Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[mardukm]

Dear brother John,

None of the Ecumenical Councils declared themselves to be Ecumenical, it was only subsequent councils which declared them as such.

I am just going by memory, but I am absolutely positive this is a false claim as regards the Fourth and Seventh Ecum Councils. Please read the Acts. I will go out on a limb and say that there are others who claimed Ecumenical status during the Sessions, but I am absolutely certain of the Fourth and Seventh having made that claim.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

What gave you that idea? I asked you to stop trying to justify prodromos’ preposterous statement that a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid. Let’s see if you complied.

And what ad hominems would those be? That you shame the memory of Eastern Catholics who had the courage to abide by the decrees of Florence? That you promote division rather than unity by trying to legitimize the theory of your Orthodox buddy? You do; on both counts. We understand exactly what prodromos said.

I didn’t express agreement with what prodromos is saying. Rather I pointed out that he didn’t say that a council must be accepted by the laity in order to be valid. There’s nothing shameful about what I did, nor is it promoting division.

Please don’t ever come onto the apologetics board again and tell the rest of us Catholics that we just don’t get what the Orthodox posters are telling us.

I would never do that, as it would be making a blanket generalization about Catholics on this board. I am, however, informing you that you (not all the rest of the Catholics on this board, just you) claimed that prodromos said something that he didn’t said.

 

[Peter_J]

How did this disagree with Anthony’s point?

steve b,

I think my earlier response to you (the “veto” post) may have been a poor choice, and just complicated things unnecessarily. (I was forgetting that there’s “absolute veto” and also “limited veto”.)

Let me instead just put it this way: Anthony said “The Orthodox believe that a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid.” Prodromos said

No, the council must be accepted by the CHURCH to be valid. This includes the Bishops who were not present at the council, the Priests, Deacons, Monastics and yes, the Laity.

Thus, according to prodromos, the laity are involved in the acceptance process, but he didn’t single out the laity by saying “a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid.” (Similarly, if someone said “A council must be accepted by the episcopate to be valid. This includes Bishop A, Bishop B, Bishop C, etc.” that would not necessarily imply that a council must be accepted by Bishop B in order to be valid.)

 

[Peter_J]

This is a question to anyone who cares to respond. What is the proper etiquette for responding to something like this:

And what ad hominems would those be? That you shame the memory of Eastern Catholics who had the courage to abide by the decrees of Florence? That you promote division rather than unity by trying to legitimize the theory of your Orthodox buddy? You do; on both counts. We understand exactly what prodromos said.

Do you say “Thank you for treating me like dirt”, or what?

Thanks in advance,
Peter.

 

[Peter_J]

This is a question to anyone who cares to respond. What is the proper etiquette for responding to something like this:

Do you say “Thank you for treating me like dirt”, or what?

Thanks in advance,
Peter.

On second thought, please treat that as a rhetorical question. (It’s too late for me to edit it.) I don’t think I really want to try to start a discussion on the “proper etiquette” for such a situation.

Thanks,
Peter.

 

[anthony022071]

[Ignatios]

anthony, I Chanllenge you and any RC to proove that this document of Saint Maximos is true by showing us that the claims of saint Maximos, and what he had listed in the enlarged Text ( thats assuming that this is genuine text,and not one of the tampered and/or forged documents that it was circulating around in the RCC at that time) that it does exsist, In the CANON LAW AND THE COUNCILS AND THE APOSTLES AND ALSO THAT " she is subject to no writtings or issues in synodical documents"

I can’t prove that it is not a forged or tampered document. Is there anyone who has?

“The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High.”
(Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica [A.D. 650], in PG 91:144)

"I was afraid of being thought to transgress the holy laws, if I were to do this * without knowing the will of the most holy see of Apostolic men, who lead aright the whole plenitude of the Catholic Church, and rule it with order according to the divine law. … 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… 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 [from] all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. – For with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.”
(Maximus, letter to the patrician Peter, ca. AD 642, in Mansi x, 692; Migne PG 91:114)*

 

[anthony022071]

[Ignatios]

saint Maxioms MUST have been shown one of the RCC flawed documents, that was circulating around at those centuries. We have never found anything in the “law” Canon of he Councils that would match Saint Maximos’s claim. therefore, there would be two explanation either this whole document( about what saint Maximos said) has been tampered with ( keeping in mind that those documents are fragmanted and not one whole letter in another words bits and peices AND in Latin ) or that Saint Maximos was given a flawed documents to read in which had made him say what he had said, Many Romans were very famous with forging documents at that time.

If you are able to show me this, then you earned my respond to your second quoting. because It doesnt seems like we were able to find them ( something that is not unusual ).

waiting for your respond, Untill then, Happy Hunting.

The acts of the council of Nicea have been lost. Maximos may have had in mind the canons of the council of Sardica,which were appended to those of Nicaea.

rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html

< The Eastern priest-historian Gelasius of Cyzicus, who had no Roman axe to grind, affirms that Ossius “held the place of Sylvester of Rome, together with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincentius.” 14 Gelasius was born and bred in the vicinity of Nicaea, and wrote around 475, claiming to base his history of the Council on its original acts (now lost). That Rome was acknowledged as the first of all sees is shown by the fact that the signatures of its undisputed legates, Vito and Vincentius, came immediately after that of Ossius (whose minor see, Cordoba, obviously had nothing to do with his prominence in this context)…

…The Roman synod of 485 states that the Nicene Fathers “referred the confirmation of things and the authority to the holy Roman Church,” 19 although there is no original documentary evidence of this. Constantine seems to have promulgated the creed and canons without seeking Roman confirmation; but quite apart from the fact that the Emperor’s attitude cannot necessarily be taken as a yardstick of accepted Christian orthodoxy at that time, his action proves very little, given the absence of the Council’s acts. If the Roman legates had made it clear on the Council floor that the end product was in accord with their mandate from Bishop Sylvester, Constantine may well have taken the attitude that there was no need for further confirmation. Indeed, shortly after Nicaea, we find Bishop Julius of Rome appealing to a “Canon of the Church,” as well as “custom,” against a synod of Bishops which ignored the authority of Rome. 20 Which “canon” he had in mind is not clear, but it seems most improbable that Sylvester, only a few years before, would have taken a contrary view to that of Julius, and felt content for the Nicene Council to make final decisions without in some way gaining his approval. >

 

[tdgesq]

I didn’t express agreement with what prodromos is saying. Rather I pointed out that he didn’t say that a council must be accepted by the laity in order to be valid.

Let us look at the statement yet one more time:

No, the council must be accepted by the CHURCH to be valid. This includes the Bishops who were not present at the council, the Priests, Deacons, Monastics and yes, the Laity. This can take many years, even decades, to come to a close.

The council must be accepted by “the Church” to be valid. “The Church” by which a council must be accepted to be valid includes:

1)“Bishops who were not present at the council.”

False. The acceptance of bishops absent from the council is not necessary for the council to be valid - save one - the Roman Pontiff.

2)“Priests, Deacons, Monastics”

False. The acceptance of clergy is not necessary for the council to be valid. They do not vote at the council. They do not have veto power over a council.

3)“the Laity”

False. The acceptance of the laity is not necessary for the council to be valid. They do not vote at the council. They do not have veto power over a council.

Other bishops, clergy, and laity are certainly all part of the body of Christ that we call the Church. Nevertheless, their acceptance of a council is not necessary for the council to be valid. These were the three categories of persons specifically listed by the poster, and they were listed as part of “the Church” that must accept a council in order for it to be valid.

This may not be what he meant, but it is what he said.

There’s nothing shameful about what I did, nor is it promoting division.

All prodromos needs to do to clear this up is say that the approval of the laity and “other clergy” isn’t necessary for a valid council. He won’t, because he’s already said their approval is necessary as part of “the Church.” When you agree with his statements you promote division (whether knowingly or not), because you allow him to make statements like the following with impunity:

Again, the bishops who had attended Florence later accepted the ruling of the CHURCH. You continue to use this false distinction and conveniently ignore the many other Deacons, Priests and Bishops who rejected the false councils.

See. Since “the Church” made up of other clergy (of some unspecified number) didn’t accept the council of Florence, it isn’t valid. Anthony and I both stated this was going to happen. You’ve participated in the result, I assume unknowingly.

I would never do that, as it would be making a blanket generalization about Catholics on this board. I am, however, informing you that you (not all the rest of the Catholics on this board, just you) claimed that prodromos said something that he didn’t said.

And I and others disagree with you because we’ve read and parsed what he said. The fruits of which is the conclusion he comes to regarding the council of Florence. I know what he said. When I see his conclusion on Florence, I also have a pretty good idea what he meant.

As for my statements towards you, they were overly harsh, and for that I apologize.

 

[anthony022071]

[Peter J]

steve b,

I think my earlier response to you (the “veto” post) may have been a poor choice, and just complicated things unnecessarily. (I was forgetting that there’s “absolute veto” and also “limited veto”.)

As I said in post 843: The Greek laity did have veto power with the councils of Lyon 2 and Ferrara-Florence,as far as the Eastern Church was concerned. The Greek bishops caved in under pressure from the laity.

Let me instead just put it this way: Anthony said “The Orthodox believe that a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid.”

I feel so important.

Thus, according to prodromos, the laity are involved in the acceptance process,

The laity are obligated to accept the doctrines of a council approved by the pope.

but he didn’t single out the laity by saying “a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid.”

orthodoxwiki.org/Laity
< In the Orthodox Church, the laity are the people of God and are responsible for preserving the integrity of the faith as much as the bishops. The example for this that is often given is that of bishops being refused entrance to their cities after the Council of Florence until they recanted of their signatures. The laity refused to accept that the Council’s decisions were in accord with the Orthodox faith. >

ephesus.com/Orthodox/St.Mark-of-Ephesus.txt
< What ultimately caused the failure of the reunion councils
of Lyons and Florence was the fact that they were signed by the bishops for
political reasons, but were never accepted by the laity as a true expression
of our common faith. >

(Similarly, if someone said “A council must be accepted by the episcopate to be valid. This includes Bishop A, Bishop B, Bishop C, etc.” that would not necessarily imply that a council must be accepted by Bishop B in order to be valid.)

A council must be accepted by the bishop of Rome to be valid.

 

[Peter_J]

As for my statements towards you, they were overly harsh, and for that I apologize.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

I feel so important.

 

[steve_b]

steve b,

I think my earlier response to you (the “veto” post) may have been a poor choice, and just complicated things unnecessarily. (I was forgetting that there’s “absolute veto” and also “limited veto”.)

Let me instead just put it this way: Anthony said “The Orthodox believe that a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid.”

Prodromos said
Originally Posted by prodromos forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
No, the council must be accepted by the CHURCH to be valid. This includes the Bishops who were not present at the council, the Priests, Deacons, Monastics and yes, the Laity.

Thus, according to prodromos, the laity are involved in the acceptance process, but he didn’t single out the laity by saying “a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid.”

If they (the laity) are involved in the acceprtance process (prodromos said necessary to be valid) then he (John) doesn’t have to single the laity out from the rest. He’s already said they are necessary for the council to be valid. That means John is saying veto power is also in the hands of the laity, whether as you say it is limited or absolute veto power.

If he mispoke, and THAT’s what complicated things, then all John has to do is say I mispoke. We’ve all mispoken at times.

But then he would have to explain some issues brought up by the others with regards to the laity doing exactly what was said.
PJ:

(Similarly, if someone said “A council must be accepted by the episcopate to be valid. This includes Bishop A, Bishop B, Bishop C, etc.” that would not necessarily imply that a council must be accepted by Bishop B in order to be valid.)

You’re changing the dynamic. If the episcopate is necessary for a council to be valid, whether all the bishops are present is not the issue. Unless that’s a requirement. Which if that was the historical requirement for every council, it’s probably safe to say, according to THAT dynamic, no council has been authoritative to this point…

Following John’s statement, if the laity is necessary for a valid council, then they are an important componant and have veto power and can invalidate a council according to the original statement by John.

Do you see that?

 

[Peter_J]

If they (the laity) are involved in the acceprtance process (prodromos said necessary to be valid) then he (John) doesn’t have to single the laity out from the rest. He’s already said they are necessary for the council to be valid. That means John is saying veto power is also in the hands of the laity, whether as you say it is limited or absolute veto power.

Alright, if we want to see it in terms of veto power, then yes I think it’s fair to say that Prodromos (John) described the laity as a having veto power. My point is, and has been, simply that Prodromos didn’t say what’s been ascribed to him, namely that acceptance by the laity is necessary for a council to be ecumenical, i.e. that the laity have an absolute veto power.

God bless,
Peter.

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

I can’t prove that it is not a forged or tampered document. Is there anyone who has?

Ok then, to avoid a long discussion … let me fastforward to my core question that I posted earelier and that is the followings>> “… I Chanllenge you and any RC to proove … what he had listed in the enlarged Text ( thats assuming that this is genuine text,and not one of the tampered and/or forged documents that it was circulating around in the RCC at that time) that it does exsist, In the CANON LAW AND THE COUNCILS AND THE APOSTLES AND ALSO THAT " she is subject to no writtings or issues in synodical documents”

One all he is got to do is to look in the Canon laws to see if what he had spoken of does exist or not.
For if the above does not exist, then it is unreliable documents and one cannot rely on it to proove anything, or Saint Maximos, was a victim of a flawed council decrees that it was presented to him, in which it led him to say what he had said.

Here let us replay some of the believed to be the “quotes” of Saint Maximos:
St. Maximos:
"How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? **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 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…

The acts of the council of Nicea have been lost. Maximos may have had in mind the canons of the council of Sardica,which were appended to those of Nicaea.

Very well then, how about the Canons of that Council( Nicea that is)? they do exist, however, the canons of any Council are what everybody agreed on, If we have the canons, then, there is no need to see what every bishop or legates had said, because the canons are the Instructions of the Church as a whole and also what everybody agreed on,and they obeyed by them that if it was valid in which we all know that Nicea was valid, and the purpose also of the Canons so NO ONE would assume anything or presuppose anything.

Sardica !!! yesss the sorry affair of the Sardica, fearing domination of the council by Western bishops, many Eastern bishops left the council to hold another council in Philippopolis. As a result, the Council of Sardica FAILED to universally represent the church and is not one of the official Ecumenical Councils.
So therefore it cannot be Sardica, it is been said that it appended to those in Nicea, BUT, if we read Nicea’s canons we find nothing that would support our subject here, which is, so-called “quotes” of saint Maximos, But on the contrary.
However I have searched and looked, but did not not find anything that would makes Saint MAximos saying as genuine documents but on the contrary and untill something comes up that would proove otherwise, It is unreliable and it appear to be flawed the least to say and we dismiss it as such.

 

[JJR1453]

Sardica !!! yesss the sorry affair of the Sardica, fearing domination of the council by Western bishops, many Eastern bishops left the council to hold another council in Philippopolis. As a result, the Council of Sardica FAILED to universally represent the church and is not one of the official Ecumenical Councils.

I just thought it neccesary to leave note that the Eastern bishops were quite inferior in numbers as opposed to Western bishops and this would be one of the reasons for their departure; however, another reason would be that they refused to hold council together because they were all in agreement that they would not recognize Athanasius. Of course, we all know how that issue turned out. Moreover, the canons of Sardica were given ecumenical weight when they were passed by the Greeks in the Council of Trullo, which was, funny enough, composed almost throughout with anti-Western undertones. And, here I use the word undertones lightly.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Ignatios]

JJR1453:

I just thought it neccesary to leave note that the Eastern bishops were quite inferior in numbers as opposed to Western bishops and this would be one of the reasons for their departure; however, another reason would be that they refused to hold council together because they were all in agreement that they would not recognize Athanasius. Of course, we all know how that issue turned out. Moreover, the canons of Sardica were given ecumenical weight when they were passed by the Greeks in the Council of Trullo, which was, funny enough, composed almost throughout with anti-Western undertones. And, here I use the word undertones lightly.

God bless,

JJR

You are probably right, on most of the above, however, Why they have left and …etc, Is not what is being discussed here nor the Sardican Council but rather, that this particular Council was a failure and was not recognized as one of the Ecumenical councils. and therfore has no Ecumenical authority in which it makes Saint Maximos’s citation of this Council as “propability” and IF, that is ONLY IF this was the council that St. Maximos reffering to, then it would be invalid since it was a failure and it does not have an authority on the whole Church the least to say, In any case, this suggestion cannot go beyond a propability, And what I am looking for is NOT a propability but some exsisting and valid Ecumenical Canons so that we can reffrence the so-called Saint Maximos citations to them.

Council of trullo was held in the year 692ad and Saint Maximos fell-asleep in the LORD in the year 662ad. so we cannot use Trullo either since it took place after the death of the Saint.

But I thank you for you respond, and your (name removed by moderator)ut has been noted.

GOD bless you †††

 

[anthony022071]

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, NPNF2, 2:38)

The Emperor Theodosius (347—395 AD) and Valentinian to Aetius, Master of the Military and Patrician:
"It is certain that for us the only defence lies in the favour of the God of heaven; and to deserve it our first care is to support the Christian faith and its venerable religion. Inasmuch then as the primacy of the apostolic see is assured, by the merit of S. Peter, who is chief of the episcopal order, by the rank of the city of Rome, and also by the authority of a sacred synod, let no one presume to attempt any illicit act contrary to the authority of that see. For then at length will the peace of the churches be maintained everywhere, if the whole body acknowledges its ruler.

The Greek historian Salminius Hermias Sozomen (A.D. ca. 375?-447/48), a contemporary of Leo IV:
…Julius, learning that Athanasius was not safe in Egypt, called him back to himself. He replied at the same time to the letter of the bishops who were convened at Antioch, for just then he happened to have received it, and he accused them of having secretly introduced innovations contrary to the dogmas of the Nicene council, and of having violated the laws of the Church by not calling him to the synod. 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. [P.G. 67. 1052; Bagster 113.])

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (A.D. 466-516):
“Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that ‘such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.’”
(Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a [Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.])

St. Nicephorus (A.D. 758-828), Patriarch of Constantinople:
"Without whom * 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:
“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 [the Roman Pope] 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)*

 

[sergio_antonio]

At most, one church can be the true church. And, at worst, no church is the true church. So, if you are a Catholic, you must believe all other churches to be false. If not, then I suggest you change churches.

 

[Hesychios]

At most, one church can be the true church. And, at worst, no church is the true church. So, if you are a Catholic, you must believe all other churches to be false. If not, then I suggest you change churches.

I suppose that depends upon how one defines church.

 

[Ignatios]

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, NPNF2, 2:38)

The Emperor Theodosius (347—395 AD) and Valentinian to Aetius, Master of the Military and Patrician:
"It is certain that for us the only defence lies in the favour of the God of heaven; and to deserve it our first care is to support the Christian faith and its venerable religion. Inasmuch then as the primacy of the apostolic see is assured, by the merit of S. Peter, who is chief of the episcopal order, by the rank of the city of Rome, and also by the authority of a sacred synod, let no one presume to attempt any illicit act contrary to the authority of that see. For then at length will the peace of the churches be maintained everywhere, if the whole body acknowledges its ruler.

The Greek historian Salminius Hermias Sozomen (A.D. ca. 375?-447/48), a contemporary of Leo IV:
…Julius, learning that Athanasius was not safe in Egypt, called him back to himself. He replied at the same time to the letter of the bishops who were convened at Antioch, for just then he happened to have received it, and he accused them of having secretly introduced innovations contrary to the dogmas of the Nicene council, and of having violated the laws of the Church by not calling him to the synod. 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. [P.G. 67. 1052; Bagster 113.])

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (A.D. 466-516):
“Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that ‘such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.’”
(Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a [Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.])

St. Nicephorus (A.D. 758-828), Patriarch of Constantinople:
"Without whom * 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:
“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 [the Roman Pope] 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)*

None of the above from saint Maximos’s document affirms what he had mentioned that it exsist.
All the above are NOT Ecumenical nor Canons neither an Apostolic, they are no more then some private understanding or opinions, and some of them are after the death of saint Maximos.

Theodore the Studite, also called St Theodore of Stoudios or St Theodore of Studium (759 - 826), so we cannot use him in this particular case since as I have mentioned in the previous post that Saint Maximos died the year 662ad.
St. Nicephorus (A.D. 758-828), Patriarch of Constantinople<<< nor can we use this one either for the same reason.

And again even if we could use them they are NOT what Saint Maximos spoke about they spoke within their private understanding.

However, as you may already know that there is an answer to every quote of those historians and bishops that you have listed above in which it shows what you are trying to use them for in order to imply and support your claim, and that is through posting the quotes within context and/or undistorted, and not only one, but quite few of them, as I and many have showed before in an earlier posts on this thread ( I believe starting from page 12) more then once, shall we go back and do the same thing over again for at least the third time???.

And to comment also on the last enlarged Text and that is just for the record read the following and compare the dates , then assess the so-called sayings of Saint Maximos:
Pope Honorius I
Pope (625-12 October, 638), a Campanian, consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680).

Now read this:
St. Maximus of Constantinople
Known as the Theologian and as Maximus Confessor, born at Constantinople about 580; died in exile 13 August, 662.

Noticed? they lived around the same date !!!

And now look at this passage from (supposadly) Saint Maxioms "…she 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…

???

But an Ecumenical Council ANathemitized Pope Honorius a HERETIC.

St. Maximos:
"How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? 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 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…

So NONE of the above quotings of yours affirm what Saint Maximos’s document said, that it does exsist.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

None of the above from saint Maximos’s document affirms what he had mentioned that it exsist.
All the above are NOT Ecumenical nor Canons neither an Apostolic, they are no more then some private understanding or opinions, and some of them are after the death of saint Maximos.
…

So basically, your best argument is 1) simply claim certain documents don’t exist, and 2) appeal to a Synod of heretics to prove your point about Sardica.

It is a fact that St. Maximos defended the memory of Pope Honorius, btw. And given the fact that even Ecumenical Councils can err in its condemnation of PERSONS (though it cannot err in its condemnation of bad doctrine), the statement from St. Maximos is certainly believable.

Keep in mind also that amidst the strong voices in the East against filioque, St. Maximos goes against the trend and is both ready and willing to ensure understanding of the position of the Latin Church.

I have never read this entire thread, but I am interested to investigate your comments on the patristic quotes from brother Anthony (as you say you have responded to them). I will do so this weekend. You are obviously an intelligent person, so I assume you are aware of St. Maximos’ defense of the Latin understanding of filioque, AND his defense of Pope Honorius. If you were previously unaware of them, and you need citations, let me know (or perhaps someone else will be so kind as to direct you to them via links)

Btw, what do you think of the possibility that St. Maximos was influenced by the Arabic Canons of Nicea in the statement attributed to him?

Blessings,
Marduk