OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 21, 2014, 08:19:53 AM *
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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why is this not ex cathedra?  (Read 9741 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« on: September 05, 2003, 03:55:27 AM »

"We declare, state and define that for every human creature it is a matter of necessity for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)


Hope the RC's on this board can put this into perspective.


Byz
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2003, 09:40:38 AM »

I don't believe Papal bulls fall under the category of ex cathedra according to RC thought.  Perhaps it would be better to ask your question at a Roman Catholic board and report the results back here for us?

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 810


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2003, 09:57:31 AM »

When I've talked to Catholics about this, they've always held that it is infallible, since it fulfills the requirements of for all people & all times, etc.  However they have said that it doesn't mean what we think it means when we first read it.  They say that it was written in response to a specific issue, and that to read it outside of that context is misleading.  They say that what it means is that there is no salvation apart from the Catholic Church, and this is still a doctrin of the Catholic Church.  They say that if we or Protestants are saved, it is because we are a part of the Catholic Church, although we do not know that we are, by virtue of our baptism.  I have not heard how their belief that non believers my be saved by Christ after their deaths can be reconciled with this.  To me it seems like they're just trying really hard to reconcile two contradictory infallible statements, over-riding the old with the new, while at the same time claiming the old is correct.  But then I haven't studied the context of the issue or anything like that, so it's probably not fair for me to say that.
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2003, 10:12:40 AM »

I don't believe Papal bulls fall under the category of ex cathedra according to RC thought.  Perhaps it would be better to ask your question at a Roman Catholic board and report the results back here for us?

anastasios

Boy, if solemn Papal Bulls like "Unam Sanctam" issued by Pope Boniface VIII aren't considered "ex cathedra," anastasios, I don't know what is!  Looks to me like successive Popes really can undo the teaching of a previous Pope!  And that when I was Catholic I didn't understand Catholicism deeply enough, even though I taught it! Grin

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2003, 12:32:01 PM »

"We declare, state and define that for every human creature it is a matter of necessity for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)


Hope the RC's on this board can put this into perspective.


Byz

Hi Byz,
I think it is excathedra. The wording looks like it was meant to be. One must read the entire work to better understand what is being taught. Also having a good understanding of Catholic theology on the subject of salvation and the Churches place in salvation is necessary.
I'm not formaly trained but by my reconing what this is saying is that all who are saved are part of the body of Christ. The Church is the body of Christ so everyone who is saved must be in the Church. Those who are not in the Church in the customary manner are "called to the Church" by the virtue of their salvation. The Catholic Church accepts the universal leadership of the Bishop of Rome thus all who are saved are subject to the Roman Pontiff whether they know it or not. This work is teaching the concept of the unity of the body of Christ and explaining how that unity is maintained regardless of human disagreement and schism etc.

Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2003, 12:34:33 PM »

Papal infallibility could amount to a papal strait jacket: each successive pope is bound by what all the Popes before him had to say ex cathedra. That leaves precious little wiggle room.

But the human mind is ingenious when it comes to finding ways to reconcile what appear to be mutually contradictory statements and beliefs.

That seems to be what is taking place with regard to Unam Sanctam.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2003, 12:35:17 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2003, 12:37:33 PM »

I don't believe Papal bulls fall under the category of ex cathedra according to RC thought.  Perhaps it would be better to ask your question at a Roman Catholic board and report the results back here for us?

anastasios

Boy, if solemn Papal Bulls like "Unam Sanctam" issued by Pope Boniface VIII aren't considered "ex cathedra," anastasios, I don't know what is!  Looks to me like successive Popes really can undo the teaching of a previous Pope!  And that when I was Catholic I didn't understand Catholicism deeply enough, even though I taught it! Grin

Hypo-Ortho

Hi Hypo-Ortho,
I agree with you. It seems you didn't understand Catholicism deeply enough eventhough you taught it.  Grin I had many teachers who didn't understand while I was growing up. Cept to me it was obvious they didn't know when they couldn't answer some of my questions and instead would kick me out of Catechism class. LOL  Tongue
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,733


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2003, 12:40:06 PM »

If I'm not mistaken, there are various forms of "papal communications", and the highest and most authoritative of these is the papal bull.  Canonisations, the definition of dogmas, etc. are all carried out through papal bulla (or bullae, I'm not sure what the plural of this is, but I feel awkward saying "bulls").  Perhaps one bull can be infallible but another not so, but I'm not sure on that point.  

From what I've read in the past, it does seem that Unam Sanctam might fulfil the Catholic requirements for an authoritative teaching.  Infallible?  Since Vatican I, the proclamation of an infallible teaching is a very precise thing involving a proclamation ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals.  Someone on either another forum or an email list suggested that the notion of an *ex cathedra* proclamation is a recent phenomenon, and so you cannot read it back into history.  Catholics, for example, will say that the case of Honorius was not a case of a Pope infallibly teaching heresy because he did not define it ex cathedra.  But if the notion of an ex cathedra proclamation did not exist at the time, then what?  It seems like we still have a Pope who taught an error of faith in an official capacity.  In the same way, if this hypothesis is true, while you may not be able to say from Vatican I standards that Unam Sanctam was infallible, you might be able to argue that here was a Pope who taught definitively (he does say that he's declaring and defining) something as a matter of faith.  At any rate, it may still be infallible if Unam Sanctam is consistent with the "ordinary magisterium" or reflects the constant teaching of the Church according to the Roman Catholics.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2003, 12:42:10 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2003, 12:41:43 PM »

Pope Innocent III, A.D. 1198-1216: Ex cathedra: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)

Pope Boniface VIII, A.D. 1294-1303: Ex cathedra: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.  The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter." (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)

Pope Eugene IV, A.D. 1431-1447: Ex cathedra: "It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, or heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those abiding in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has abided in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence, A.D. 1442)

....

"Quite simply, no Catholic theologian has ever disputed that any of these definitions, those of the Councils or that of Unam Sanctam, are ex cathedra."

http://www.romancatholicism.org/infallible.html

 

Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2003, 12:53:36 PM »

I don't believe Papal bulls fall under the category of ex cathedra according to RC thought.  Perhaps it would be better to ask your question at a Roman Catholic board and report the results back here for us?

anastasios

Boy, if solemn Papal Bulls like "Unam Sanctam" issued by Pope Boniface VIII aren't considered "ex cathedra," anastasios, I don't know what is!  Looks to me like successive Popes really can undo the teaching of a previous Pope!  And that when I was Catholic I didn't understand Catholicism deeply enough, even though I taught it! Grin

Hypo-Ortho

Hi Hypo-Ortho,
I agree with you. It seems you didn't understand Catholicism deeply enough eventhough you taught it.  Grin I had many teachers who didn't understand while I was growing up. Cept to me it was obvious they didn't know when they couldn't answer some of my questions and instead would kick me out of Catechism class. LOL  Tongue
Peace,
Polycarp


Gee, Polycarp, we share something in common!  Getting kicked out of catechism class!  But then I asked questions of the Latin Sisters from a Byzantine Catholic perspective, and they didn't know what to make of it.  Nevertheless, the lowest grade I ever had in Religion class was 99 3/4%--I mispelled one word!  And now due to dyslexia, I do it all the time!  Grin

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2003, 01:14:16 PM »

If I'm not mistaken, there are various forms of "papal communications", and the highest and most authoritative of these is the papal bull.  Canonisations, the definition of dogmas, etc. are all carried out through papal bulla (or bullae, I'm not sure what the plural of this is, but I feel awkward saying "bulls").  Perhaps one bull can be infallible but another not so, but I'm not sure on that point.  

From what I've read in the past, it does seem that Unam Sanctam might fulfil the Catholic requirements for an authoritative teaching.  Infallible?  Since Vatican I, the proclamation of an infallible teaching is a very precise thing involving a proclamation ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals.  Someone on either another forum or an email list suggested that the notion of an *ex cathedra* proclamation is a recent phenomenon, and so you cannot read it back into history.  Catholics, for example, will say that the case of Honorius was not a case of a Pope infallibly teaching heresy because he did not define it ex cathedra.  But if the notion of an ex cathedra proclamation did not exist at the time, then what?  It seems like we still have a Pope who taught an error of faith in an official capacity.  In the same way, if this hypothesis is true, while you may not be able to say from Vatican I standards that Unam Sanctam was infallible, you might be able to argue that here was a Pope who taught definitively (he does say that he's declaring and defining) something as a matter of faith.  At any rate, it may still be infallible if Unam Sanctam is consistent with the "ordinary magisterium" or reflects the constant teaching of the Church according to the Roman Catholics.    


Hello,
What heresy did Honorius teach? What document did he promulgate that taught heresy?
Popes are not protected from personal error.  Only excathedra teachings are protected.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2003, 01:17:07 PM »

I don't believe Papal bulls fall under the category of ex cathedra according to RC thought.  Perhaps it would be better to ask your question at a Roman Catholic board and report the results back here for us?

anastasios

Boy, if solemn Papal Bulls like "Unam Sanctam" issued by Pope Boniface VIII aren't considered "ex cathedra," anastasios, I don't know what is!  Looks to me like successive Popes really can undo the teaching of a previous Pope!  And that when I was Catholic I didn't understand Catholicism deeply enough, even though I taught it! Grin

Hypo-Ortho

Hi Hypo-Ortho,
I agree with you. It seems you didn't understand Catholicism deeply enough eventhough you taught it.  Grin I had many teachers who didn't understand while I was growing up. Cept to me it was obvious they didn't know when they couldn't answer some of my questions and instead would kick me out of Catechism class. LOL  Tongue
Peace,
Polycarp


Gee, Polycarp, we share something in common!  Getting kicked out of catechism class!  But then I asked questions of the Latin Sisters from a Byzantine Catholic perspective, and they didn't know what to make of it.  Nevertheless, the lowest grade I ever had in Religion class was 99 3/4%--I mispelled one word!  And now due to dyslexia, I do it all the time!  Grin

Hypo-Ortho

Hypo-Ortho,
LOL!  Cheesy We probably share lot's of things in common! I never got 99 cuz "I'm not such a smart man you know" LOL
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
AlaskanOrthodox
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


Orthodoxy is Life


« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2003, 01:40:09 PM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Classical pre-Conciliar Roman Catholic theology most definately takes Unum Sanctum as an manifestation of Pope Boniface VIII's authority to define the Faith infallibly "from the Chair" so to speak.  The solemn pronouncement  "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." is most certanly a part of the universal Magisterium of the Church of Rome and the traditional Latin notion of authority.

Nevertheless, being that the only interpreter of the Magisterium is the Pope, and his Curia along with the hierarchy in communion with him, a Catholic of whatever sui juris Church must abide and remain in the "obedience of the faith" with the interpretation that the Supreme Lawgiver/Interpretor or the rather the Current Pontiff gives and affirms.  The New post-Conciliar Theology most definately defines that the fullness of the Church is manifested through the Pontiff who acts as Christ's Vicar, but it also talks about the Catholic Church "subsisting" in Ecclesial Communities or Churches that are not in Communion with Rome such as the Orthodox and Oriental Churches and that they also have the Life in Holy Spirit through their Mysteries, Priesthood et al.  The Previous Theology stated that the Roman Church, and its satellites aka the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches, is the only real and true Church of Jesus Christ and that NO other Church is the Church besides her and that the "Eastern dissidents", as we Orthodox were once called, may have the Sacraments, but nevertheless being that they were performed without the authority of the Pontiff were illicit at best.  

The problem with Roman doctrinal/disciplinary development is that it has to violate previous canons to develop.  The typical Roman thing is to just ignore previous legislation, doctrine and praxis.  Doing a compare/contrast of the Canons of the Latin Church with those of the Canons of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, which are the canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, will reveal a startling erosion of the Apostolic Faith and Practice.  That is why the Orthodox see this notion of Papal Infallibility as such a blashemous and un-Apostolic notion; it opens the doors to dangerous innovations and is the height of the Roman arrogance and pride.  The Ancient  and Apostolic Church never talks out of both sides of its mouth.

In Christ,


AlaskanOrthodox
« Last Edit: September 05, 2003, 02:01:52 PM by AlaskanOrthodox » Logged
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2003, 02:30:02 PM »

Dear Friends:

If I may make a suggestion, an explanation of this "dilemma" from a Catholic POV  could be read at:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate9.htm

Amado
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2003, 03:17:46 PM »


Hello,
What heresy did Honorius teach? What document did he promulgate that taught heresy?
Popes are not protected from personal error.  Only excathedra teachings are protected.
Peace,
Polycarp


Honorius was condemned by the sixth ecumenical council for monothelitism.  He wrote a letter to Patriarch Sergius who had asked *not for a personal opinion* as RC authors allege but for *confirmation of the teaching of the church*.  Honorius responded by teaching monothelitism.

To say that a pope can be a heretic but not teach heresy ex cathedra is a meaningless distinction.  If we don't know when decisions are ex cathedra and we don't know if something is heresy unless it is condemned, the grey area is too big.  This system is not Orthodox or patristic.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2003, 04:09:54 PM »

Dear anastasios:

Disagreeing with your assessment, please find time to examine this article, one of many Catholic treatments on Pope Honorius as against the conclusions/opinions  of non-Catholics:

http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm

Thanks for hearing us out.

Amado
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 05, 2003, 04:36:05 PM »

Amadeus,

I will be happy to read the article you referenced, but note its publication date of 1882, way before the more recent advances of modern scholarship.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2003, 04:43:41 PM »


Hello,
What heresy did Honorius teach? What document did he promulgate that taught heresy?
Popes are not protected from personal error.  Only excathedra teachings are protected.
Peace,
Polycarp


Honorius was condemned by the sixth ecumenical council for monothelitism.  He wrote a letter to Patriarch Sergius who had asked *not for a personal opinion* as RC authors allege but for *confirmation of the teaching of the church*.  Honorius responded by teaching monothelitism.

To say that a pope can be a heretic but not teach heresy ex cathedra is a meaningless distinction.  If we don't know when decisions are ex cathedra and we don't know if something is heresy unless it is condemned, the grey area is too big.  This system is not Orthodox or patristic.

anastasios

Please provide the document which Honorius wrote or signed that taught heresy.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,519


« Reply #18 on: September 05, 2003, 05:47:26 PM »

Polycarp,

Was the Ecumenical Council either wrong, or not thorough enough in checking the facts?
Logged

Large Marge sent me...
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #19 on: September 05, 2003, 05:55:06 PM »

Polycarp,

Was the Ecumenical Council either wrong, or not thorough enough in checking the facts?

Are you aware of the actual facts surrounding this subject? If not then you need to do some research. I can summerise it in a couple of sentances off the top of my head if you want.
Peace,

Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #20 on: September 05, 2003, 10:38:52 PM »



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).


Scholars basically echo what this Roman Catholic historian states:

This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).

Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #21 on: September 05, 2003, 11:40:04 PM »

Still no document written by Honorius or signed by him has been produced.
The facts as I know them are that the error Honorius made was in not making any definitave decision but simply remaining silent on the issue. There are reasons some believe he decided to do nothing, but his error was in failing to do his duty as the chief Pastor of the Universal Church. He was condemned because he didn't teach as he should have. Yet he didn't teach or write any heretical document. This is how I understand what happened. If anyone has documentation that he actually wrote or signed a heretical document that was meant to be an official teaching for the Church I will stand corrected. Please submit the documentation if it exists. Thanks.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2003, 01:19:37 AM »

"Still no document written by Honorius or signed by him has been produced."

Honorius' letter was burned by the aforementioned Ecumenical Council.

I'm sorry Polycarp but the failure to teach excuse which is so common in RC apologetics circles becomes more ridiculous in light of these facts, which don't seem to appear on any RC apologetics webpages to my knowledge. The Council condemned Honorius for teaching heresy. Every Pope up until around the 13th Century anathematised him upon taking the Papal office.  What I find amazing is the lengths popular RC internet apologists go to 'rehabilitate' Honorius, which reaffirms the chasm existing between scholars (Catholic as well as non-Catholic) and these 'net apologists. Thus we hear things like "Honorius didn't teach heresy," "Honorius failed to teach" and even "the Council wasn't infallible at that point and erred in condemning Honorius" !!!  

Another very well respected RC historian, Charles Joseph Hefele, confirms this:

It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic!...That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him:

At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says: "After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign...to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor...them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine."
Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.
Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus"
Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read: "The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ.
After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things: "Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them."
In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein: '91We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.
In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes: "With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome...the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself...We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present...besides, we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."
It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius...in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council...in his letter to the Spanish bishops...and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig. Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by...the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after...Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: "We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning...Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc." The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places...To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath...according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius" (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).


« Last Edit: September 06, 2003, 07:06:34 AM by Byzantino » Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #23 on: September 07, 2003, 05:58:59 PM »

Papal infallibility could amount to a papal strait jacket: each successive pope is bound by what all the Popes before him had to say ex cathedra. That leaves precious little wiggle room.


Which is why it was for a long time rejected by the popes themselves in the middle ages, as they recognized that doctrine would interfere with their sovereignty.  I believe it was a Franciscan friar, Peter Olivi, and not a pope, who first asserted the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #24 on: September 07, 2003, 10:52:12 PM »

I am aware of all of this information. Yet there is no document written or signed by Honorius that has him teaching heresy. A personal communication between him and someone else dosen't even come close to an excathedra decleration of dogma.
That Honorius was declared a heretic is fact. Why he was is the contraversy. Even if he errored in his personal belief he or even if he held a heretical belief did not teach any heresy as an official Church dogma.
I dare say there have been those Popes who have been terrible sinners yet to my knowledge no Pope taught a heresy excathedra.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 08, 2003, 09:35:07 AM »

Quote
I think it is excathedra. The wording looks like it was meant to be. One must read the entire work to better understand what is being taught. Also having a good understanding of Catholic theology on the subject of salvation and the Churches place in salvation is necessary.

I've read Unum Sanctum, as well as Cantate Domino, and am familiar with the circumstances such documents arose from.  The truth of the matter is, these texts mean what they say - they're clear statements against the possibility of salvation outside of the Pope's communion.  I don't know why RC's have a hard time owning up to this.

Quote
I'm not formaly trained but by my reconing what this is saying is that all who are saved are part of the body of Christ. The Church is the body of Christ so everyone who is saved must be in the Church. Those who are not in the Church in the customary manner are "called to the Church" by the virtue of their salvation. The Catholic Church accepts the universal leadership of the Bishop of Rome thus all who are saved are subject to the Roman Pontiff whether they know it or not. This work is teaching the concept of the unity of the body of Christ and explaining how that unity is maintained regardless of human disagreement and schism etc.

However, this doesn't jibe with what the Fathers and anathemas of the Ecumenical and Local Councils have to say - which is that schism and heresy not only create an interuption in relations between two parties within the Church, but in fact cause the erring party to take themselves outside of the Church.

Seraphim
Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2003, 09:40:44 AM »

Amadeus,

Quote
Disagreeing with your assessment, please find time to examine this article, one of many Catholic treatments on Pope Honorius as against the conclusions/opinions  of non-Catholics:

I think the significant question here, is, was he, or wasn't he condemned by an Ecumenical Council?

Seraphim
Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 08, 2003, 09:50:47 AM »

Quote
I am aware of all of this information. Yet there is no document written or signed by Honorius that has him teaching heresy. A personal communication between him and someone else dosen't even come close to an excathedra decleration of dogma.
That Honorius was declared a heretic is fact. Why he was is the contraversy. Even if he errored in his personal belief he or even if he held a heretical belief did not teach any heresy as an official Church dogma.
I dare say there have been those Popes who have been terrible sinners yet to my knowledge no Pope taught a heresy excathedra.

What's interesting about this approach, is it's an anachronistic one - demanding proof that a Pope has "taught heresy ex-cathedra", when it is quite clear that it wasn't until well into the high middle ages that a Pope even did anything remotely like this (pretend to solemnly, and personally issue doctrinal statements he expected universal assent to), and even then I doubt he had the later "personal infallibility" of Vatican I in mind.

That's precisely the nature of novelty Polycarp - you'll never find your example, because no one prior to the 19th century who sat in the Pope's chair pretended to have this personal charism as a matter of fact.  Goodness, it wasn't until a Council so defined, that the Pope even received this "power" (an odd situation, logically speaking, if there ever was one - who is bestowing legtimacy here, the Pope, or the Council?  Catholicism now says it cannot be the latter...that would be the so called "concilliar heresy"...yet the RC world did not have it's mind made up for it on this subject, until a COUNCIL so decreed...enough to make your head spin!).

Seraphim
« Last Edit: September 08, 2003, 09:52:49 AM by Seraphim Reeves » Logged

Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 08, 2003, 10:13:42 AM »

I am aware of all of this information. Yet there is no document written or signed by Honorius that has him teaching heresy. A personal communication between him and someone else dosen't even come close to an excathedra decleration of dogma.
That Honorius was declared a heretic is fact. Why he was is the contraversy. Even if he errored in his personal belief he or even if he held a heretical belief did not teach any heresy as an official Church dogma.
I dare say there have been those Popes who have been terrible sinners yet to my knowledge no Pope taught a heresy excathedra.
Peace,
Polycarp


I am arguing this distinction to be worthless.  I understand the difference, I just don't accept it.  If the Pat. of Constantinople asked Pope Honorius "hey what should I be teaching" and Honorius got up and said "monothelitism!!" and he was a heretic, he's a heretic!  And especially before Vatican I made the distinction between "ex cathedra" and "ordinary magisterium"  how could one have possibly known for sure?

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #29 on: September 08, 2003, 06:06:22 PM »

I agree with you if he indeed specifically said in a letter that he agree with the heretical teaching then he was a heretic at least at the time he wrote the letter. Yet I am not aware that this is what happened.
I agree that if an ecumenical council examined the situation and determined that he was a heretic (which it did) then he was a heretic. Yet to my knowedge he did not write any official Church document saying that this heresy should be taught and accepted by the whole Church as official dogma of the Church.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #30 on: September 08, 2003, 06:25:33 PM »

Quote
I am aware of all of this information. Yet there is no document written or signed by Honorius that has him teaching heresy. A personal communication between him and someone else dosen't even come close to an excathedra decleration of dogma.
That Honorius was declared a heretic is fact. Why he was is the contraversy. Even if he errored in his personal belief he or even if he held a heretical belief did not teach any heresy as an official Church dogma.
I dare say there have been those Popes who have been terrible sinners yet to my knowledge no Pope taught a heresy excathedra.

What's interesting about this approach, is it's an anachronistic one - demanding proof that a Pope has "taught heresy ex-cathedra", when it is quite clear that it wasn't until well into the high middle ages that a Pope even did anything remotely like this (pretend to solemnly, and personally issue doctrinal statements he expected universal assent to), and even then I doubt he had the later "personal infallibility" of Vatican I in mind.

That's precisely the nature of novelty Polycarp - you'll never find your example, because no one prior to the 19th century who sat in the Pope's chair pretended to have this personal charism as a matter of fact.  Goodness, it wasn't until a Council so defined, that the Pope even received this "power" (an odd situation, logically speaking, if there ever was one - who is bestowing legtimacy here, the Pope, or the Council?  Catholicism now says it cannot be the latter...that would be the so called "concilliar heresy"...yet the RC world did not have it's mind made up for it on this subject, until a COUNCIL so decreed...enough to make your head spin!).

Seraphim


I disagree with your claim that no Pope exercised authority over the Church before the 19th century.
Clement told the Corinthian Church in no uncertain terms that they had to obey his order to reinstate their ligitimate clergy. Saint Ignatius of Antioch specifically wrote in one of his letters that it was the duty of the bishop of Rome to teach other churches.
The Pope who was in place during the council of Nicea and the other councils which happened around that time, unilaterally changed and refused to accept one of the decisions of the council. If I remember correctly it was the one dealing with the Patrearch of Constantinople's desire to be declared the the head of the Church instead of the bishop of Rome.
However the doctrine of papal infallibility was indeed a developed doctrine which was only defined in recent times.
It is an understandably contraversial dogma because it essentially forces all bishops to be under the Pope in some way or another. I'm not sure that the dogma is intended to be a "cart blanch" power for the Pope. I do not believe that a Pope can just come up with a dogmatic teaching that hasn't already been believed "unofficially".  For example if the Pope was to declare Theotokos divine and co-equal with the Trinity (as a wild example) there would be a major problem and I dare say it could result in the deposing of said Pope and the declaration of his being a heretic if he didn't recant.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,733


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 08, 2003, 07:14:07 PM »

For example if the Pope was to declare Theotokos divine and co-equal with the Trinity (as a wild example) there would be a major problem and I dare say it could result in the deposing of said Pope and the declaration of his being a heretic if he didn't recant.

Dear Polycarp,

What mechanism(s) exist in the Roman Catholic Church today to depose a reigning Pope?
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 08, 2003, 07:41:16 PM »

If anachronistic reasoning were valid, then I'd be on your side Polycarp.  Your reading of the Fathers on this subject requires you to read into their words what is not there, if we were to take them on their own terms.

Quote
I disagree with your claim that no Pope exercised authority over the Church before the 19th century.
Clement told the Corinthian Church in no uncertain terms that they had to obey his order to reinstate their ligitimate clergy. Saint Ignatius of Antioch specifically wrote in one of his letters that it was the duty of the bishop of Rome to teach other churches.

Actually it's funny you say this, because as of this time, I've actually returned to reading the Apostolic Fathers - the book I'm reading includes the epistle of St.Clement, and the Epistles of St.Ignatios.  We must be reading two different works, since I do not see any of what you're discussing here.

The problem with RC's, is they read their relatively modern innovations into ancient texts.  So, for example, if a Roman Bishop (there were no "Popes" as now understood in Clement's time - at best, many Bishops were being called "Abba" or "Papa", or something similar, which is the origin of the title "Pope" - eventually this became the formal, canonical title which came to also be applied to the Alexandrian Patriarch) admonishes an erring Church (whose clergy have obviously lost any ability to influence their own flock), or we see an example of the Church in Rome being recognized as an esteemed, ancient Church of Apostolic foundation (like many others, btw.), or even held in the highest regard (which no one denies), this is read into to be evidence for claims that the people making these comments in ancient times would have been totally unaware of.

Quote
The Pope who was in place during the council of Nicea and the other councils which happened around that time, unilaterally changed and refused to accept one of the decisions of the council. If I remember correctly it was the one dealing with the Patrearch of Constantinople's desire to be declared the the head of the Church instead of the bishop of Rome.

What you're forgetting is that Orthodox Christians understand that the Patirarch of Old Rome, amongst the canonical Patriarchs, was understood to be pre-eminant.  There is absolutely nothing that you're describing then, regarding Papal involvement in Ecumenical Councils, that cannot be understood in that Orthodox paradigm - there is nothing in those acts which necessitates the acknowledgement of latter Papal innovations/claims to extraordinary powers, and in fact, there is quite a bit in the circumstances of those Councils (and their canons) which in fact bars said innovations (such as limits being placed on Rome's juristictional rights.)

As for the issue of Constantinople, you're not "remember correctly" - the issue was, during the reign of St.John the Faster (Patriarch of Constantinople), the title "Oecumenical Patriarch" was applied to the Patirarch of Constantinople.  This was because Constantinople (not Rome) was the Imperial City now (the captial of the Empire), which the Romans understood to be universal (oecumenical).  Thus, just as the Empire itself had an "ecumenical librarian", or other things like this, the Empire recognized the Bishop of Constantinople as the "Imperial Bishop".

However, there was a break down in communication, which caused a brief tiff between two saints (St.John and St.Gregory, Pope of Rome.)  St.Gregory (whose See lay in the now Latin speaking west, which had substantially lost contact with the predominantly Greek speaking culture of the heart of the Empire - Rome itself once spoke Greek as it's common tongue, Latin only spoken by the upper classes and politicians) misunderstood this title to mean "universal bishop" - as if to say the Patriarch of Constantinople had universal juristiction everywhere, which amounted to making all other Bishops "sub-Bishops", or at best, extensions of his power.  It was not an argument over who is "head of the Church" (which is neither the Pope or Ecumenical Patriarch, but Christ), but over ecclessiastical juristiction of Bishops.

What is most interesting about St.Gregory's letter against this title (which he misunderstood), is that it is a stunning condemnation of the latter Papacy - for later Popes would claim the very power for themselves, which St.Gregory said was contary to the mind of the Church (the belief that a single bishop holds juristiction over all.)

Quote
However the doctrine of papal infallibility was indeed a developed doctrine which was only defined in recent times.

Arianism was also a "development of doctrine."  Substantial development is not devolopment at all, as much as it is evolution and substantial change (in fact, that is what evolution is, in the natural world - not just the accidental modification of a species, but it's gradual transformation into something else entirely.)  Given that there is no room in the ancient Church for such ideas as "universal juristiction" or "personal infallibility", it is obvious that Rome took a course which has resulted in tremendous change in her outlook - which is precisely why she alienated herself from the other ancient Patirarchal See's.

Quote
It is an understandably contraversial dogma because it essentially forces all bishops to be under the Pope in some way or another.

And that's the crux of the problem - there never was a time when all Bishops were canonically subordinate to a single Bishop.

Quote
I'm not sure that the dogma is intended to be a "cart blanch" power for the Pope. I do not believe that a Pope can just come up with a dogmatic teaching that hasn't already been believed "unofficially".  For example if the Pope was to declare Theotokos divine and co-equal with the Trinity (as a wild example) there would be a major problem and I dare say it could result in the deposing of said Pope and the declaration of his being a heretic if he didn't recant.

Yes, but who is to say?  In your religion, no one can judge the Pope - since he holds "universal juristiction", obviously there is no one with juristiction over him.  That being the case, how could he be judged?  Indeed, if he were to promulgate such a blasphemous teaching (as the example you provided), how could anyone dissent, if he did so under the guise of his "supreme magisterium" - isn't that the whole point, that he cannot err and do such things (as teach his church a heresy, while acting as teacher)?

To say that the Pope is only infallible when he is correct, is an absurdity - for the same can be said of every man, woman, and child on the face of the planet.

Seraphim
Logged

Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #33 on: September 08, 2003, 09:52:42 PM »

A few points need to be addressed regarding Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. Firstly you’ll notice that Clement does not act by virtue of any individual power vested in him. The letter is addressed from “the Church of God which resides as a stranger at Rome to the Church of God which is a stranger at Corinth”. Johannes Quasten and Joseph Plumpe (the Roman Catholic editors of the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians in the “Ancient Christian Writers” series) make the admission that “there is no explicit expression in the letter of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, yet neither is there anything in it to clash with this belief.” (pg. 4)

More importantly, it is impossible for Clement to have been Bishop of Rome at the time the letter to the Corinthians was written. We know for certain it was written after a persecution (1 Clem.1: “owing to the suddenly bursting and rapidly succeeding calamities and untoward experiences that have befallen usGǪ”). Now there were two persecutions which beset the Roman Church in the latter half of the 1st Century - that of Nero in the 60’s A.D. and that of Domitian in the 90’s A.D. So which was it? Clement gives us a clue. He mentions the Jewish sacrifices still occurring in Jerusalem in Chapter 41 verse 2:

Not everywhere, brethren, are sacrifices offered - be they perpetual offerings, or votive offerings, or sin offerings, or trespass offerings - but at Jerusalem only; and there offerings are not made in every place, but in front of the sanctuary where the gift to be offered is inspected for blemishes by the high priest and the aforesaid ministers.

Clement clearly states that the sacrifices in Jerusalem are still being offered. Which leads to my next point: the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. and the sacrifices ceased after that date. This fact excludes the possibility of Clement’s letter being written during the Domitian persecution. But according to Eusebius, it was precisely during Domitian’s reign that Clement was Bishop of Rome! In Eusebius’ History of the Church, we read:

CHAPTER XIII.

Anencletus, the Second Bishop of Rome.

    After Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him. (1) In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, (2) delivered his office to Anencletus. (3) But Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian after he had reigned two years and the same number of months. (4)

CHAPTER XIV.

Abilius, the Second Bishop of Alexandria.

    In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, (1) the first bishop of the parish of Alexandria, died after holding office twenty-two years, and was succeeded by Abilius, (2) the second bishop.

CHAPTER XV.

Clement, the Third Bishop of Rome.

    In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus (1) after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows: (2) "With Clement arid the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the book of life."

CHAPTER XVI.


The Epistle of Clement.

    There is extant an epistle of this Clement (1) which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit. (2)  He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church. (3) We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own. (4) And of the fact that a sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the time referred to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness. (5)

CHAPTER XVII.

The Persecution under Domitian.

    Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his. hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, (1) although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us. (2)

 

Eusebius is clear that Clement became Bishop of Rome after Anencletus during the 12th year of Domitian’s reign. The only logical conclusion we can draw is that Clement’s letter was written after the Neronian persecution, during which time he was not Bishop of Rome.

Please also keep in mind that the history of the Church is filled with incidences of Bishops appealing to other Bishops. The Bishop of Rome was among those who had recourse to other Bishops, hardly the actions of one who supposedly had universal jurisdiction over the Universal Church!
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #34 on: September 08, 2003, 10:52:51 PM »

For example if the Pope was to declare Theotokos divine and co-equal with the Trinity (as a wild example) there would be a major problem and I dare say it could result in the deposing of said Pope and the declaration of his being a heretic if he didn't recant.

Dear Polycarp,

What mechanism(s) exist in the Roman Catholic Church today to depose a reigning Pope?  

Hello Mor,
The same as have existed for 2000 years. The bishops. If a Pope becomes mentaly ill or heretical etc. The bishops will do what has to be done to protect the Church. The Church is under the care of the Holy Spirit. We humans only think we are in charge.  Roll Eyes One thing I have learned if nothing else is don't worry God has everything in control, no matter how bad we humans try to mess thing up.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #35 on: September 08, 2003, 11:04:05 PM »

Polycarp, what legitimate vehicle is there in the present RCC structure to convene the bishops to do such a thing as to dethrone an erring, reigning Pope?  Is it not the Pope alone who can do such a convening?  And the Papacy has already declared itself superior to Ecumenical Councils!  

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #36 on: September 08, 2003, 11:33:22 PM »

If anachronistic reasoning were valid, then I'd be on your side Polycarp.  Your reading of the Fathers on this subject requires you to read into their words what is not there, if we were to take them on their own terms.


 Well I had to refreash my memory. It is not so good you know. But it at least reminds me that I need to look up the information I read in the past. Rather than read into words let's take a look at what some had to say about Papal authority in the ancient Church.

Council of Sardica



"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

"f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (canon 4).

 
Optatus of Milevus



"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

 
Council of Constantinople I



"The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome" (canon 3 [A.D. 381]).

 
Pope Damasus I



"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

 
Synod of Ambrose



"We recognize in the letter of your holiness [Pope Siricius] the vigilance of the good shepherd. You faithfully watch over the gate entrusted to you, and with pious care you guard Christ’s sheepfold [John 10:7ff], you that are worthy to have the Lord’s sheep hear and follow you" (Synodal Letter to Pope Siricius [A.D. 389]).

 
Jerome



"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

 
Augustine



"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).

"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

 
Pope Innocent I



"If cases of greater importance are to be heard [at a council], they are, as the synod decrees and as happy custom requires, after episcopal judgment, to be referred to the Apostolic See" (Letters 2:3:6 [A.D. 408]).

"In seeking the things of God . . . following the examples of ancient tradition . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged. Following him, we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to approve what is laudable. Or rather, guarding with your priestly office what the Fathers instituted, you did not regard what they had decided, not by human but by divine judgments, as something to be trampled on. They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See [Rome], so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and thence other churches—just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an incorrupted head. . . ." (ibid., 29:1).

 
Pope Celestine I



"We enjoin upon you [my legates to the Council of Ephesus] the necessary task of guarding the authority of the Apostolic See. And if the instructions handed to you have to mention this and if you have to be present in the assembly, if it comes to controversy, it is not yours to join the fight but to judge of the opinions [on my behalf]" (Letters 17 [A.D. 431]).

 
Council of Ephesus



"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

 
Pope Leo I



"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See—out of reverence for it, I mean—has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom" (Letters 10:2-3 [A.D. 445]).

"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (ibid., 110).

"If in your view, [Anastasius of Thessalonica], in regard to a matter to be handled and decided jointly with your brothers, their decision was other than what you wanted, then let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us. . . . Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen [to be apostles], but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).

 
Peter Chrysologus



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

 
Council of Chalcedon



"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’" (ibid., session 2).  
 
Pope Gregory I



"Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]" (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).


It was actually the events around the time of the council of Chalcedon that I was thinking of.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #37 on: September 08, 2003, 11:39:17 PM »

Polycarp, what legitimate vehicle is there in the present RCC structure to convene the bishops to do such a thing as to dethrone an erring, reigning Pope?  Is it not the Pope alone who can do such a convening?  And the Papacy has already declared itself superior to Ecumenical Councils!  

Hypo-Ortho  

I'm not so sure that the doctrine of infallability is that powerful! Do you really think that if a Pope was to go off and declare some totally errant dogma excathedra that there wouldn't be a reaction by the Cardinals and bishops and the laity that the situation would be taken care of? History shows that even the people can depose a Pope if the circumstances warrant.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,733


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 08, 2003, 11:59:10 PM »

Hello Mor,
The same as have existed for 2000 years. The bishops. If a Pope becomes mentaly ill or heretical etc. The bishops will do what has to be done to protect the Church. The Church is under the care of the Holy Spirit. We humans only think we are in charge.  Roll Eyes One thing I have learned if nothing else is don't worry God has everything in control, no matter how bad we humans try to mess thing up.

Dear Polycarp,

The bishops will do what has to be done to protect the Church?  But the bishops do not have that kind of power!  It doesn't seem possible that inferiors can force a superior who gave them whatever temporal authority they have to do something, for that would mean they have power over that superior.  Even in recent days, when some prominent clerics were talking about the Pope's resignation (I think, for instance, of the public speculation of Card. Daneels of Belgium), it was made very clear in the secular news reports I saw that no one can force a Pope out of office even if he is incapacitated in some way, and that the Roman Catholic Church had no canonical means of removing a legitimately elected Pope.  And you are saying that there is such a process?  Certainly, I've never read it in the Code of Canon Law.  Where is this authority?

Quote
Do you really think that if a Pope was to go off and declare some totally errant dogma excathedra that there wouldn't be a reaction by the Cardinals and bishops and the laity that the situation would be taken care of?

Well, the doctrine says that such a situation would not happen, to be fair, but I think there is evidence to argue against this historically.  Be that as it may, maybe there would be a reaction from the clergy and the laity, but what recourse would they have?  If he was a legitimately elected Pope, and he declared something that went against what the Church has always believed, who could remove him?  Who could judge him to be a heretic?  In the RC system, only God is superior to a Pope.  They can react all they want, but they would be faced with a real problem.

Quote
History shows that even the people can depose a Pope if the circumstances warrant.

When has this happened canonically?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2003, 11:59:57 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #39 on: September 09, 2003, 10:30:40 AM »

Hi Mor,
Unfortunately I lent out my Papal history textbook. But at least once a Pope was litterally thrown out by the populace of Rome and a new Pope elected.
You are correct that by faith we believe that God would prevent a Pope from declaring a heretical dogma excathedra. And that's what it's all about isn't it, Faith.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,733


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 09, 2003, 11:06:13 AM »

Hi Mor,
Unfortunately I lent out my Papal history textbook. But at least once a Pope was litterally thrown out by the populace of Rome and a new Pope elected.
You are correct that by faith we believe that God would prevent a Pope from declaring a heretical dogma excathedra. And that's what it's all about isn't it, Faith.
Peace,
Polycarp

OK, perhaps this is true.  But what canonical means are there at the present time to remove a Pope from office?  I highly doubt that the instance you referred to was strictly canonical.  Even if the election that followed was canonical and recognised, I don't know how much that matters in the present day.  If I'm not mistaken, the present Code of Canon Law basically revokes any rule that runs contrary to it because it is now the official law.  Does the CIC offer a canonical way to remove from office/depose a currently reigning canonically elected Pope?
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #41 on: September 09, 2003, 02:49:59 PM »

Hi Mor,
Unfortunately I lent out my Papal history textbook. But at least once a Pope was litterally thrown out by the populace of Rome and a new Pope elected.
You are correct that by faith we believe that God would prevent a Pope from declaring a heretical dogma excathedra. And that's what it's all about isn't it, Faith.
Peace,
Polycarp

OK, perhaps this is true.  But what canonical means are there at the present time to remove a Pope from office?  I highly doubt that the instance you referred to was strictly canonical.  Even if the election that followed was canonical and recognised, I don't know how much that matters in the present day.  If I'm not mistaken, the present Code of Canon Law basically revokes any rule that runs contrary to it because it is now the official law.  Does the CIC offer a canonical way to remove from office/depose a currently reigning canonically elected Pope?  

Hello Mor,
Honestly I don't know what canon law there is regarding this issue. I'm just a layman and I have no training. My understanding of the Papacy is that the Pope isn't as all powerful as non-Catholics seem to think. Just because the Pope is said to be able to teach infallably when speaking excathedra dosen't make him all powerful. He can't just make up doctrines and declare them dogma. They have to be things that the Church already believes or has understood from the ancient deposit of the Faith.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #42 on: September 09, 2003, 04:37:14 PM »



 Although certainly there may be Orthodox who take the view that the Pope is some "all-Powerful" ruler, most would know what the Church teaches that no one individual bishop however high can teach infallibly.  Only an Ecumenical Council guided by the Holy Spirit can teach infallibly in the view of the Orthodox Church.
Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
Athanasius
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


Place Personal Text Here


« Reply #43 on: September 09, 2003, 06:30:52 PM »

This is a very interesting topic. I would like to see resonses to the qoutes that Saint Polycarp listed. I am aware of qoutes from some of the very same persons he listed that contradict Papal supremacy though the qoutes from Damasus and Leo are genuine as Rome had developed this ecclesiology by that time. To qoute the Council of Chalcedon as proof of Papal supremacy however is very anachronistic. The Council of Chalcedon passed the the 28th canon which contradicts Papal supremacy in SPITE OF THE PROTESTS OF LEO who could only protest on the basis that he thought canon 28 contradicted canon 6 of Nicea because he knew that nobody else at the council shared his ecclesiology or would even understand it. To qoute the Council of Constantinople as proof of Papal supremacy is also dishonest as the primacy being spoken of in this context is political in nature and one of honor not jurisdiction. I.E. Constantinople was given the second place of honor after Rome because Constantinople was now the captial whereas Rome used to be. It has nothing to do with Papal supremacy. In fact Pope Damasus issued his statements on Papal supremacy in response to the Council of Constantinople because he understood that the Council was interpreting Rome's primacy solely in political and non-theological terms. Damasus to my knowledge is the first person to explicitly teach the universal supremacy of the Pope whereas earlier Fathers (i.e. Cyprian for example) and later ones (i.e. John Chrysostom, Augustine, Pope Gregory, Ambrose, etc.) as well as councils (i.e. Chalcedon) contradict this teaching. To put it this way: the doctrine of universal supremacy has NEVER been the universal teaching of the Church. It was condemned by everyone at Chalcedon (except for Leo). Can you blame the Orthodox for saying Rome was making an innovation when the entire Eastern Church has never had this understanding?
As far as Honorious. He was condemned as a heretic by the 6th ecumenical council. That is a fact. The council burned his writings because they taught heresy. Both Rome and the rest of the Church condemned him for teaching heresy, not merely for not correcting others.

Athanasius
Logged

God became man that man might become God-St. Athanasius
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #44 on: September 09, 2003, 09:20:18 PM »

Hi Atheniasus,
It seems to me that many of the quotes are saying that the Pope has authority because he is the successor of Peter. Not that being bishop of Rome wasn't a factor, but being the successor of Peter is the main claim. Therefore Constantinople's attempt to gain authority equal or superior to the Popes would be to usurp the position of Peter's successors. There may have been disagreement by the other Patrearchtates about Rome's claims but one can find the early bishops of Rome slowly but surely increasing their feeling that they had to take responsability for the whole Church when the need arose.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   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 0.175 seconds with 72 queries.