The time being discussed was after 1000 AD. You're kinda missing the point.
Was there a point to miss?
You're missing the point. We were talking about openly teaching heresy. I know that the east have disrepected the roman popes...but thats not the issue.
The filioque is not considered heretical by the learned in the west, whereas everyone learned from the west and east agree that the eastern sees were openly teaching heresies.
The Learned of the Universal Ecumenical Seventh Council, both East and West saw no difference, and insisted on the anathema of Honorius while praising St. Sophronius of Jerusalem (one of those eastern sees). I'm gonna go with them on this.
The second and fourth Universal Councils condemned additions to the Creed, something Pope Leo III enforced "for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith." What the "learned" of the West think is of no consequence.
Ya, but the point is, the learned from the east and west agree that the eastern sees were heretical.
Actually, no. We acknowledge that many fell, but you omit that then many rose to defense of the True Faith. Case in point, the emperor and his archbishop of Constantinople might have been Arian, but St. Gregory and those who followed him in the capital (all out of communion with Rome, btw) were not. Similarly the Faithful stuck with St. Athanasius in exile. St. Pope Cyril helped the Faithful of Constantinople depose patriarch Nestorius. The Iconoclasts and Monotheletes emperors had to remove many of the hierarchs (a point St. Maximus pointed out) to replace them with heretics. Had the emperor been able to get his hands on Rome, the Pope there would have had a similar fate. Except Pope Honorius of course, no need to replace him.
The problem with you using St Maximos is that his quotes are some of the strongest for the See of Rome's case. Especially in regard to pope Honorius. You guys seem to have missed what the Roman popes and St Maximos said regarding Honorius at the said council. No doubt to try to increase your case.
And yet the Fathers of the Council condemned Honorius, and Pope St. Leo instituted the papal oath of the Liber Diurnus, which anathematized Honorius by name. Take it up with them, that they "missed the point."
I am sure most here know the story of the eastern sees persecuting St Maximos, and how he sought the See of Rome for help. Thats it in a nutshell.
St. Maximus had the full backing of St. Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, one of the Eastern Sees.
And yet you're pinning your adherence to papal supremacy as it is defined today on the supposed precedent of the early church, which makes our accusation that the RCC fell into heresy in the 2nd Millennium totally relevant to any discussion of how the Eastern churches fell into heresy in the 1st.
Yes, I've notice how "truth" like to be a moving target.
It means that the See of Rome never taught heresy. And as far I am concerned, if this is the best you guys have against papacy, and knowing of the major heresies taught in the east, there is no comparison. The See of Rome was always kept unsullied. This is one of the reasons why I became RC.
You haven't explained how Arianism lived on for centuries in the Roman patriarchate, whereas it quickly died in the Eastern patriarchates in less than a century. And the Emperor Justinian in the East had to come and put an end to it.
I dont understand. Everybody knows the east was heretical. Only the east for the last 1000s years think that the west in is heresy. Why do you think your point relevant?
We have been condemning your addition to the Creed over a millenium. The Pope of Rome did too, then changed his mind.
Interesting question. Seeing that I dont think that the church ever taught wrongly, I am not sure how I would know. I suppose ultimately the answer would have to be circular. If I were to witness Rome saying to never be holy, and in fact hurt the innocent all of the time, I would cease to be RC. As I see it, Rome is protected from such failures.
Ah, the problem of Rome contradicting herself, as Leo IX contradicts Leo III concerning the filioque.