism, it is anti. Look at the statements other very credible people made supporting him, the popes that succeeded him, St Maximus. None of them claim Honorius wrote heretically. You will see that he has been made use of by the Patriarch of Constantinople who selectively cherry pick words advantageous to promote his cause. And you don’t even have further collaborating evidence of his guilt other than the 2 words in the first letter which is not the formula for Monothelitism anyway. Instead of pitying him, you are actually riding on the dastard deed of Sergius to pin the error of teaching heresy on to Honorius! Honorius was condemned not because he taught error, but because he favoured and strengthen heretics. Although he did not stain the Church himself, his neglect permitted the Church to be stained by others.

Since you are not capable of providing evidence proving Honorius of teaching heresy, at least have the intellectual integrity to admit that you have insufficient evidence to convict him of that error rather than advertising that alleged error as a fact when it is not.

 

[Rohzek]

I didn’t ask for Bible verses and that verse does not prove that the gates of hades will not prevail if there is one true believer. You can not impose your interpretation of this to Mat 16:18 because you are not the authority for the Orthodox Church. Or may be you are! Who knows? But surely you have a source, the Church Fathers, some publication with authority from the Orthodox Church or some one with authority from the Orthodox Church? Otherwise I am afraid that you are just mouthing your own opinion.

I must say that I really don’t appreciate your tone towards me. I am a member of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and a former Catholic. I went through rigorous study to decide to convert to Orthodoxy. And part of that includes learning what the Orthodox Church believes regarding dogma, the Bible, etc. If you cannot in good faith acknowledge my own sincerity, honesty, and good faith, then I suggest you question your own motives as to whether or not you are interested in even having a dialogue.

Is he authorized to speak on behalf of the Orthodox Church? If he is not, I would be wasting time reading stuff by unauthorized person which could be denied in an instant if he made an error. Or he is just your favorite author? I just need one authorized reference that can verify your claim.

He is only one of the most well-respected theologians of the Orthodox Church and major figure in the ecumenical movement and a subject of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. If that isn’t authorized enough for you then, again I suggest you question your own motives. And again, I do not appreciate your tone of doubting my own sincerity.

thyateira.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=46

Your logic is faulty. The Council declared Honorius a heretic. Maximus was not trying to prove Honorius a non-heretic. He is trying to explain what Honorius wrote. The Council did not say Maximus is wrong. In fact there is no mention of Maximus at all! You made the error of concluding 2 independent anachronistic positions as 2 mutually exclusive positions.

No, your logic is faulty. First, why would either of the positions be anachronistic? I think you meant to use a different word, no? Second, Maximus was trying to explain that Honorius wrote correct dogma, a position you uphold (see below highlighted in blue). And yes, the Council did not discuss Maximus personally, but that was never my point. I’m discussing the specific arguments and positions of people. If Maximus said that Honorius taught correctly and thus was not a heretic, and then the Council declared Honorius a heretic, then it is therefore logically concluded and reasonable that the Council and Maximus were at odds in their positions.

I do not know of “another letter” since you did not provide the reference.

What do you mean you don’t know of another letter? You’re the one who brought it up. I almost question whether or not I should even discuss it if you cannot remember your own arguments.

Is Honorius a heretic? May be he is if one just focus on 2 words that he wrote. But his second letter tell us he is not.

But that is not the point we are arguing. We are arguing whether did Honorius in his capacity as Pope TAUGHT heresy. Whether it is from the chair or not is another matter. He may be a heretic, he may be negligent, he may be overindulgent to Sergius, he may be many other things. But you have not proven in any manner that he taught heresy! You propose, extrapolate, assume but that is not sufficient to convict him of the error of teaching heresy. All those words, sentences that you put in bold, red, underline didn’t prove anything at all. At the minimum, give him the benefit of the doubt. Look at the statement he made after the alleged error, it is not pro monothelitism, it is anti. Look at the statements other very credible people made supporting him, the popes that succeeded him, St Maximus. None of them claim Honorius wrote heretically. You will see that he has been made use of by the Patriarch of Constantinople who selectively cherry pick words advantageous to promote his cause. And you don’t even have further collaborating evidence of his guilt other than the 2 words in the first letter which is not the formula for Monothelitism anyway. Instead of pitying him, you are actually riding on the dastard deed of Sergius to pin the error of teaching heresy on to Honorius! Honorius was condemned not because he taught error, but because he favoured and strengthen heretics…

Again, you need to define what you mean by the word teach. I think we are talking past one another because we have different understandings of what it means to teach. Until you define it, I won’t proceed with the rest of the argument.

Since you are not capable of providing evidence proving Honorius of teaching heresy, at least have the intellectual integrity to admit that you have insufficient evidence to convict him of that error rather than advertising that alleged error as a fact when it is not.

And you should have the intellectual charity to take me at my word that I honestly believe the positions that I assert, that I am not going around cherry picking evidence to suit my own beliefs, and questioning whether or not I even know what my own faith of Orthodoxy believes as though a Catholic would generally know better. I have never in my many months since being on these forums been so doubted, insulted, and patronized. In fact, I’ve often complimented these forums for their charity on Orthodox forums, where I did not receive the very same treatment on different matters of import.

 

[ericc]

I must say that I really don’t appreciate your tone towards me. I am a member of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and a former Catholic. I went through rigorous study to decide to convert to Orthodoxy. And part of that includes learning what the Orthodox Church believes regarding dogma, the Bible, etc. If you cannot in good faith acknowledge my own sincerity, honesty, and good faith, then I suggest you question your own motives as to whether or not you are interested in even having a dialogue.

I am sorry if my tone offends you. There was no intent. I didn’t want to sound presumptuous that you are not authorized to speak on behalf of the Orthodox Church. So can I take it that as long as there is one true believer, the Orthodox Church interpret that Mat 16:18 Gates of Hell/hades will not prevailed? Yes?

This has never been about your sincerity or bad faith. This has always rested on factual information that you provided. I picked apart those quotes to discern the truth. And since those quotes did not provide evidence of teaching heresy, I appealed to your integrity to acknowledge it.

He is only one of the most well-respected theologians of the Orthodox Church and major figure in the ecumenical movement and a subject of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. If that isn’t authorized enough for you then, again I suggest you question your own motives. And again, I do not appreciate your tone of doubting my own sincerity.

thyateira.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=46

You shouldn’t be so sensitive to the verification process. As a former Catholic, you would know that lots of people write about the Catholic Church but not all of them are authorized to speak on behalf of her. We usually need to see the imprimatur. Else we would have thousands all claiming to speak on behalf of the Church and confusing many with divergent views. I suppose the Orthodox Church has something similar else how do you sieve out the official/authorized vs the unofficial/unauthorized authors? So can I now without doubt used his writings as official Orthodox Church dogma? Needless to say, you also know that there are many respected Catholic theologians but not all their views are deemed acceptable. Again I did not want to presume any facts until you have your say. Now what if another Orthodox theologian were to disagree with Timothy Ware’s writings, who shall decide between them?

No, your logic is faulty. First, why would either of the positions be anachronistic? I think you meant to use a different word, no? Second, Maximus was trying to explain that Honorius wrote correct dogma, a position you uphold (see below highlighted in blue). And yes, the Council did not discuss Maximus personally, but that was never my point. I’m discussing the specific arguments and positions of people. If Maximus said that Honorius taught correctly and thus was not a heretic, and then the Council declared Honorius a heretic, then it is therefore logically concluded and reasonable that the Council and Maximus were at odds in their positions.

It is anachronistic because the Pyrrhus Disputation was in 645 AD and the Council 680. And since the Council say nothing about Maximus, how could there be anything that would be mutually exclusive? It does not follow. Absence is not a “thing” that can be mutually excluded. What Maximus said could not be referring to the Council since it had not happened then and hence must be read standing on its own. You made the mistake that the reason for condemnation of Honorius in the Council is for teaching heresy. It wasn’t.

1. Maximus said Honorius didn’t write anything heretical.
2. Council said Honorius is a heretic.

Now the question is whether are the 2 statements are mutually exclusive or are they independent. Of course both statements can be true because the reasons for condemning Honorius rest on his neglect to do the right thing not on his heretical writings. If he wrote heretically then all his successor popes lied when they claim they have held fast to the faith. You have not proven that Pope Agatho lied in his letter to the Council.

 

[ericc]

What do you mean you don’t know of another letter? You’re the one who brought it up. I almost question whether or not I should even discuss it if you cannot remember your own arguments.

If you are refering to Honorius first and second letter, I didn’t indicate there was a mistranslation. That threw me off. I thought you refer to another letter that had a mistranslation. The second letter clarified his orthodox beliefs.

I think I missed responding to the one will.
*
And whence I confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, because truly he assumed our nature from divinity, without guilt, therein truly he who is made before sin, not after the corrupt transgression [Fall of Man]. *

If Honorius were to refer to the divine vs human wills, there would be no necessity to mention the will before and after sin. (Emphasis underlined. ) That is why Maximus say that Honorius was referring to the human will, the good rather than the corrupt human will.

Again, you need to define what you mean by the word teach. I think we are talking past one another because we have different understandings of what it means to teach. Until you define it, I won’t proceed with the rest of the argument.

My simple very summarized version: Teaching as in telling the faithful that this is dogma on faith/morals and that must be obeyed. A private letter between 2 bishops agreeing on what is to remain silent can’t be teaching, can it? Nothing has been taught, nothing has been proclaimed to the Church, just an administrative arrangement has been sought by Sergius.

What is your version?

And you should have the intellectual charity to take me at my word that I honestly believe the positions that I assert, that I am not going around cherry picking evidence to suit my own beliefs, and questioning whether or not I even know what my own faith of Orthodoxy believes as though a Catholic would generally know better. I have never in my many months since being on these forums been so doubted, insulted, and patronized. In fact, I’ve often complimented these forums for their charity on Orthodox forums, where I did not receive the very same treatment on different matters of import.

There is no intent to insult or any bad will towards your beliefs. Just an intent to vigorously scrutinized statements made regarding my Church to see whether it is fact or opinion. Surely you wouldn’t fault me when I said the evidence does not support the guilt when viewed holistically? Surely you wouldn’t deny me the chance to show that selective choice of evidence may unfairly colored the situation? As in all arguments to arrive at the truth, there must be some bickering to and fro but surely there is no necessity to arrive at the view all dissent means a disrespect to your person. I am open to all views if evidence is forthcoming to support an argument. But if the evidence is A and one concludes B, then that is really a fallacious argument that must be identified as such.

There wouldn’t be much exchange if you charge anyone that disagree with you with disrespect, or everyone is too “nice” to object.

But I think I have put forward my objections to the charge that Honorius taught heresy fairly and adequately. If I have offended you, I seek your forgiveness. It was never intended.

 

[ericc]

Yep. The idea of the pentarchy is more like a theory that have been proposed by some but nevertheless is not regarded more than that. If anything, any knowledgable Orthodox probbably rejects such an idea that the Pentarchy is the standard for upholding true doctrine considering how they have all had some patriarchs who have been heretical. And considering that there have been times when not all five have existed (considering Constantinople as a Patriarchate did not exist until later).

All the more for my search for support that a single true believer is what Jesus meant for the gates of hell not to prevail. I have not seen any Church Father subscribing to this view. Perhaps I may have missed it.

And in terms of the gates of hades not prevailing against the church, we just never define it such a clear cut way as Catholics do like “the Pope will never err.” And as far as I am concerned, as long as the Pope has not erred, the gates of Hades has not prevailed considering the Pope is the source of Catholic unity and doctrinal truth, so even in Catholicism I would say that a single person is necessary for hades not to prevail (and I would also say this when I almost became Catholic).

“The pope will never err” is not a Catholic teaching. Some one pulled a fast one on you. There are a number of rather “inadequate” popes.

The Orthodox view of hades not prevailing is more along the lines of that the truth will always be maintained in some form by those in the church, and that it will always prevail in the end (whether it be one person or not, we really don’t define but I assume even a single person is enough). Example, the Arian heresy. At some point, the majority of the church in the East would be Arian. Yet, after much struggle later, the true teaching of the Trinity and the Council of Nicaea triumphs. So hades was not able to prevail over the church. Heresy may infect the people of the church, but it may never triumph over it as the truth will always be maintained by some, and ultimately this truth will prevail over the heresy.

The single person true believer concept is something I need to research. Can you point me to some historical records that claim his view?

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Carry on ericc and rohzek.

Learning a lot from your dialogue. Thank you.

 

[Kmon23]

All the more for my search for support that a single true believer is what Jesus meant for the gates of hell not to prevail. I have not seen any Church Father subscribing to this view. Perhaps I may have missed it.

“The pope will never err” is not a Catholic teaching. Some one pulled a fast one on you. There are a number of rather “inadequate” popes.

The single person true believer concept is something I need to research. Can you point me to some historical records that claim his view?

Regarding the “pope will never err,” I was confused about your response, and looked online to find out one definition means to sin. I meant err as in mistake. I was definitely referring to Papal Infallibility and all the caveats and details concerning that (yes I know, not their impeccability). I definitely know what papal infallibility is, as taught by my Catholic professor (and no, I did not fail that class ). Just too tired to spell the details properly, and thought err was sufficient.

And for the single believer thing, I’m not sure how many resources you may find about that. Like I said, we don’t dogmatize and define everything that Catholics have done to the extent they have. Define what papal infallibility is, what is necessary for infallibility, etc. We just believe that the Church will always exist, and that this Church is the one that has continuity with the Church established by Christ. If really pressured to have an answer to such a question (if everyone was almost killed off), then maybe we can say there can be one believer and that is enough. But then again, we just don’t know. We believe Christ’s words but don’t necessarily assume we know how in every situation.
We don’t spell out every detail. Within the Catholic concept, it’s the same reason that Christians in general did not have infallible assurance regarding the infallibility of the Pope, the assumption, and immaculate conception until the 19th and 20th century. Likewise, Orthodox view theology and doctrine as Christianity did before it became much more systematic and defined as in Catholicism during the rise of Scholasticism and the second millenium in general (and don’t misunderstand, I don’t mean this in a bad sense here or anything).

And so, if there was only a single believer (although I would say this person must be a bishop since Apostolic Succession is a sign of the Church), then yes the gates of hades has not prevailed. But then again, it’s just an idea if we are forced to give an answer to an extreme question.

 

[ericc]

He is only one of the most well-respected theologians of the Orthodox Church and major figure in the ecumenical movement and a subject of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. If that isn’t authorized enough for you then, again I suggest you question your own motives. And again, I do not appreciate your tone of doubting my own sincerity.

thyateira.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=46

.

I just borrowed the 1st edition ( I couldn’t find the latest) of Timothy Ware The Orthodox Church. I did a search throughout the book for his treatment of Matthew 16:18 but couldn’t locate any. Do you know whether his newer edition contains that treatment?
There was a single mention of Matthew 16:18 but it was unrelated to the information that I seek.

Thanks.

 

[Rohzek]

I just borrowed the 1st edition ( I couldn’t find the latest) of Timothy Ware The Orthodox Church. I did a search throughout the book for his treatment of Matthew 16:18 but couldn’t locate any. Do you know whether his newer edition contains that treatment?
There was a single mention of Matthew 16:18 but it was unrelated to the information that I seek.

Thanks.

With regards to this one singular point, my argument was that our understanding of Church is different. Therefore, our understanding of Matthew 16:18 will be different. From a Catholic perspective, Rome will always safeguard Catholic dogma. On the Orthodox perspective, it is the entirety of the Church that will safeguard it, whether it be a small segment of the laity, some monks, or bishops. I have the 93/97 edition in front of me. See chapter 12 (The Church of God) and his discussion the Letter of 1848 to Pope Pius IX. The matter of concern is on pages 248-254 in my edition.

 

[Rohzek]

My simple very summarized version: Teaching as in telling the faithful that this is dogma on faith/morals and that must be obeyed. A private letter between 2 bishops agreeing on what is to remain silent can’t be teaching, can it? Nothing has been taught, nothing has been proclaimed to the Church, just an administrative arrangement has been sought by Sergius.

What is your version?

My version includes both private and public letters. This is not to say that I would consider it ex cathedra if I were Catholic still, because I wouldn’t. I consider it teaching just as much as the Council of Cyprus considered them teaching in 633/634 when they used them to excommunicate Maximus (with the approval of the papal representative btw).

 

[Rohzek]

I am sorry if my tone offends you. There was no intent. I didn’t want to sound presumptuous that you are not authorized to speak on behalf of the Orthodox Church.

I understand. Sorry it got heated.

1. Maximus said Honorius didn’t write anything heretical.
2. Council said Honorius is a heretic.

Now the question is whether are the 2 statements are mutually exclusive or are they independent. Of course both statements can be true because the reasons for condemning Honorius rest on his neglect to do the right thing not on his heretical writings. If he wrote heretically then all his successor popes lied when they claim they have held fast to the faith. You have not proven that Pope Agatho lied in his letter to the Council.

This isn’t probable because the Sixth Council read Honorius’ 2 letters to Sergius aloud. They then ordered that they be burned for their heretical content. It isn’t all that surprising either. You have to understand that both Monothelites and Dithelites adamantly upheld the Council of Chalcedon and the teaching of the hypostatic union. However, the Monothelites felt that the hypostatic union of Christ was at stake if he didn’t have just one will (voluntas or energia). For the Monothelites, the will resided within the person. Therefore, since Christ was one person, he therefore had one will. However for the Dithelites, will resided in the natures. Since Christ had two natures, he thus had two wills.

As for Pope Agatho, I never claimed he lied. I merely contended that he was trying to uphold the prestige of Rome, which had until Honorius, remained remarkably strong against heresy. My position is further vindicated by Pope Leo II’s letter to the emperor, where does condemn Honorius in the same exact manner as the other heretical patriarchs.

Now that this is explained, allow me to consider the two letters of Honorius. We will discuss the second letter first, since it is usually upheld as proof of his orthodoxy. The second letter to Sergius barely deals with the issue of monothelitism at all. Instead, Honorius spends almost all of his time discussing the hypostatic union proclaimed at Chalcedon in the fifth century. The problem with using this to uphold his orthodoxy is that Chalcedon was never at stake due to Monothelitism. Both sides adamantly believed in and advocated Chalcedon. However, there is one part that is very striking. Honorius writes the following:

Thus keeping away, as I said, from the vexation of new expressions, we must not maintain or proclaim either one or two energies, but, instead of one energy which some maintain, we must confess that the one Christ, the Lord, truly works in both natures…

Here Honorius again links the will to the person of Christ instead of the nature of Christ. This is the starting point of Monothelites. This isn’t to say that Honorius just up and joined the Monothelite party. His willingness to take sides is very weak. However, it doesn’t change the fact that he had the same starting point as the Monothelites, which put his theology at fundamental odds with the Dithelites, who triumphed at the Third Council of Constantinople.

Now lets look at the first letter again:

While truly the godhead is neither able to be crucified nor to have endured human sufferings, it is because of the ineffable conjunction of human and divine natures that it is therefore said everywhere that God suffered and descended from heaven with humanity. And whence I confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, because truly he assumed our nature from divinity, without guilt, therein truly he who is made before sin, not after the corrupt transgression [Fall of Man]."

In simplicity and truth we will confess that the Lord Jesus Christ, one and the same, works in the divine and in the human nature.

; and we exhort you that you, fleeing from the new manner of speech of one energy or two, with us proclaim one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, true God, in two natures working the divine and human.

The first segment considers mainly the hypostatic union, of how Christ assumed both divine and human natures. Because he lacked Original/Ancestral sin, his human nature was not damaged/fallen. Now Honorius is specifically addressing the claim that Christ has two contrary wills. Honorius disputes this notion (a poorly conceived notion of dithelitism by Sergius I might add) stating that because God’s will is righteous, he cannot have a will that is contrary. Hence, Christ must have one will due to the lack of his sin.

Now one might say, “Oh well it looks like here that Honorius is linking will (voluntas) to the natures since he talking about Original Sin, the Fall of Man, and the damaging of the human nature. Thus he isn’t linking will to the personhood as a Monothelite would.” Well, not so fast. For the Monothelite, they would have nothing to disagree with about Christ’s sinless human nature. However, natures only incline people towards things, they do not determine or cause things. So what Honorius seems to be saying here is that because Christ has perfect divine and human natures, there is nothing to cause contrary inclinations. This does not imply that Honorius linked will to nature. This interpretation is further bellied in the later two segments where Honorius emphasizes the oneness of Christ in both natures: Christ’s deeds are not the works of two wills linked to two natures, but of one will linked to the person. Such a position is not orthodox.

 

[mattp0625]

I have been looking into apostolic succession in the Orthodox Churches. The Coptic church claims to have been originated by Saint Mark and they have their own pope. My understanding is that other orthodox churches do not have popes and reject the Roman Catholic Pope’s authority. Are there any other examples that show the succession from an apostle to the next bishop?

 

[Peter_J]

I have been looking into apostolic succession in the Orthodox Churches. The Coptic church claims to have been originated by Saint Mark and they have their own pope.

True. I still remember when, about 15 years ago, I was reading something JPII had written about the Orthodox and felt a slight jolt when I got to the part where he, the Pope, said “When I met with His Holiness Pope so and so …”

 

[mattp0625]

I read that Peter appointed Ignatius of Antioch, so there seems to be a succession there. I saw another thread that referred to Thomas, Jude, and others. Additionally, it seems Ignatius had some degree of reverence or respect for the Bishop of Rome. Some churches seem to have less certain succession

 

[ericc]

I understand. Sorry it got heated.

No worries. Eveything’s good.

This isn’t probable because the Sixth Council read Honorius’ 2 letters to Sergius aloud. They then ordered that they be burned for their heretical content.

The letters of Honorius were burned because they were destructive to the Church and favorable to the heretical contumacy of Sergius, not indeed, in doctrine, but in their approbation of the rule of silence and in too great lenity toward the heresiarch. They are condemned not because they contained the same impiety as the writings of the others, but because “ad unam eademque impietatem tenderent;” they tended (in the Greek concurred) to one and the same impiety." J.H.R.

As for Pope Agatho, I never claimed he lied. I merely contended that he was trying to uphold the prestige of Rome, which had until Honorius, remained remarkably strong against heresy.

Either he lied to uphold the prestige of Rome or he didn’t and spoke truth.

My position is further vindicated by Pope Leo II’s letter to the emperor, where does condemn Honorius in the same exact manner as the other heretical patriarchs.

He did condemn Honorius for permitting the Church to be stained but no where did he claim Honorius taught heresy. I realized this may be the deciding factor. Did he intent to teach infallibly or was it an administrative concession to preserve the peace of the Church?

The first segment considers mainly the hypostatic union, of how Christ assumed both divine and human natures. Because he lacked Original/Ancestral sin, his human nature was not damaged/fallen. Now Honorius is specifically addressing the claim that Christ has two contrary wills. Honorius disputes this notion (a poorly conceived notion of dithelitism by Sergius I might add) stating that because God’s will is righteous, he cannot have a will that is contrary. Hence, Christ must have one will due to the lack of his sin.

Now one might say, “Oh well it looks like here that Honorius is linking will (voluntas) to the natures since he talking about Original Sin, the Fall of Man, and the damaging of the human nature. Thus he isn’t linking will to the personhood as a Monothelite would.” Well, not so fast. For the Monothelite, they would have nothing to disagree with about Christ’s sinless human nature. However, natures only incline people towards things, they do not determine or cause things. So what Honorius seems to be saying here is that because Christ has perfect divine and human natures, there is nothing to cause contrary inclinations. This does not imply that Honorius linked will to nature. This interpretation is further bellied in the later two segments where Honorius emphasizes the oneness of Christ in both natures: Christ’s deeds are not the works of two wills linked to two natures, but of one will linked to the person. Such a position is not orthodox.

Believe in 2 wills is properly basic. Christ in the Godhead has always existed. Hence his divine will is never in question. But as Man with human nature, does he have a human will or only divine will? Sergius asked if he has both won’t he have contrary wills? Honorious answered, not if Christ assumed the unfallen will which is always in conformity with the divine. Don’t you agree this position is very reasonable? Christ has one single human will which is the unfallen contrasted with Rom 7:23 which alludes to both corrupt(members) and uncorrupt (mind) wills.

I think he didn’t realise what he wrote can be construed by the heretics to be supporting their cause. If there is no intent, there can’t be guilt. And he clearly said he didn’t want to define anything. And his second letter is orthodox, at least that is the view of many others which may be different from you. The Popes and Maximus think he is not guilty. You think he meant divine vs human wills, others including me think it is fallen vs unfallen human will. There is nothing to suggest Honorius intended to teach monothelitism either. May be an independent language expert can shed some light.

I think we have both given our arguments for our respective stances. I believe we won’t be able to progress much further. Hence , it think it is timely to call it a day and agree to disagree.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

:bounce::bounce::bounce:

 

[KathleenGee]

Honorius did not believe in heresy but his error was more in the failure to teach and clarify.

He also thought it more prudent not to comment to avoid confusion among the faithful.

Christ said not my will but the Heavenly Father’s will be done. And He gave us the Our Father.

Peter and Paul were co founders of the Church of Rome. When they arrived there were already Jewish Christians meeting in Christian homes headed by presbyters in contrast to single meeting churches in Alexandria and Antioch

Linus was first bishop, then followed by Pope Clement. The See of Peter grew in conjunction with the growth and complexity of the Church, the sign of unity and Rome settled disputes when they could not be done elsewhere. There were times episcopal councils settled other times when Rome did.

 

[KathleenGee]

I would add here, reflecting on my seminar for laity I attended last year at our local seminary, traditional Church governing, I mean going back prior before the Schism, it was not set in stone whether the Pope had final word or councils.

The bottom line is being Servants of God that transcends our cultural, anthropological differences, to provide us basic comprehension and living out – the Universal Church’s faith in Christ.

Again, my hope and prayer…with aid of modern communication and indepth scholarship. With God all things are possible.