Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Mickey]

As early as January 1870, at the initiative of Bishops Martin and Senestre a petition was sent to the pope; it immediately received the support of the majority of the Council members and thus anticipated the decision before any discussion on the subject. The petition asked for the proclamation of the pope’s supreme and infallible authority in matters of faith. Forty-six Council members from Austria-Hungary and Germany immediately sent a counter-petition, asking not to submit this subject for discussion; they were joined by 38 French, 27 American, 17 Eastern and 7 Italian bishops.
(The Vatican dogma)

 

[Mickey]

The collection of written protests against the dogma of papal infallibility shows how strong was the opposition to it. Sixty-one members wrote that the proposed dogma should be withdrawn and some gave decisive dogmatic and canonic reasons for this; fourteen said that the subject required further investigation; others regarded the proposed dogma as a self-contradictory innovation likely to lead to schism; only 56 were more or less in favour of it.
(The Vatican dogma)

 

[Evlogitos]

In fairness to the RCC position, not all important canons or acts of the ecumenical councils (EDIT: to clarify, the ones accepted by the Orthodox) were voted on by a majority of attending bishops… not to mention that papal infallibility effectively nullifies the need for conciliarity. As such, it’s a bit of a red herring to raise Vatican I vote counts.

Of course, under the Orthodox way of thinking, there are numerous other checks and balances to ensure that such minority decisions preserve proper catholicity.

 

[Mickey]

In fairness to the RCC position, not all important canons or acts of the ecumenical councils were voted on by a majority of attending bishops… not to mention that papal infallibility effectively nullifies the need for conciliarity. As such, it’s a bit of a red herring to raise Vatican I vote counts.

Fair enough.

'I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles, the barque of Peter; I am the way, the truth and the life. They who are with me are with the Church; and they who are not with me are out of the Church. They are out of the way, the truth and the life.
Pope Pius IX

 

[anthony022071]

A belief that could not possibly meet the Vincentian canon of Universality, Antiquity and Consent, and in fact a belief not universally shared by Catholics even within living memory of the Council that solemnly defined it.
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx

St. Cyprian:
“The heretics dare to sail off and carry letters from profane schismatics to the chair of Peter, to the first of Churches from which first came the unity of the priesthood. Don’t they know that they are Romans there, whose faith was praised by the preaching of the apostle, and among whom faithlessness can have no influence?” (Letter 59 to Pope Cornelius, 14, A.D. 252).

Bachiarius, monk, (fl. 420 AD):
“…none of the heresies could gain hold of or move the Chair of Peter, that is the See of faith.”
(Professio fidei, 2)

John Cassian, Monk (c. AD 430), to Pope Celestine I:
“That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God.”
(Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III).

Socrates Scholasticus (c. AD 380-450), a Greek Church historian in Constantinople:
“…the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.”
(The Ecclesiastical History 2, 8)

St. Peter Chrysologus (449 A.D.):
“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope in the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the true faith to those who seek it. For we … cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome.”
(St. Peter Chrysologus, Letters 25:2)

Theodoret of Cyrus:
“For that holy see has precedence of all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of false opinions has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the apostles undefiled.”
(Theodoret, Ep. 116, to Renatus the presbyter. A.D. 449.

The Greek historian Salminius Hermias Sozomen (A.D. ca. 375?-447/48):
“For there is a priestly law, making void whatever is effected against the mind of the bishop of Rome.”
(Sozomen, Church History, Book 3. A.D. 450.)

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (A.D. 465-533):
“That which the Roman Church, which has the loftiest place on the earth, teaches and holds, so does the whole Christian world believe without hesitation for their justification, and does not delay to confess for their salvation”
(Letter 17, 21, A.D. 519).

Signatories of the “Formula of Hormisdas” (519 AD) to restore union after the Acacian Schism (484 AD),signed by 2,500 Eastern bishops:
“[We agree that] in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion is always kept immaculate. . . . We receive and approve all the letters of the blessed Pope Leo . . . and, as we have said, we follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. Therefore, I hope that I may deserve to be with you [Pope Hormisdas] in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See, in which Communion is the whole, real and perfect solidity of the Christian Religion. And I promise that in the future I will not say in the holy Mysteries the names of those who are banished from the Communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who do not agree with the Apostolic See.”

 

[Evlogitos]

With RCC patristic prooftexts, there is invariably a massive conflation made with regard to the following six fallacies:

-“Peter” = “the pope”

-Praise for Roman orthodoxy = outright and permanent infallibility

-Laudatory and flowery language addressed to the pope, typically written by appealing or attempting to appease, = definitive and detailed dogmatic attestation to papal prerogatives

-The papacy pontificating at length about how awesome and powerful it is = proof that the catholic Church accepted these claimed prerogatives

-Extraordinary papal right of appeal (as Alexandria and Constantinople also had, in similar form) = universal ordinary jurisdiction

-Western fathers, speaking of the magnificence and extent of papal jurisdiction within the Western Patriarchate, = proof that the Eastern Church was equally subject to and complicit with such jurisdiction

What I would really love to see is an Eastern Father who argued fiercely with the papacy on one or another issue that was not resolved at that time by council, who eventually said something to the effect of “you know, I really hate to concede, but you’re the pope, and thus what you say must be right.” In other words, I’d like to see a successful exercise of the pope’s supposed universal ordinary jurisdiction that proved effective on an orthodox Father who really didn’t like the pope at all.

I just don’t see it in history. e.g., Ss. Basil and Maximus, who were no fainting lilies when it came to being pro-papacy, both refused to follow the pope’s lead on fairly big issues; St. Maximus, particularly, being on the one hand effusive with praise for the office of the pope, and on the other hand blatantly refusing to join with a part of the Roman communion.

 

[anthony022071]

Evlogitos:

St. Maximus, particularly, being on the one hand effusive with praise for the office of the pope, and on the other hand blatantly refusing to join with a part of the Roman communion.

He excommunicated himself from the Church?

“If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.” (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

 

[Evlogitos]

Right back at’cha, Tony:

*“But what will you do,” inquired the envoys, “when the Romans are united to the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord’s day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch. ”

The Saint replied, “Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.”*

 

[steve_b]

Steve,

You have not addressed my point. While Vatican I may or may not be an example of what I am saying, the question is rather simple and the answer should also be rather simple.

It is simple, either every single council is a fun game for Bishops to participate in to make them feel important, but in reality the decision of the council only rests with the Pope, or the Pope is a part of the ecumenical council and is subject to the same rules that would apply to any “Patriarch”.

I am asking you Steve, in the most straightforward way that I can, do the votes of the council count for anything more than a poll for the Pope to see how people feel? If so, explain.

[snip]

it is a question about the nature of the Pope and “Ecumenical Councils”)

God Bless and I hope for a real answer!

See if this differentiates things for you.

From the Catechism

**892 **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

884"The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council." But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor

**891 **“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

**894 **“The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.

**895 **“The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.” But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

**936 **The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is “head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth” (CIC, can. 331).

**938 **The Bishops, established by the Holy Spirit, succeed the apostles. They are “the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches” *LG *23)

**1560 **As Christ’s vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches"Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church."

**1594 **The bishop receives the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders, which integrates him into the episcopal college and makes him the visible head of the particular Church entrusted to him. As successors of the apostles and members of the college, the bishops share in the apostolic responsibility and mission of the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, successor of St. Peter.

 

[steve_b]

You mean the heretic Honorius.

The record shows that Leo added an important qualification to the condemnation, that Honorius wasn’t condemned for teaching heresy but that he failed to end a heresy that was allowed to continue by Sergius.

ALSO

There is a sense where Honorius view could be considered “orthodox”. And that is to say that Jesus had 2 wills, human and Divine. He just didn’t “do” His human will but only “did” or IOW only exercised one will, His Divine will.

John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

And we know that whatever Jesus did, He did perfectly!!! Correct?

Therefore if one is not absolutely precise with their language, it could LOOK like one would be saying that Jesus only had one will when in fact He has 2 wills, it’s just that He didn’t come here to do His human will… Either way, Honorius not formulating his thoughts on this, and he didn’t formulate the language for correct understanding, requested of Sergius in the letter, that the subject of Jesus 2 wills, be tabled. If Sergius had done that, there would have been no issue here.

That alone, as I’ve said before, disqualifies this as a teaching issue for Honorius.

No pope has ever taught heresy

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

Was Gregory any less insistent upon papal primacy than Damasus?

Again pay heed to what the Text is saying:
Pope Damasus:
…they set it at the forefront over the othersof all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church
Now Pope Gregory the (GREAT):
…But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair(Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria)
and again pope Gregory the Great in the same letter:
…in three places is the See of one…one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside.
I couldnt put it better then Pope Gregory did. the least to say that both of them are VERY clear in their statements.since it shows that there is a contradictions, the first say it is Rome over the others and the later say all three are one in wich three bishops by DIVINE AUTHORITY presides, and in this case I ask you which one of the two infallable popes statement is the correct one?
secondly the above situation shows inconsistency in your church from the early times in which it bestow on it the conviction of unreliability. one say this the other say that.

anthony:

Pope Gregory:“As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city.” (Lib. IX, Ep. 12) “If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it [the Apostolic See]; but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility.” (Lib. IX, Ep. 59)

Now compare this with the one I posted. is this the same Pope? to say yes he is, and in the context that you put it then you would have to question either the source of those statements since they also contradict eachothers or to question his sanity since they are abviously again contradict one another and in which it shows that he has a double personality or didnt know what he was talking about this Great Pope. so what we see here at least if all or one of the above is correct, that the papal claim concerning this Apostolic See the Authority the Headship the Primacy etc…, is NOT ABSOLUTE because at one time one pope said it is only Rome and at another time another Pope said it is Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, so therefore if it is not ABSOLUTE it cannot be divine, But in either case , assuming that both of them are as they read, does not help your claims, therfore your claims again stands naked before the written fact which is history. but if we do further study on those statements we see that gregory, according to what you posted, his words were dirrected to a westerner heretics churches(Ariusts, Monophesites…)
Below is a full context of what anthony tried to assert with ignorance (lituraly not offensevly with all due respect)of what he had copied and pasted

…On the other hand, towards the patriarch of Constantinople, when he considered him guilty of uncanonical procedure, he assumed a distinctly authoritative attitude. On his own authority he declared null and void the synod at which the title of œcumenical bishop had been conferred on the Constantinopolitan patriarch (Lib. V., Epp. 18, 21); he entertained the appeal to himself of the two presbyters John and Athanasius, reversed their condemnation by the patriarch of Constantinople, and ordered their restitution (Lib. VI., Epp. 14, 15, 16, 17, &c.); and in a letter to John of Syracuse he says, (Lib. IX., Ep. 12.) For the See of Constantinople, though now patriarchal, was not even an ancient sedes apostolica: (Compare the bold enlarged to what anthony posted, Note the Epistle address is the same,hmmm?) its bishop had indeed been assigned honorary rank (τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆς τιμῆς) next after the bishop of Rome by the general Council of Constantinople (a.d. 381), but this only on the political ground of Constantinople being new Rome: patriarchal jurisdiction had indeed been confirmed to it over the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Arian, and Thracian dioceses by the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon (a.d. 451); but this Canon had been repudiated at the time by Pope Leo of Rome. Hence the popes were ever peculiarly jealous of any new assumption, or uncanonical proceedings, on the part of the Constantinopolitan See, the ascendancy of which signified to them imperial domination rather than primitive ecclesiastical order or prerogative: and hence it is not to be wondered at that on the assumption of a title that seemed to imply universal supremacy Gregory was at once in arms, and asserted strongly all the authority that he believed to be inherent in his own Apostolic See. Such assertion, however, had no immediate effect in the absence of power to enforce it: it was disregarded at Constantinople: the Emperor Mauricius, who alone could have given practical effect to it, was appealed to by Gregory in vain; and, though Phocas, who succeeded him, is said to have issued a decree that “the Apostolic See of St. Peter, that is the Roman Church, **should be **the head of all Churches” (Anastasius Bibliothec.), yet it is an historical fact that neither Constantinople nor the Churches of the East generally, ever submitted to the claims of the Roman See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.iii.html
For the following one> (Lib. IX, Ep. 59), also check the same site and you will find that Gregory was directing his words to some churches in the west over disputes ,heretics and so forth…and not as anthony was trying to imply.

 

[Ignatios]

and yet they were both insistent upon papal primacy over the East,and they both wielded it strongly.

Still yet to prove it by posting correct quote and not distorted one.

They certainly didn’t ignore his authority over the Council of Chalcedon,althought they tried to undermine his authority with canon 28.

If they didn’t ignore his authority this Canon 28 wouldn’t have passed, but it did. So again you are rejecting the facts with your opinion.

Chalcedon on Pope Leo’s Tome:

“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!”

1. what in the above quote has to do with the canon28
2. again we find half quotes, a quotes that would make all the differences.
   Here is the quote with in context:
   “After this was done, the bishops exclaimed: `That is the faith of the fathers, that is the faith of the apostles! We all believe thus! the orthodox believe thus! Anathema to him who believes otherwise! Peter has spoken by Leo: thus Cyril taught! That is the true faith! Why was not that read at Ephesus (at the Robber Synod)? dioscurus kept it hidden.’”)
   The letter of Leo was accepted because it agreed with what the members of the Council believed. After they had heard it read they said, “Peter hath spoken by Leo.” they did not say, “Let us hear and obey what Peter will say by Leo.” That is, they acknowledged its authority because they thought he was right; they did not think he was right because they acknowledged his authority.

Now this will put everything in to its proper context instead of misquotes and half quotes, distortions and even some quotes we cant even find as most if not all those who debate RCs find during their debates.
By the words of Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, who was the first to give his sentence: (Mansi, vii., pp. 10 et seq., quoted in Denny’s Papalism, p. 453, p.212.)
"The letter of the most holy Archbishop Leo agrees with the creed of the 318 Fathers who were at Nicaea, and of the 150 who afterwards assembled at Constantinople, who confirmed the same faith, and with the proceedings at Ephesus under the most blessed and most holy Cyril, by the Ecumenical and most holy Council when it condemned Nestorius; I have therefore agreed to it and willingly subscribe to it."

“For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him …Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will.” – Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio),

the above proves by the words of Leo that GOD is with the 520 priest in which they signed in to the Council which include the 28th canon, except Leo

“Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision [canon 28] by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children.” – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

The Canon was afterwards further ratified by the Council in Trullo (A.D. 692).
In spite of the Pope’s attempts to annul the 28th canon, the church ignored Leo, accepted the 28th canon, and made Constantinople an apostolic see (i.e. a Patriarchate). Leo even admits this in one of his letters (Letter CXVI).
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.toc.html#P1873_438004

anthony:

What of the attitude of the Council Fathers toward Rome (apart from the question of Council presidency)? Canon 6 accords to Alexandria a metropolitan authority over Egypt, Libya and Persepolis, and the reason given for this is that “this is also customary to the Bishop of Rome.”

…. Here is the Text without distortion AND in full context… As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them.

 

[Ignatios]

Anthony:

… 18 These words are perhaps somewhat obscure in their precise implications, but they do show that **in some way **Roman custom was regarded as normative for the wider Church, including the East.

I will not waste too much time on such pitiful maneuver in attempt to assert something other than what the “canon” has put forth by the hands of all (Rome included) Have you noticed the assumption and the presuppositions? Therefore I picked Just a few lines and enlarged them with Bold, and am sure any 10 years old read it would be able to distinguish the truth from the flawed .

“…normative for the wider Church, including the East.

I don’t think you are reading what I am posting,you are just shooting in the dark out of panic, …Here is again what I have posted before for you , …
(in Previous reply)>>> Now off to the interpretation before you rely on yourself for this:
Interpretation.[6]
The present Canon ordains that the old customs of the three Patriarchs are to be kept in vogue, chiefly and mainly as regarding the Patriarch of Alexandria, and secondly as regarding the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Patriarch of Rome, succinctly and comprehensively. (Concerning the Patriarch of Jerusalem the present Council devote special and separate treatment in its c. VII; and concerning the Patriarch of Constantinople the Second Council set forth its views in its c. III). So that the Patriarch (whom it calls a Bishop here, owing to the fact that it had not yet become customary to designate one by calling him the Patriarch[7]) of Alexandria came to have authority over all the bishops and metropolitans in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis. In fact, the same custom also came to prevail with regard the Patriarch of Rome[8] in that he was allowed to have authority and presidency over all the occidental occidental bishops and metropolitans. Likewise the Patriarch of Antioch is given authority over the bishops and metropolitans of Syria, of Middle Syria, of each of the two regions called Cilicia, of Mesopotamia, and of all the other dioceses subject to his jurisdiction. The present Canon, in fact, commands that not only the privileges of these Patriarchs are to be preserved, but even the privileges of other provinces and churches that are subject to the metropolitans…

]“…normative for the wider Church, including the East” …you said, NOTE the word “OCCIDENTAL”…
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Occidental
Oc`ci*den"tal, a. [L. occidentalis; cf. F. occidental.]

1. Of, pertaining to, or situated in, the occident, or west; western; – opposed to oriental; as, occidental climates, or customs; an occidental planet.
2. Possessing inferior hardness, brilliancy, or beauty; – used of inferior precious stones and gems, because those found in the Orient are generally superior.
   Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
   dictionary.reference.com/browse/OCCIDENTAL

quoted by Ignatios in previous reply …Yes I still see the word “AMONG” and the THEOTOKOS never ceased to be a women or human being …Is the word “AMONG” Has the same meaning as “ABOVE”?[/quoted]
quoted by Anthony in the previous reply….Well,Mary is certainly above all other women in her blessedness --she is the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven – and in her sinless nature

Among is the word at hand now …look for it in the dictionary…
Then show me where the word “Among” when it applied to Saint Peter it automatically made him above the other Apostles with Power and Authority,… “I kind of know your reply for this I am debating whether I should give you the reply niow or hold on “

Anthony:

Yes,he was ordained,and thereby he obtained the Chair of Peter.

Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400):

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: – Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius.”

Again and again and… show me from the text above that Peter Ordained Linus,…the text said : “…’ The successor of Peter” this does not mean automatically that he was ordained by Peter. the present pope succeeded the previous one, but the previous one did not ordain him, did he???

That quote was from New Advent.

ok then, now the Newadvent is refuting your pope. It doesn’t make it any better , does it?

Because it cannot be shown to be historically factual,and it is not a traditional Catholic belief

was Peter the Pope of Rome? Show me that from “factual” history. Not a statements from… but factual such as Paul’s case.

 

[Ignatios]

mikey:

Fair enough.

'I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles, the barque of Peter; I am the way, the truth and the life. They who are with me are with the Church; and they who are not with me are out of the Church. They are out of the way, the truth and the life.
Pope Pius IX

…And to add to that one …read the following…
“THE POPE”: A SCANDAL AND A MYSTERY
and in the 3rd chapter:…“Confronted with the Pope, one must make a choice. The leader of the Catholic Church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who “takes the place” of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity.”
catholic.net/RCC/POPE/HopeBook/chap1.html

 

[Ignatios]

That alone, as I’ve said before, disqualifies this as a teaching issue for Honorius.

No pope has ever taught heresy

He actually taught the Monothelite heresy in his two letters to Sergius; and that he was condemned as a heretic

III Constantinople condemned Honorius in his official papal capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian. The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some apologists still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.

Ecumenical Council of III Constantinople
“We find that these documents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”

 

[Evlogitos]

Actually, again, in fairness to the Catholics, I think their explanation of Honorius is consistent. I think it can legitimately be argued both ways (and indeed it was, by the infallibilists and the Gallicians).

 

[Ignatios]

Evlogitos:

Christ is in our midst

HE CHRIST is and ever shall be †††

 

[John214]

Steve B,

Thanks for the reply and the quotes!

They were interesting, and I believe they do illustrate more thoroughly what the Catholic position on ecumenical councils is.

However, they constantly express that a council only has value in that it is ratified by the Pope. Thus the votes honestly do not matter.

Anthony,

The same applies. Did the councils really believe that they were voting on what kind of petition they wanted to present to the Pope? Was there any Canon or Early Father who said, “And we know that all of the Bishops gather from time to time at ecumenical councils to vote on a draft for proclaiming doctrine, which is then submitted to the Pope to receive his ratification.”?

If not, I am going to have to say this is an arbitrary rule, and that in reality, Bishops really believed their votes counted for something in defining doctrine, and either they were fooled or else the Pope is not infallible.

I honestly cannot see the value in an ecumenical council, when you have an infallible authority who can always give the right answer, when speaking ex cathedra. I think a far better method of having a council, would have been to have all the Bishops meet in Rome, sit down in a conference with the Pope, present their ideas to him, possibly give their opinions (but if the Pope is infallible, then their opinions are really useless). And then just have the Pope declare which positions are valid and which are not. When a widespread heresy comes up, the simple easy and surefire way of putting it down would simply be to ask the Pope.

If the authority and infallibility of the Pope has always been there, and has always been more or less universally known, then a Bishop would have had to have been out of his mind to not appeal to the Pope. It would be like saying, “Despite your infallibility, I object” I want a practical answer for the purpose of an ecumenical council, so far I have heard hints that it helped maintain unity. This is the only strong reason that I have observed.

John

 

[anthony022071]

Evlogitos:

Right back at’cha, Tony:

*“But what will you do,” inquired the envoys, “when the Romans are united to the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord’s day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch. ”

The Saint replied, “Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.”*

So Maximos refused communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople,not with the pope.

 

[anthony022071]

Anthony,

The same applies. Did the councils really believe that they were voting on what kind of petition they wanted to present to the Pope?

I doubt it. Voting on a canon is not the same thing as voting on a petition.

Was there any Canon or Early Father who said, “And we know that all of the Bishops gather from time to time at ecumenical councils to vote on a draft for proclaiming doctrine, which is then submitted to the Pope to receive his ratification.”?

Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98 (on the subjct of canon 28):
“Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we
therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have
yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill
what is fitting for the children.”

Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28):
“As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently
ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure
that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and
quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the
church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally
supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it.
Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the
authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain
that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself
bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.”

St. Maximos the Confessor (c. A.D. 650)
“Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she [Rome] is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her Pontificate …even as all these things all are equally subject to her (the church of Rome) according to sacerdotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic church of Rome.” (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828):
“Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of Headship among the Apostles.” (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), writing to Pope Leo III:
“Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred.” (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.” (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

St. Methodius:
“Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council.”
(Methodius, in N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church
(1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210)