Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I see something useful in both Fabio and nothing's remarks. Indocern seems to be kind of infatuated with this woman, but it would be good for him to remember that he still doesn't really know her, which is why he needs to ask her out properly and find out what they really have in common.

But I think raising even the possibility of casual dating or "flings" is not appropriate advice for one serious about his faith: if you don't see yourself living with this woman for the rest of your life, it's best to drop the whole idea right now.

I would only add that neediness or desperation are generally unattractive qualities, which is why maybe I'd caution against declaring love too soon.

I really can't say whether he needs to ask the father's formal permission to court his daughter. I think Indocern's own priest would have recommended this if it was expected of him. The woman seems plenty old enough to make her own life decisions.
I think the question of whether Honorius was really a dyothelite or not is beside the point. The fact of the matter is, he whiffed that letter so badly that an Ecumenical Council had no problem condemning him.
He was dead. He was no longer pope. Even then Pope Leo annulled the council decree and Changed it from the charge of heresy to one of negligence.

So what if he was dead?
He was no longer pope. A pope can't be judged.

So your Pastor Aeternus claims. The Church says otherwise.

The Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council show that the Fathers debated the issue of judging the dead, answering in the affirmative, and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council so judged Pope Honorius.

The Pope was St. Agatho. Not Honorius.
Pope St. Agatho had joined Honorius. In the tomb, that is. Not in the respective place in the afterlife.

Posthumous anathemas happened all the time.
Yes they did.

Either way, a negligent Pope is still not the unfailing bulwark of orthodoxy.
He was orthodox and taught orthodox doctrine. The See of Peter at Rome is unfailing in teaching orthodox doctrine.
Evidently not.
Never will it be and never has it happened that a roman pope has taught authoritatively and publicly a heretical doctrine
Here's another example.

We do not claim that his protection of the faith will be perfect. Only that he will protect the faith.

And as Honorius' condemnation shows, he didn't.
The process of protection may be ugly, as the pope is not impeccable, but he is guaranteed to teach orthodox doctrine when speaking authoritatively on a matter of doctrine and morals for all the church.
term undefined by you all in boldface.
It did because without times resistance to the east and montholetism we would be monothelite today.
No, if it wasn't for St. Maximus
Who defended Honorius' orthodoxy and said this :
they have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic see, and what is laughable, or rather lamentable, as proving their ignorance, they have not hesitated to lie against the Apostolic see itself . . . but have claimed the great Honorius on their side. . . . What did the divine Honorius do, and after him the aged Severinus, and John who followed him? Yet further, what supplication has the blessed pope, who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? 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, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God.... It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy.... Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see[/b]
St. Maximus was present at the great Lateran council held by St. Martin at his instance in 649. He wrote from Rome (where he stayed some years):
The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.
St. Maximus, when told "Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord's day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch," 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."
and the Fathers of the Fifth Council we would be monothelite today. It isn't as though the Pope performed the entire Council himself. You're giving the Eastern bishops of the Council too little credit.
Yes indeed the fathers of that council. Yet if Rome consented to the heresy, the council wouldn't even exist. Rome didn't waves magic wand, it espoused orthodox doctrine and condemned all who disagreed.
not under Pope Honorius it didn't. Jerusalem under St. Sophronius (whence came St. Maximus) led the way.
Other Topics / Re: Random Postings
« Last post by Mor Ephrem on Today at 01:41:38 PM »
Religious Topics / Re: Is Judas in Hell......?
« Last post by Rhinosaur on Today at 01:32:37 PM »
When Jesus says "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do," how many people is he referring to?
Hi Nothing

I am afraid I am way beyond Fabio's more conservative and practical interpretation. I never read Dante. I think I have written about infatuation and unrequited love here (perhaps three years ago - I do not remember) and I can guess it was cringe-worthy. In a nutshell, unrequited love is a beautiful thing, you have it forever, it is always in your thoughts. What starts out as a horrid disease becomes a positive experience.

Opus, I don't claim my thoughts are applicable to all, of course not. Maybe I'm wrong, but I had to point out Fabs going off the rails a bit, you agree with him?

Those considerations seem utterly crazy if you haven't even begun a simple conversation of sorts. I'm saying why are thoughts of love even on the table here?

Unless you are Dante and have pangs of unrequited love. If so then may God have mercy on you, a horrible condition to be in.
Prayer Forum / Re: Singles
« Last post by vamrat on Today at 01:28:10 PM »
God be with us. 
Religious Topics / Re: Is Judas in Hell......?
« Last post by andrewlya on Today at 01:07:40 PM »
Judah did not believe Jesus, did not accept Him as the Messiah otherwise he would not have betrayed Him. And what happens to those who don't accept Jesus?

Jesus said 9n Matthew 26:24 "The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born".
Reviews / Re: What TV shows are you watching?
« Last post by LenInSebastopol on Today at 01:04:22 PM »
Noah's Ark, one of the finest, biblical movies, ever! Maybe?

Maybe. I need to see it. I am willing to give it some leeway since we need not think that the Bible tells us every detail. So the Emma Watson character--whomever she is supposed to be, for example. And other little things I have heard about. As long as it does not get to heretical. I'll give them a little heresy since this is the WASPish world, but not too much. I should just see it. How about that show "The Dovekeepers" coming out. It has Ziva from NCIS on it. It's going to be hard not thinking of Cote de Pablo as sexy. I mean, she plays some saint or something I think.  :-X

Ok, A moment of truth, DO NOT SEE Noah's Ark unless you have Kaopectate and an empty bucket next to your chair. Your current status  of missing this terrible flick is like a headache you never had.
Scientologists should be the only ones viewing it.
There is a message in the above!
Reviews / Re: What TV shows are you watching?
« Last post by Fabio Leite on Today at 12:57:09 PM »
There are credible rumors that CBS is working on a new Star Trek series "Star Trek Federation" It's set many years past the normal time period. The Federation is fat and happy. No threats anymore.. Ships are getting old and rusty. Then a new threat comes along and they have to pull it together. Sold

Awesome  :)

Sounds like "Star Trek" goes "Star Wars". :)
Non-Religious Topics / Re: ITT: We post maps
« Last post by Fabio Leite on Today at 12:54:28 PM »
Penguin maps

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10