OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 09:55:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics  (Read 59502 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #315 on: July 10, 2008, 02:14:08 PM »

LOL - sorry, I found this rather amusing site: http://www.biopsych.net/psyhumor/latin_phrases_for_all_occasions.htm and have been cutting & pasting from it.  Mea culpa!  Cool

I just winged my translation. Not too bad if I say so myself.  Tongue

I greatly enjoyed the exchange. No need to feel bad. Pax!
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,798


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #316 on: July 10, 2008, 06:41:49 PM »

There were forgeries, but that does not make every quote a forgery automatically because of that. If I find a quote from you saying that you renounced something, when in fact you did not, does that then make any positive statement you had that was true to you a forgery?

I didn't say every quote is a forgery or even that every quote is suspect. I said Rome spent lots of time producing and promoting forgeries. It's not like forged documents lauding Rome are some rare exception.  My question is, if the case for Roman Rule was really so strong, why the need for so many forgeries?

In my opinin, they were trying to rewrite history. Go figure
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #317 on: July 10, 2008, 07:33:56 PM »

Oh! I speak Latin another time? Inept I am. It comes out in spurts....

Why are these post which have nothing to do with the thread not posted or started elsewhere?
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #318 on: July 10, 2008, 07:38:25 PM »

Quote
So truth, as one RC to another, let me ask you:  how then do you respond to the fact that in all the old confessional manuals, in the lists of mortal sins, it's always specified that one of the ways of cooperating with a sin is "silence"?

It was a sin. No doubt. But to never, ever sin is not what God protects his popes from doing. They still need to go to confessions etc. You're missing the point: what the roman pontif's are protected from is openly teaching heresy. Honorius did not do that. Get it? Even the said council specified this difference, which seems impossible for you guys to understand.  Huh

Quote
Please explain why, if Pope Honorius had the authority and the opportunity to renounce the heresy, and did not, he was not himself guilty of it?

Okay. He was guilty of something, but not teaching it openly. Why? because he did not teach it openly.  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 07:39:48 PM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #319 on: July 10, 2008, 07:42:15 PM »


As ialmisry stated in message #226, and which you have conveniently chosen to ignore, there is more:
.


I realize you have other attempte. My point was that Honorius was your best, which pales in comparison to the openly taught heresies in the east.

Again, popes are sinners. But at least they did not openly teach heresy. The east did.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #320 on: July 10, 2008, 07:54:50 PM »

But at least they did not openly teach heresy.
Ummm... yes they did. Honorius not only taught  the heresy of monothelitism, he championed it.
Check your history.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #321 on: July 10, 2008, 08:04:36 PM »

I didn't say every quote is a forgery or even that every quote is suspect. I said Rome spent lots of time producing and promoting forgeries. It's not like forged documents lauding Rome are some rare exception.  My question is, if the case for Roman Rule was really so strong, why the need for so many forgeries?

In my opinin, they were trying to rewrite history. Go figure

There have been much worse crimes that forgeries. And I have already stated, whatever was in those forgeries can be found elsewhere. Why did the forgeries exist, and unlike you claim, there are not mountains of them, I'd guess because of sin. This matters not, for the point is that Rome never taught heresy. My question to you is: why has your church sinned?

The point remains: finding a forgery does not make any belief or quote that is different than yours automatically a forgery or wrong.

Quote
In my opinin, they were trying to rewrite history. Go figure


The problem with this is thats we have many quotes that you cannot pawn off as forgeries that actually have the teachings in question from the forgeries substantiated.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 08:16:42 PM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #322 on: July 10, 2008, 08:09:12 PM »

Ummm... yes they did. Honorius not only taught  the heresy of monothelitism, he championed it.
Check your history.

Well, if you want to believe that, fine. The way the east openly taught heresies is a lot different than what Honorius was blamed for. Honorius was condemned by what was found in a private letter. The letter, for heaven's sake, even says to let be in silence.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 08:09:54 PM by truth » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #323 on: July 10, 2008, 08:29:15 PM »

The way the east openly taught heresies is a lot different than what Honorius was blamed for.
Oh please!
Honorius send his Deacon, Gaios, to champion monothelitism at the Synod in Cyprus.
Honorius is named and anathematized as "Honorius the heretic" by an Oecumenical Council.
I really don't care whether you want to be Roman Catholic, Animist, or Zoroastrian, but I do care about the censoring of historical facts to fit in with someone's worldview.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #324 on: July 10, 2008, 08:36:05 PM »

Oh please!
Honorius send his Deacon, Gaios, to champion monothelitism at the Synod in Cyprus.
Honorius is named and anathematized as "Honorius the heretic" by an Oecumenical Council.
I really don't care whether you want to be Roman Catholic, Animist, or Zoroastrian, but I do care about the censoring of historical facts to fit in with someone's worldview.

What Honorius was condemned for was a private letter; not openly teachig the heresy, as the east did. This is history, as you can look up.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,798


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #325 on: July 10, 2008, 08:43:25 PM »

There have been much worse crimes that forgeries. And I have already stated, whatever was in those forgeries can be found elsewhere. Why did the forgeries exist, and unlike you claim, there are not mountains of them, I'd guess because of sin. This matters not, for the point is that Rome never taught heresy. My question to you is: why has your church sinned?

The point remains: finding a forgery does not make any belief or quote that is different than yours automatically a forgery or wrong.
 

The problem with this is thats we have many quotes that you cannot pawn off as forgeries that actually have the teachings in question from the forgeries substantiated.

I think you are being coy. I wasn't condemning Rome for making so many forgeries as "the worst sin ever", I asked what the need was. I have seen this debate a dozen times now and it appears to me that the quotes RCC apologists use are either vague and can indicate Primacy of Honor just as well as anthing else, or they are out of context or are out right forgeires. The forgeries tend to be the most explicate in terms of hinting at Roman Supremacy. The genuine quotes tend more to be in the category of vague laudatory statements that can mean any number of things.

But once again, if the case was really so solid based on authentic passages, why did Rome feel the need to churn out so many forgeries?...Too much time on their hands???
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,414


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #326 on: July 10, 2008, 08:53:26 PM »

Dear Truth,

I'd like to have discussions on the "alleged heresies" of Rome today.  Forget the past, but perhaps you can check previous threads on this site on various things that the Orthodox Church might find disagreeable with Rome.  Personally, I have a couple of questions concerning Immaculate Conception, Petrine Primacy, and the idea of Infinite Sin.  There are others here who find the juridical ideas of salvation and the Filioque objectionable.  So perhaps if you like to rehash old threads, we can discuss this, and maybe return the to the idea of whether the Roman Papacy is somehow divinely protected from teaching heresy.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #327 on: July 10, 2008, 09:27:46 PM »

I think you are being coy. I wasn't condemning Rome for making so many forgeries as "the worst sin ever", I asked what the need was. I have seen this debate a dozen times now and it appears to me that the quotes RCC apologists use are either vague and can indicate Primacy of Honor just as well as anthing else, or they are out of context or are out right forgeires. The forgeries tend to be the most explicate in terms of hinting at Roman Supremacy. The genuine quotes tend more to be in the category of vague laudatory statements that can mean any number of things.

But once again, if the case was really so solid based on authentic passages, why did Rome feel the need to churn out so many forgeries?...Too much time on their hands???

Unlike what you are trying to portray, there are not millions of forgeries. What is contained in them are substaniated elsewhere. Are you claiming that St Maximos's quote is a forgery?
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #328 on: July 10, 2008, 09:36:55 PM »

Pope Liberius (352-366 AD.)

himself was unfrocked, because –after being pressured by the Emperor Constantine II- had conceded to signing the quasi-Areian confession regarding the “homiousion” issue, and the condemnation of Saint Athanasius (St.Athanasius, History of Areians E41, Sozomenou Ecclesiastic History D 8-11).  This was an official decision of a Pope…… “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians”…

-Pope Onorius I (625-638 A.D.)

not only lacked infallibility, he actually embraced the heresy of  “Monotheletism” (a conviction that Jesus Christ has only one will, not two: divine &  human)!  In 634 A.D., he wrote in an official (and not an anonymous) letter of response to the Monothelete Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergios: “therefore we also confess Jesus Christ as having only one will.”

He was promptly anathematized as Bishop of Old Rome, by the 6th Ecumenical Council, along with the bishops Sergios, Theodoros, Cyrus, Peter, Pyrrhus and Paul (Rulings 13, 16 18). He was also referred to as ‘an instrument of the ancient serpent’ and a hindrance to the Church. (Ruling 18). He was accused before the emperor, by the very Pope of Rome, Agathon (Ruling 13)!
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #329 on: July 10, 2008, 09:42:10 PM »

Dear Truth,

I'd like to have discussions on the "alleged heresies" of Rome today.  Forget the past, but perhaps you can check previous threads on this site on various things that the Orthodox Church might find disagreeable with Rome.  Personally, I have a couple of questions concerning Immaculate Conception, Petrine Primacy, and the idea of Infinite Sin.  There are others here who find the juridical ideas of salvation and the Filioque objectionable.  So perhaps if you like to rehash old threads, we can discuss this, and maybe return the to the idea of whether the Roman Papacy is somehow divinely protected from teaching heresy.

God bless.

Sure I'll post about those elsewhere. I think it logical to cement the fact that the see of Rome never openly taught heresy in the undivided pre-schism church. I think the topic of Honorius is important to focus on because in it, you see clearly differences between a see that openly teaches it, and a man who wrote secretly about in a private letter. The differences between these two episodes is black and white. Yet see how the east says otherwise?
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #330 on: July 10, 2008, 10:23:10 PM »

Pope Liberius (352-366 AD.)

himself was unfrocked, because –after being pressured by the Emperor Constantine II- had conceded to signing the quasi-Areian confession regarding the “homiousion” issue, and the condemnation of Saint Athanasius (St.Athanasius, History of Areians E41, Sozomenou Ecclesiastic History D 8-11).  This was an official decision of a Pope…… “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians”…

-Pope Onorius I (625-638 A.D.)

not only lacked infallibility, he actually embraced the heresy of  “Monotheletism” (a conviction that Jesus Christ has only one will, not two: divine &  human)!  In 634 A.D., he wrote in an official (and not an anonymous) letter of response to the Monothelete Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergios: “therefore we also confess Jesus Christ as having only one will.”

He was promptly anathematized as Bishop of Old Rome, by the 6th Ecumenical Council, along with the bishops Sergios, Theodoros, Cyrus, Peter, Pyrrhus and Paul (Rulings 13, 16 18). He was also referred to as ‘an instrument of the ancient serpent’ and a hindrance to the Church. (Ruling 18). He was accused before the emperor, by the very Pope of Rome, Agathon (Ruling 13)!

Thanks for thr HW. Need some time to study your post.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,182


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #331 on: July 10, 2008, 11:01:25 PM »

But how can you eqaute the effects of a silent teaching with an open one?

...

Your case is illogical. Why do you think that the popes write encyclicals? To spread their teachings.  Embarrassed

But in the Honorius' case, what they found were private letters that have him requesting silence. C'mon.
You mentioned earlier this afternoon--in this post, I believe, before you modified it--that you wonder how its even logical to equate Pope Honorius's supposedly silent refusal to combat heresy with open teaching of heresy.  You're right.  This isn't logical; in fact, this isn't even a matter of logic.  Instead, this is a matter of values judgments.  You make a distinct separation between silent assent and open teaching, because it removes an obstacle to your belief that the pope of Rome has always been protected from teaching heresy ex cathedra--this dichotomy would never really be unnecessary if the RC dogma of papal infallibility didn't require it.  We, OTOH, don't make such a strong distinction because his dereliction of duty allowed the heresy to spread just as if he had taught it himself--the end result is the same.  There's no logic to this, except that we base our logic on different premises than you.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 11:04:48 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,414


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #332 on: July 10, 2008, 11:12:54 PM »

Sure I'll post about those elsewhere. I think it logical to cement the fact that the see of Rome never openly taught heresy in the undivided pre-schism church. I think the topic of Honorius is important to focus on because in it, you see clearly differences between a see that openly teaches it, and a man who wrote secretly about in a private letter. The differences between these two episodes is black and white. Yet see how the east says otherwise?

Well, I find this issue of interpretation interesting.  While you do find it wrong what Pope Honorius did, you go at lengths protecting him from heresy based on your personal belief that the Pope of Rome is always divinely protected from heresy.

Meanwhile the "East" sees something very differently that equally strengthens the faith of those who are in her Church.  Assuming that "all of the East" did at once proclaim a few heresies, somehow these heresies soon disappeared from others in the East who fought against the "Eastern heretics" (and the East were also very thankful for the West when she intervened to help for the sake of the Orthodox faith whenever there was a need, no doubt).  For this, we are grateful that the Holy Spirit speaks through these people and make them stronger.  It was the way of the Old Testament and it continues on through the Church up until today; we struggle and we fight through and several heroes of faith have appeared to put the East straight on the path of Orthodoxy.

So, while you might feel strengthened in faith concerning the person of the Pope of Rome, we are strengthened in faith concerning the general preservation of Orthodox faith throughout centuries of struggle.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #333 on: July 10, 2008, 11:24:30 PM »

Quote
Pope Liberius (352-366 AD.)

himself was unfrocked, because –after being pressured by the Emperor Constantine II- had conceded to signing the quasi-Areian confession regarding the “homiousion” issue, and the condemnation of Saint Athanasius (St.Athanasius, History of Areians E41, Sozomenou Ecclesiastic History D 8-11).  This was an official decision of a Pope…… “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians”…

This is the most succinct replay I can give on Liberius thus far:

It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admitted on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance before his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return, that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound. If he really consorted with heretics, condemned Athanasius, or even denied the Son of God, it was a momentary human weakness which no more compromises the papacy than does that of St. Peter.

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:iTqytuMzxpgJ:www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm+was+Pope+Liberius+a+heretic&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

I will look more into this later.

« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 11:25:49 PM by truth » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,182


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #334 on: July 10, 2008, 11:34:55 PM »

I realize you have other attempte. My point was that Honorius was your best, which pales in comparison to the openly taught heresies in the east.

Again, popes are sinners. But at least they did not openly teach heresy. The east did.
Puh-LEASE! Roll Eyes  Didn't you promise in Reply #302 that you would stop using this infernal language of "the east openly taught heresy"?  Let's review this pledge.

Okay, I'll just let it be agreed that the majority of eastern sees openly taught heresy in order to keep the thread from being halted. Thats fine.

What happened?  Are we to not trust your promises anymore?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 11:35:29 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,182


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #335 on: July 11, 2008, 12:07:21 AM »

Sure I'll post about those elsewhere. I think it logical to cement the fact that the see of Rome never openly taught heresy in the undivided pre-schism church. I think the topic of Honorius is important to focus on because in it, you see clearly differences between a see that openly teaches it, and a man who wrote secretly about in a private letter. The differences between these two episodes is black and white. Yet see how the east says otherwise?
I found this potential rebuttal to your position quite interesting:

Roman Catholic apologists generally attempt to salvage the dogma of papal infallibility from the case with Honorius by saying that he was not giving an ex cathedra statement but merely his opinion as a private theologian. Therefore he was not condemned in his official capacity as the pope. According to the Roman Catholic Church there are certain conditions which must be met for the teaching of the pope to fall within the overall guidelines of that which is considered to be. He must be teaching in his official capacity as the pope and he must be defining doctrine for the entire Church. The claim is made that Honorius did not meet these conditions. However, a careful reading of the official acts of the Council prove that it thought otherwise. The reader can judge for himself from the Council's own statements how the situation with Honorius was viewed and whether it would have agreed with the assertions of Keating and Knox that Honorius did not actively teach anything. The Council makes the following statements:

    Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents 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; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that 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.
    Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!...
    Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).


The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:

*   The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his official capacity as pope and not as a private theologian.
*   He is condemned for following after and confirming the heresy of montheletism.
*   He is condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.

To suggest that the Sixth Ecumenical Council does not invalidate the teaching of papal infallibility because Honorius did not make an ex cathedra statement is historically absurd. This is to erect arbitrary conditions which were not existent at the time to save oneself the embarrassment of a historical fact which undermines one's position. The issue is not what do individual Roman Catholic apologists say, but what did the Sixth Ecumenical Council say. On what basis did it condemn Pope Honorius? By its own words it condemned him in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian, for advancing heretical teachings which it says were Satanically inspired and would affect the entire Church. It specifically states that Honorius advanced these teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them. And it condemns him by name as a heretic, anathematizing him as such. According to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology an Ecumenical Council is infallible so all the arguments which attempt to dismiss the judgment of this Council saying that it was mistaken or that it rushed to judgment or whatever, are simply erroneous and empty, on the basis of their own theology. So an infallible Ecumenical Council (from a Roman Catholic perspective) has condemned as a heretic a bishop of Rome for teaching heresy. It is quite obvious that these Eastern fathers did not view the bishops of Rome as infallible. John Meyendorff states that, contrary to the assertions of many Roman Catholics that Honorius did in fact teach the doctrine of monotheletism in a positive sense and helped confirm Sergius in the heresy. Meyendorff gives this summary:

    This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenmical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries. Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists at Vatican I in 1870 would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope's good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir's, 1989), p. 353).

Jaroslav Pelikan affirms the same thing in these comments:

    In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)


http://www.christiantruth.com/pope.html


What strikes me as most damning is that the proponents of the heresy of Monotheletism actually cited Pope Honorius as one of their supporters, for they could say that no greater a teacher than the Pope of Rome himself confessed their [false] doctrine.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 12:10:18 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #336 on: July 11, 2008, 12:18:54 AM »

Quote
-Pope {H}Onorius I (625-638 A.D.)

not only lacked infallibility, he actually embraced the heresy of  “Monotheletism” (a conviction that Jesus Christ has only one will, not two: divine &  human)!  In 634 A.D., he wrote in an official (and not an anonymous) letter of response to the Monothelete Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergios: “therefore we also confess Jesus Christ as having only one will.”

He was promptly anathematized as Bishop of Old Rome, by the 6th Ecumenical Council, along with the bishops Sergios, Theodoros, Cyrus, Peter, Pyrrhus and Paul (Rulings 13, 16 18). He was also referred to as ‘an instrument of the ancient serpent’ and a hindrance to the Church. (Ruling 18). He was accused before the emperor, by the very Pope of Rome, Agathon (Ruling 13)!


You must of missed of the post here already dealing with Honorius.
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #337 on: July 11, 2008, 12:19:45 AM »

Puh-LEASE! Roll Eyes  Didn't you promise in Reply #302 that you would stop using this infernal language of "the east openly taught heresy"?  Let's review this pledge.

What happened?  Are we to not trust your promises anymore?

Thats fine. It still pales in comparison.
Logged
Heracleides
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarch of Jerusalem
Posts: 390


Kona-Kai


« Reply #338 on: July 11, 2008, 12:23:19 AM »

Thats fine. It still pales in comparison.

Is that all you've got?  Roll Eyes
Logged

"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,182


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #339 on: July 11, 2008, 12:36:28 AM »

Quote
-Pope {H}Onorius I (625-638 A.D.)

not only lacked infallibility, he actually embraced the heresy of  “Monotheletism” (a conviction that Jesus Christ has only one will, not two: divine &  human)!  In 634 A.D., he wrote in an official (and not an anonymous) letter of response to the Monothelete Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergios: “therefore we also confess Jesus Christ as having only one will.”

He was promptly anathematized as Bishop of Old Rome, by the 6th Ecumenical Council, along with the bishops Sergios, Theodoros, Cyrus, Peter, Pyrrhus and Paul (Rulings 13, 16 18). He was also referred to as ‘an instrument of the ancient serpent’ and a hindrance to the Church. (Ruling 18). He was accused before the emperor, by the very Pope of Rome, Agathon (Ruling 13)!



You must of missed of the post here already dealing with Honorius.
Huh  Whom are you quoting here?  I don't recognize this quoted material as ever having been posted on this thread.
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #340 on: July 11, 2008, 01:36:51 AM »

Pope Liberius (352-366 AD.)

himself was unfrocked, because –after being pressured by the Emperor Constantine II- had conceded to signing the quasi-Areian confession regarding the “homiousion” issue, and the condemnation of Saint Athanasius (St.Athanasius, History of Areians E41, Sozomenou Ecclesiastic History D 8-11).  This was an official decision of a Pope…… “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians”…

Here is a little more on Liberius:

"Catholics claim that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, yet Pope Liberious signed an Arian creed, thereby endorsing a heretical view of Christ. Obviously, then, papal infallibility is a fallicy." (Madrid, p. 145, Pope Fiction)

"Allegedly Pope Liberius not only held to an incorrect view of Jesus, but actually endorsed this by signing onto a heretical creed. The fourth century was a hard time for the Catholic Church. Despite all hopes of orthodox Catholics, the Arian movement was growing, especially when Emperor Constantius made it his business to spread Arianism throughout the empire. He was gaining strong ecclesiastical support, but he wasn’t able to change Pope Liberius’ mind. Constantius had Liberius arrested and taken to Milan to appear before him. He was pressured to comply with his will, but Pope Liberius resisted, thus Constantius banished Liberius to live in exile. After 2 years of imprisonment, harassment and exile Liberius was released. Why was he released—did he finally give in and sign this heretical creed, or did the emperor finally give up this battle of the wills? Although it’s possible that Liberius did buckle under the pressure the following evidence indicates he didn’t.  Patrick Madrid writes, "Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would have published his victory far and wide; there would have been no possible doubt about it….." So if Pope Liberius did end up signing this creed, why was there only silence? While it’s true that this is an argument from silence, it can’t be ignored. Assuming the worst case scenario is true, Pope Liberius only signed the creed after two years of harassment, exile and coercion. The signing didn’t come from his own free will, and for this reason papal infallibility isn’t an issue" (Pope Fiction, pp. 144-147).

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:JX0RH-BxcwgJ:www.catholicfaithandreason.org/papal_infallibility.htm+papal+infallibility+liberius&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us


« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 01:37:12 AM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #341 on: July 11, 2008, 01:40:32 AM »




You must of missed of the post here already dealing with Honorius.

Huh  Whom are you quoting here?  I don't recognize this quoted material as ever having been posted on this thread.

328
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #342 on: July 11, 2008, 01:43:10 AM »

I found this potential rebuttal to your position quite interesting:

Roman Catholic apologists generally attempt to salvage the dogma of papal infallibility from the case with Honorius by saying that he was not giving an ex cathedra statement but merely his opinion as a private theologian. Therefore he was not condemned in his official capacity as the pope. According to the Roman Catholic Church there are certain conditions which must be met for the teaching of the pope to fall within the overall guidelines of that which is considered to be. He must be teaching in his official capacity as the pope and he must be defining doctrine for the entire Church. The claim is made that Honorius did not meet these conditions. However, a careful reading of the official acts of the Council prove that it thought otherwise. The reader can judge for himself from the Council's own statements how the situation with Honorius was viewed and whether it would have agreed with the assertions of Keating and Knox that Honorius did not actively teach anything. The Council makes the following statements:

    Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents 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; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that 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.
    Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!...
    Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).


The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:

*   The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his official capacity as pope and not as a private theologian.
*   He is condemned for following after and confirming the heresy of montheletism.
*   He is condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.

To suggest that the Sixth Ecumenical Council does not invalidate the teaching of papal infallibility because Honorius did not make an ex cathedra statement is historically absurd. This is to erect arbitrary conditions which were not existent at the time to save oneself the embarrassment of a historical fact which undermines one's position. The issue is not what do individual Roman Catholic apologists say, but what did the Sixth Ecumenical Council say. On what basis did it condemn Pope Honorius? By its own words it condemned him in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian, for advancing heretical teachings which it says were Satanically inspired and would affect the entire Church. It specifically states that Honorius advanced these teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them. And it condemns him by name as a heretic, anathematizing him as such. According to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology an Ecumenical Council is infallible so all the arguments which attempt to dismiss the judgment of this Council saying that it was mistaken or that it rushed to judgment or whatever, are simply erroneous and empty, on the basis of their own theology. So an infallible Ecumenical Council (from a Roman Catholic perspective) has condemned as a heretic a bishop of Rome for teaching heresy. It is quite obvious that these Eastern fathers did not view the bishops of Rome as infallible. John Meyendorff states that, contrary to the assertions of many Roman Catholics that Honorius did in fact teach the doctrine of monotheletism in a positive sense and helped confirm Sergius in the heresy. Meyendorff gives this summary:

    This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenmical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries. Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists at Vatican I in 1870 would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope's good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir's, 1989), p. 353).

Jaroslav Pelikan affirms the same thing in these comments:

    In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)


http://www.christiantruth.com/pope.html


What strikes me as most damning is that the proponents of the heresy of Monotheletism actually cited Pope Honorius as one of their supporters, for they could say that no greater a teacher than the Pope of Rome himself confessed their [false] doctrine.

I already addressed this and gave you a link:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp

Remember? You said you already read the article?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 01:46:25 AM by truth » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,182


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #343 on: July 11, 2008, 01:54:41 AM »

I already addressed this and gave you a link:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp

Remember? You said you already read the article?
Yes, I am aware that you addressed this article I quoted from William Webster.  At least now our posters can read the Webster article for themselves and make an objective decision after reviewing both sides of the debate.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 02:02:50 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Heracleides
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarch of Jerusalem
Posts: 390


Kona-Kai


« Reply #344 on: July 11, 2008, 01:58:25 AM »

Yes.  Now I'm providing the more objective source I asked of you in reply to your address of this.

The fun of debate is that you're not the only one who gets to address the issue. Wink

Ummm... but he quoted a Catholic source - shouldn't that settle the issue???  Grin
.
Logged

"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #345 on: July 11, 2008, 02:05:18 AM »

Quote
You mentioned earlier this afternoon--in this post, I believe, before you modified it--that you wonder how its even logical to equate Pope Honorius's supposedly silent refusal to combat heresy (this was not my contention: but rather, he was silent in not openly teaching it, as well as saying as much in a letter-he should of done more, true; but more people would of converted to the said heresy if he openly taught it- this is what you are failing to see)with open teaching of heresy.  You're right.  This isn't logical; in fact, this isn't even a matter of logic.  Instead, this is a matter of values judgments.  You make a distinct separation between silent assent and open teaching (because their are not the same sin!), because it removes an obstacle to your belief that the pope of Rome has always been protected from teaching heresy ex cathedra--this dichotomy would never really be unnecessary if the RC dogma of papal infallibility didn't require it.  We, OTOH, don't make such a strong distinction because his dereliction of duty allowed the heresy to spread just as if he had taught it himself--the end result is the same.  There's no logic to this, except that we base our logic on different premises than you.

This a reply from you to my post:

You are assuming that the same result would of occured. But I believe many people would not be RC today if Honorius did openly teach heresy. I would not for example. If the See of Rome and the pope are not protected from error in doctrine, why be a RC? This would of had major reprecussions. It would also make decalrations of the pope today self refuting. How can you say that it would make no difference? You only mean that it would make no difference in the numbers of converts to the said heresy. This is false too. Because announcing the said heresy officially would of convinced many to endorse it since they would of believed that it was correct doctrine. But how can you eqaute the effects of a silent teaching with an open one? How would you of been convinced if you never heard of it?...that is, unless you lived in the east? If you are saying that the number of people who would buy a product but never saw an advertisement for it, is the very same number of people who see the advertisements on TV an buy the product, then why are companies spending trillions of dollars on ads? 

Your case is illogical. Why do you think that the popes write encyclicals? To spread their teachings. 

But in the Honorius' case, what they found were private letters that have him requesting silence. C'mon.

And keep in mind: this is the best case you have.



Basically, you are saying that being silent on a heresy will have the same outcome as openly endorsing it. How can this be. As I have pointed out, just look how selling products works: companies spend trillions of dollars openly teaching people about their product. According to you, the same result would happen if they hide their products from consumers. This is absolutely absurd. The difference between the east and the west regarding heresies is that the east was advertising as in the example.

Just ask yourself this:

Would you be more likely to convert to heresy if your pope was commanding you to; or if your pope kept it all a secret? Would more people convert if their pope recommended the said heresy, or if he was silent? C'mon.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 02:10:11 AM by truth » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,182


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #346 on: July 11, 2008, 02:06:10 AM »

Remember? You said you already read the article?
And I dismissed the article as nothing more than infallibilist propaganda hardly worth my time refuting, for it is not at all objective.
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #347 on: July 11, 2008, 02:07:16 AM »

Yes, I am aware that you addressed this article I quoted from William Webster.  At least now our posters can read the Webster article for themselves and make an objective decision after reviewing both sides of the debate.

Well, I guess I should post it then:

White Is Wrong

Rebutting James White's Rebuttal on Pope Honorius

By Steven O'Reilly



In October 2000, I wrote an article in This Rock on the Sixth Ecumenical Council's (Constantinople III's) condemnation of Pope Honorius (625-638) in A.D. 681. This article, "Guilty Only of Failure to Teach," rebutted the claim of anti-Catholic William Webster that this condemnation disproved the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility.

My piece elicited a rebuttal from another anti-Catholic apologist, James White. Mr. White's article, "Failure to Document: Catholic Answers Glosses Over History," was posted on his web site at www.aomin.org (from which all White quotes herein are taken).

In Mr. Webster's article "An Ecumenical Council Officially Condemns a Pope for Heresy," posted online at www.christiantruth.com (from which all Webster quotations herein are taken), he argues that Pope Honorius was anathematized because he adhered to the monothelite heresy and taught it ex cathedra. Monothelitism held that there was one will and operation-a divine one-in Christ, while Catholic teaching is that there were two wills and operations-divine and human-in Christ. My article made the following three points: Honorius was not a monothelite, he did not teach monothelitism, and he was condemned because he had-through negligence-aided the spread of heresy.



Honorius's letters: Neither monothelite nor ex cathedra in nature


In order to sweep away the arguments that Honorius was orthodox and did not teach monothelitism ex cathedra, Mr. White counters that Honorius used the expression we confess in relation to the monothelite term one will: "Make sure you note the use of the plural 'we confess.' Honorius did not say, 'Oh, I think maybe it's like this.' He employed the very same plural that Roman bishops use today to refer to their representation of the church as a whole."

Leaving aside the fact the papal "we" is not in itself an indicator of an infallible definition, Mr. White simply ignores the evidence that Honorius's use of "one will" is to be understood as orthodox. Honorius says, "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ." However, he immediately explains his meaning: "For evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin" (Scripta Fraternitatis Vestrae, quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:453).

Honorius merely denies that conflicting wills of spirit and flesh as found in fallen man-spoken of in Romans 7:21-23, to which the pope alludes-were present in Christ. In other words, Christ assumed not our fallen human nature but that human nature created before sin. Such a view presumes a human will in Christ as well as a separate divine will with which it is in moral unity.

What is undeniable is that the pope's use of the phrase "one will," though orthodox, manifests a lack of understanding and diligence in regard to the nascent controversy. The mere expression "one will" was consonant with the heresy's view, which denied any human will in Christ. Mr. White appears to admit as much when he says that Honorius "made an error based upon ignorance of the issues involved."

Regardless, it would be surprising if Mr. White were to deny the orthodoxy of Honorius's statement, since doing so would leave Mr. Mr. White with the dubious options of either admitting contrary wills in Christ or falling into monothelitism. Nor is the preceding a modern interpretation made to save the pope's words; soon after his death he was defended in a similar fashion by Maximus the Confessor and Pope John IV against monothelites who cited him as carelessly as does Mr. White.

"Just the facts, ma'am"


The essence of Mr. White's attempt to defend Mr. Webster is to accuse this writer of "deceptive behavior," willfully withholding and ignoring unpalatable historical facts in order to rehabilitate the memory of Honorius. Mr. White claims that the "major problem" with "O'Reilly's attempts to save Honorius" is that a "majority of the facts . . . never appear" in my article. The "facts" Mr. White refers to are fourteen numbered items appearing in his rebuttal, nearly all of which are taken verbatim-and without attribution-from Philip Schaff's work (compare Mr. White to Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed. Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 14, 351).

If Mr. White had read his original source attentively, he would have noted the list was offered expressly to prove " Honorius was as a matter of fact condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council"( Nicene and Post Nice Fathers, vol. 14, 351; emphasis added). Not only did my article not deny this fact, it expressly stipulated it. It was the nature of this condemnation, not the fact of it, that I contested. This consideration renders a number of Mr. White's fourteen points non-pertinent, while others are merely repetitious of charges that were addressed.

My article stated that Honorius was anathematized because he had "fostered" heresy through negligence. Yet Mr. White wonders how my defense of Honorius can be squared with the following three facts. (1) Honorius's letters were burned by the council as "hurtful to the soul" (Session XIII, NPNF, vol. 14, 343). (2) Honorius was considered, along with the others condemned, a "tool of Satan" used by the evil one in the "dissemination" of the heresy (Session XVIII, NPNF, vol. 14, 344). (3) Acclamations were shouted against the condemned, including "Honorius the heretic" (Session XVI, NPNF, vol. 14, 343).

In response to Mr. White, it would do well first to recall the words of the council's official condemnation: "The names of those men whose doctrines we execrate [are] . . . Sergius . . . Cyrus . . . Pyrrhus . . . Paul and Peter . . . and . . . Theodore . . . all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome . . . rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the Holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius . . . because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines" (Session XIII, NPNF, vol. 14, 343).

Clearly, the council specifies two different categories of offenders that merit the same punishment. To the first group belonged those who the council judged to be " minded contrary to our orthodox faith"-Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, and Theodore. Whatever his fault, Honorius was not judged by the council to be "minded contrary" to the "orthodox faith" and thus cannot be considered a heretic in either the material or formal sense. Instead Honorius was faulted for having "followed [i.e., lent support to] the view of Sergius . . . and confirmed his impious doctrines." That is, by agreeing with Sergius that a rule of silence be imposed, Honorius left Cyrus's false reconciliation of the monophysites in place, and thereby gave practical-not theological-confirmation to the heresy.

Honorius, out of ignorance of the issues central to the controversy, had too quickly accepted Sergius's view regarding the necessity for a rule of silence. This ignorance can only be due to a grave failure on the part of Honorius to inquire into the underlying nature of the dispute over a new expression and the reconciliation of the monophysites that was too easily accomplished by the employment of it. By agreeing to a rule of silence instead of issuing a rule or definition of faith, Honorius left the monothelite patriarchs of the East an opening to further insinuate the heresy among the faithful. Honorius's culpable neglect of his duties gave the heresy space to grow and spread. He thereby shared blame for the spread of the heresy, albeit in a different manner from those "minded contrary" to the faith.

Pope Leo II (682-683), who confirmed the council, was in agreement with the condemnation of Honorius on the grounds of "neglect" and therefore did not count his predecessor among the "inventors" of the heresy. He wrote that Honorius "did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching" (Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol. 14, 352). That is, Honorius had failed to teach and had thereby "permitted"-not caused, not joined in causing-the profane teaching of Sergius, et al, to spread. Clearly, Leo II viewed Honorius's fault as one of neglect and inaction that was not befitting his apostolic office.

The same is outlined in another of Leo II's letters, wherein he writes that Honorius did not "as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence" (Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispanie in the Catholic Encyclopedia 7:455; emphasis added). Such wording is inexplicable if Leo II had believed Honorius to be a monothelite. Instead, Honorius's fault is not that he taught heresy, but rather that he "fostered" and "permitted" its spread through "negligence." In sum, Honorius had failed to teach.

Given the above as background, the harsh actions and expressions cited by Mr. White are more easily understood. With regard to any reference to "Honorius, the heretic": It should be noted that the term heretic, in an earlier and looser sense, also included those who "favored" heresy-those who, even though not adhering to a heresy, aid its spread through some action or omission (see The Catholic Encyclopedia, 8:260-261). Owing to the fact Honorius had aided in the spread of heresy, he could be considered a "heretic" in this secondary sense of the word "confirmed by several examples in antiquity" (Paul Bottala, S.J., Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and History, 107). One such example is the Type of Constans, a document condemned as heretical during the monothelite controversy since it favored heresy as opposed to positively teaching it.

Similarly, given Honorius's culpable neglect, it is not surprising that he, or anyone who so permits the Lord's flock to be exposed to ravenous wolves, should be spoken of as being a "tool of Satan" and used by him in "disseminating" the heresy. Such images are consistent with the biblical treatment of the neglectful pastor. Nor is it surprising that the council would deem Honorius's letters in which he exhibited such neglect "hurtful to the soul" and order them to be burned.

Mr. White notes approvingly that the papal legates-Pope Agatho's representatives at the Council-remained silent throughout these words and actions directed against Honorius, which he claims indicated that they subscribed to them. But their silence redounds to the defense of Honorius's orthodoxy. These papal legates carried Agatho's letters, fully accepted by the Council. These letters asserted the inerrant magisterium of the apostolic see of Rome. They asserted that all of Agatho's predecessors-a group that includes Honorius-had been orthodox, and that Agatho (and thus any pope) is liable to judgment for negligence in his office as teacher. The legates' silence indicates that they considered the council's decrees fully consistent with these three points.

Had they not considered them so, they would have objected, as previous legates had done unabashedly when councils acted contrary to papal policy. Instead, the record indicates the legates remained silent, since the council-as it said itself-made its decisions in accordance with Agatho's letter. Therefore, those who argue like Mr. White have the more difficult task in explaining why silence, rather than vociferous objections, should indicate the council was at odds with Pope Agatho over Honorius.


The "serious investigator"?


Mr. White writes that the "serious investigator" of history will not find evidence of the Roman claims. In his role as "serious investigator," Mr. White makes the following statement:

"And finally, I remind us all: Honorius died forty years prior to the Council of Constantinople. For four decades his letters existed, teaching what would later be identified as a heresy by an ecumenical Council. No Pope of Rome uttered a word in condemnation during those four decades. It would be like having a Pope teach heresy in 1960, and having to wait till this very year for there to be a 'correction,' and then only from a gathered council, not from the Pope himself. For forty years those letters existed, and if you had looked to the bishop of Rome's teachings during those years, you would have been led into formal heresy thereby."

This is nonsense. Aside from the fact Mr. White has offered no evidence based on the substance of Honorius' letters that this pope taught heresy, the pope's letters were known to a select few Eastern bishops, not to the faithful at large, and thus were hardly the instrument to convey a dogmatic definition. Far from being the case that no pope "uttered a word" regarding Honorius' letters, the John IV (640-642) defended the orthodoxy of Honorius when Pyrrhus, patriarch of Constantinople, appealed to these letters in defense of his monothelite position.

Regardless, the faithful would not have to wait forty years for a council to either "correct" letters unknown to them or make clear the bishop of Rome's stand on monothelitism. Even a brief survey of Rome's stand against the monothelites during the forty years between Honorius (d. 638) and Constantinople III (680-681) makes it clear that there can be no doubt where Rome stood during the controversy. Popes Severinus (640), John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653), and others declared numerous condemnations and anathemas against monothelitism and various monothelites. Synods were also held by popes during this forty-year period, such as the Lateran Council of 649 whose acts, sent throughout the East and West, anathematized the works Ecthesis and the Type, as well as the individuals Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul.

The active and preeminent role of Rome in the battle against monothelitism is apparent and is as much admitted in the documents of Constantinople III in a number of places. Pope Agatho is said to have been the "wise physician," given by Christ to drive away the "heretical pestilence" and to "give strength to the members of the Church." The council says it has been "instructed" by Agatho's doctrine, and it is "through" this Roman doctrine the council bases its actions (The Letter of the Council to St. Agatho, NPNF, 349-50). Consequently, it defies credulity to insinuate that the faithful could have any doubt about the position of the apostolic see towards monothelitism.


The serious investigator, infallibility, and the False Decretals


It is impressive, with such an economy of words, that Mr. White has managed to commit so many errors. The target of this effort is, of course, the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, which Mr. White says "surely no one in that day [i.e., the seventh century] believed." Instead, Mr. White says such papal claims were "first introduced by fraudulent means in the middle of the ninth century." Mr. White is referring to the False Decretals, ostensibly an ancient collection of papal correspondence that are in fact ninth-century forgeries.

However, even the harshest scholarly critics of papal infallibility-e.g., Dollinger-admit that the False Decretals were not written at Rome's behest and that their purpose was not the introduction or advancement of the papal claims. Rather, the immediate purpose of the forger was to protect local bishops from the influence of the secular power (Dollinger, The Pope and the Council, 95), not to introduce papal claims. While everyone, including popes, accepted these decretals at face value until advancements in historical analysis, there is nothing about the Roman primacy contained in them that is not contained in other, earlier Church documents recognized as bona fide (see "The False Decretals," This Rock, October 1998).

Mr. White asserts the Vatican I conditions for ex cathedra statements are anachronistically projected back into history and contain any number of trapdoors that render "every single papal statement of the past 'safe' from the allegation of error." However, the reasonable man can see, whether he agrees with the dogma or not, that there is no changing or mysterious formula. Simply put, Vatican I defined that for an ex cathedra teaching the pope must (1) exercise his office as "teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority," and he must (2) define a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be (3) "held by the whole Church."

There is nothing inscrutable here. Analogous conditions apply to secular figures in whose acts we may discern the difference between the use of ordinary from extraordinary authority, the binding from non-binding, a resolution from a legal mandate, and the limited from the universal in scope. Whether formalized in a dogmatic definition or not, common sense-not rocket science or trickery-suggests such conditions. With a minimum of diligence, one may employ them to determine whether or not a dogmatic definition is present in a given circumstance.

However, opponents of papal infallibility in the case of Honorius are wanting for such diligence. Honorius explicitly said "we must not define" the disputed expressions; yet Mr. White and Mr. Webster conclude he did so. Honorius expressly agreed to a rule of silence to quiet both sides in a dispute over "idle questions"; yet Mr. White and Mr. Webster conclude he issued a rule of faith that all should profess. Honorius clearly spoke of a human will in Christ; yet Mr. White and Mr. Webster conclude that Honorius, like the monothelites, denied any human will in Christ. Constantinople III excluded Honorius from the category of those considered "minded contrary" to the orthodox faith; yet Mr. White and Mr. Webster conclude the council included him in this category. Pope John IV defended the orthodoxy of Honorius when a monothelite patriarch appealed to Honorius's letters; yet Mr. White concludes no pope "uttered a word."

These conclusions reached by this "serious investigator" contravene the facts. Therefore, I repeat my earlier conclusion: The history of monothelitism and the Sixth Ecumenical Council provides striking evidence of the early Church's acceptance of the primacy and infallible magisterium of the apostolic see.



« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 02:08:10 AM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #348 on: July 11, 2008, 02:11:51 AM »

And I dismissed the article as nothing more than infallibilist propaganda hardly worth my time refuting, for it is not at all objective.

Dismissing something outright is the very defintion of not being objective.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,182


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #349 on: July 11, 2008, 02:14:11 AM »

Basically, you are saying that being silent on a heresy will have the same outcome as openly endorsing it. How can this be. As I have pointed out, just look how selling products works: companies spend trillions of dollars openly teaching people about their product. According to you, the same result would happen if they hide their products from consumers. This is absolutely absurd. The difference between the east and the west regarding heresies is that the east was advertising as in the example.
1.  Equating the teaching of heresy with advertising is too simplistic a comparison.
2.  As the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council recognized, those who actively spread the Monothelete heresy drew upon the words of Pope Honorius to support their public doctrine.  They could sway their audiences by saying, "This doctrine is endorsed by none other than the Pope himself."  It's kinda like shoe advertisers acquiring an endorsement from a celebrity athlete.
3.  You're breaking your promise to not blame "the east" again.

Quote
Just ask yourself this:

Would you be more likely to convert to heresy if your pope was commanding you to; or if your pope kept it all a secret? Would more people convert if their pope recommended the said heresy, or if he was silent? C'mon.

But what if your teachers claimed the Pope's endorsement?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 02:16:40 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,182


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #350 on: July 11, 2008, 02:17:45 AM »

Dismissing something outright is the very defintion of not being objective.
That depends on the reasons why one would dismiss something outright. Wink  Now, if I'd dismissed the article without even reading it, you might have a case that I wasn't acting objectively.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 02:23:32 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #351 on: July 11, 2008, 02:23:00 AM »

1.  Equating the teaching of heresy with advertising is not a valid comparison.
2.  As the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council recognized, those who actively spread the Monothelete heresy drew upon the words of Pope Honorius to support their public doctrine.  They could sway their audiences by saying, "This doctrine is endorsed by none other than the Pope himself."  It's kinda like shoe advertisers acquiring an endorsement from a celebrity athlete.
3.  You're breaking your promise to not blame "the east" again.
But what if your teachers claimed the Pope's endorsement?

As I  have already posted, pope Honorius did not openly teach the heresy. In fact, it wasnt till 40 years later that the council condemned him. The letter that condemned him showed that he requested that it remain silent. I am sorry if you have to close your eyes in order not to see how advertising works as in my example. I suppose a lesson in economics it not prudent, for my example trusted a basic understanding of it. If you seriously cannot comprehend the difference in not openly teaching a heresy with openly teaching the heresy, and the different effects this has with the number of conversions to the said heresy, I really dont think we can continue: you are obviously not coming to terms with the obvious result that each scenario comes down to.

We have already been through what the council says and the roman popes, as the article I posted states. Why are you going on?

In my case and point: if Honorius openly taught heresy, I would not be a RC. Period.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 02:25:01 AM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #352 on: July 11, 2008, 02:36:25 AM »

That depends on the reasons why one would dismiss something outright. Wink  Now, if I'd dismissed the article without even reading it, you might have a case that I wasn't acting objectively.

Here is a small portion of the article, easily digestable:

"And finally, I remind us all: Honorius died forty years prior to the Council of Constantinople. For four decades his letters existed, teaching what would later be identified as a heresy by an ecumenical Council. No Pope of Rome uttered a word in condemnation during those four decades. It would be like having a Pope teach heresy in 1960, and having to wait till this very year for there to be a 'correction,' and then only from a gathered council, not from the Pope himself. For forty years those letters existed, and if you had looked to the bishop of Rome's teachings during those years, you would have been led into formal heresy thereby."

This is nonsense. Aside from the fact Mr. White has offered no evidence based on the substance of Honorius' letters that this pope taught heresy, the pope's letters were known to a select few Eastern bishops, not to the faithful at large, and thus were hardly the instrument to convey a dogmatic definition. Far from being the case that no pope "uttered a word" regarding Honorius' letters, the John IV (640-642) defended the orthodoxy of Honorius when Pyrrhus, patriarch of Constantinople, appealed to these letters in defense of his monothelite position.

Regardless, the faithful would not have to wait forty years for a council to either "correct" letters unknown to them or make clear the bishop of Rome's stand on monothelitism. Even a brief survey of Rome's stand against the monothelites during the forty years between Honorius (d. 638) and Constantinople III (680-681) makes it clear that there can be no doubt where Rome stood during the controversy. Popes Severinus (640), John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653), and others declared numerous condemnations and anathemas against monothelitism and various monothelites. Synods were also held by popes during this forty-year period, such as the Lateran Council of 649 whose acts, sent throughout the East and West, anathematized the works Ecthesis and the Type, as well as the individuals Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul.

The active and preeminent role of Rome in the battle against monothelitism is apparent and is as much admitted in the documents of Constantinople III in a number of places. Pope Agatho is said to have been the "wise physician," given by Christ to drive away the "heretical pestilence" and to "give strength to the members of the Church." The council says it has been "instructed" by Agatho's doctrine, and it is "through" this Roman doctrine the council bases its actions (The Letter of the Council to St. Agatho, NPNF, 349-50). Consequently, it defies credulity to insinuate that the faithful could have any doubt about the position of the apostolic see towards monothelitism.


« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 02:37:58 AM by truth » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,182


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #353 on: July 11, 2008, 02:37:14 AM »

As I  have already posted, pope Honorius did not openly teach the heresy.
And as many of us have already posted, he did, and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council recognized this.

Quote
In fact, it wasnt till 40 years later that the council condemned him.
And yet, they condemned him nonetheless, and this was an Ecumenical Council.

Quote
The letter that condemned him showed that he requested that it remain silent.
You have the letter in your hands to be able to prove this to us?

Quote
I am sorry if you have to close your eyes in order not to see how advertising works as in my example. I suppose a lesson in economics it not prudent, for my example trusted a basic understanding of it.
Actually, I know how advertising works.  Go back and read the post you quoted, and you'll note that I now call your comparison too simplistic, because I do recognize some validity to your argument.  I just think your logic misses a key ingredient that quite possibly turns your conclusion on its ear.

Quote
If you seriously cannot comprehend the difference in not openly teaching a heresy with openly teaching the heresy, and the different effects this has with the number of conversions to the said heresy, I really dont think we can continue: you are obviously not coming to terms with the obvious result that each scenario come down to.
Yes, I'm aware that the Monothelete heresiarchs drew strength for their arguments by asserting that they had the support of the Pope Honorius and that, in this way, Honorius was indeed an agent for the heresy's spread.

Quote
We have already been through what the council says and the roman popes, as the article I posted states. Why are you going on?
I couldn't let an article by one of your decidedly biased Roman Catholic apologists be the only "scholarly" material lurkers and posters on this thread have available to them.

Quote
Why are you going on?
You're obviously not going to convince us of the truth of your position using the apologetic materials and logic you insist on using--heck, you haven't said anything new for the past several pages.  So why are you going on?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 02:39:14 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #354 on: July 11, 2008, 02:41:23 AM »

If Honorius views were openly taught as you suggest, why was there nothing in the 40 years saying as much:

Regardless, the faithful would not have to wait forty years for a council to either "correct" letters unknown to them or make clear the bishop of Rome's stand on monothelitism. Even a brief survey of Rome's stand against the monothelites during the forty years between Honorius (d. 638) and Constantinople III (680-681) makes it clear that there can be no doubt where Rome stood during the controversy. Popes Severinus (640), John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653), and others declared numerous condemnations and anathemas against monothelitism and various monothelites. Synods were also held by popes during this forty-year period, such as the Lateran Council of 649 whose acts, sent throughout the East and West, anathematized the works Ecthesis and the Type, as well as the individuals Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul.
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #355 on: July 11, 2008, 02:43:43 AM »

Quote
And as many of us have already posted, he did, and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council recognized this.

This is false, as I have already posted what St Maximos and the Roman popes at the time clarified. He was not condemned for openly teaching heresy, as what you are trying sneak in.

Again:

Pope Leo II (682-683), who confirmed the council, was in agreement with the condemnation of Honorius on the grounds of "neglect" and therefore did not count his predecessor among the "inventors" of the heresy. He wrote that Honorius "did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching" (Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol. 14, 352). That is, Honorius had failed to teach and had thereby "permitted"-not caused, not joined in causing-the profane teaching of Sergius, et al, to spread. Clearly, Leo II viewed Honorius's fault as one of neglect and inaction that was not befitting his apostolic office.
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #356 on: July 11, 2008, 02:46:20 AM »

Quote
And yet, they condemned him nonetheless, and this was an Ecumenical Council.


Ya...but not for the reason you are claiming, despite my evidences to the contray. This is crucial.
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #357 on: July 11, 2008, 02:48:19 AM »

Quote
Yes, I'm aware that the Monothelete heresiarchs drew strength for their arguments by asserting that they had the support of the Pope Honorius and that, in this way, Honorius was indeed an agent for the heresy's spread.

I agree he was an agent, but no in the sense you are hinting at. He was through neglect. He did not openly teach the heresy, as the said east was.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,182


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #358 on: July 11, 2008, 02:48:59 AM »

Here is a small portion of the article, easily digestable:

"And finally, I remind us all: Honorius died forty years prior to the Council of Constantinople. For four decades his letters existed, teaching what would later be identified as a heresy by an ecumenical Council. No Pope of Rome uttered a word in condemnation during those four decades. It would be like having a Pope teach heresy in 1960, and having to wait till this very year for there to be a 'correction,' and then only from a gathered council, not from the Pope himself. For forty years those letters existed, and if you had looked to the bishop of Rome's teachings during those years, you would have been led into formal heresy thereby."

This is nonsense. Aside from the fact Mr. White has offered no evidence based on the substance of Honorius' letters that this pope taught heresy, the pope's letters were known to a select few Eastern bishops, not to the faithful at large, and thus were hardly the instrument to convey a dogmatic definition. Far from being the case that no pope "uttered a word" regarding Honorius' letters, the John IV (640-642) defended the orthodoxy of Honorius when Pyrrhus, patriarch of Constantinople, appealed to these letters in defense of his monothelite position.

Regardless, the faithful would not have to wait forty years for a council to either "correct" letters unknown to them or make clear the bishop of Rome's stand on monothelitism. Even a brief survey of Rome's stand against the monothelites during the forty years between Honorius (d. 638) and Constantinople III (680-681) makes it clear that there can be no doubt where Rome stood during the controversy. Popes Severinus (640), John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653), and others declared numerous condemnations and anathemas against monothelitism and various monothelites. Synods were also held by popes during this forty-year period, such as the Lateran Council of 649 whose acts, sent throughout the East and West, anathematized the works Ecthesis and the Type, as well as the individuals Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul.

The active and preeminent role of Rome in the battle against monothelitism is apparent and is as much admitted in the documents of Constantinople III in a number of places. Pope Agatho is said to have been the "wise physician," given by Christ to drive away the "heretical pestilence" and to "give strength to the members of the Church." The council says it has been "instructed" by Agatho's doctrine, and it is "through" this Roman doctrine the council bases its actions (The Letter of the Council to St. Agatho, NPNF, 349-50). Consequently, it defies credulity to insinuate that the faithful could have any doubt about the position of the apostolic see towards monothelitism.



In the end, it doesn't matter what a bunch of Roman apologists today say about Pope Honorius, now that papal infallibility is a dogma that must be supported by all means possible, even historical revisionism, lest the modern day Roman Catholic Church fall apart utterly.  What matters is how Pope Honorius's colleagues among the universal college of bishops understood his work, and they made their voice heard in the Third Council of Constaninople (the Sixth Ecumenical Council) when they voiced the words, "To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!" for what he did to actively confirm the Monothelete heresiarchs and aid in the advance of their heresy.
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #359 on: July 11, 2008, 02:50:26 AM »

Quote
Actually, I know how advertising works.  Go back and read the post you quoted, and you'll note that I now call your comparison too simplistic, because I do recognize some validity to your argument.  I just think your logic misses a key ingredient that quite possibly turns your conclusion on its ear.

Okay, please explain to me why you equate openly advertising something with being silent as to having the same exact numbers in converts? I am all ears, even on my ear.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 02:50:46 AM by truth » Logged
Tags: Primacy of Peter Pope Leo Petrine Primacy Chalcedon cheval mort Flavian Ephesus II Tome of Leo The St. Maximos Quote That Irenaeus quote 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.192 seconds with 72 queries.