OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 06:04:26 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Has the RC Pope ever committed Heresy?  (Read 2432 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« on: July 10, 2010, 05:36:35 AM »

So I'm a Roman Catholic in the midst of my early EO inquiry, and have essentially been able to narrow the question down to the papacy. Purgatory, IC, Development of Doctrine, Leavened Bread, etc. is all settled one way or the other based on whether or not the Roman Pontiff is A) Head of the Universal Church as successor to Peter, and B) Infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra on matters of doctrine/morals.

I've been literally flooded with both biblical, scholarly and church father sources concerning this matter from perusing boards, posting threads about it, here and on comparable RC boards, corresponding with friends/clergy, etc., and have yet to find a silver bullet; one ECF seems to all but say what Vatican I said in one quote, but then another refutes that, and then the original quote, in context, doesn't seem the same as it did, etc...

One question I figured was worth putting out there is this: we all know that members of Clergy can and have condoned and committed heresies. From my understanding, the OC would even concede that a Patriarch, even the Ecumenical Patriarch, can do such a thing. Rome, on the other hand, essentially says that when speaking Ex Cathedra the Pope absolutely cannot err. Is there any historical point, in the eyes of Orthodoxy, when the Roman Pope DID commit heresy, other than the issues immediately surrounding the schism?

Thanks!
Jim
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,140



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2010, 07:31:15 AM »

Many.

See the statements of these holy Orthodox popes:

"Certainly Peter, the first of the Apostles, was himself a member of the holy and catholic Church. Paul, Andrew, John, what were they if not the heads of particular communities? And yet, members under just one Head? (...) the prelates of this Apostolic See, which I serve by the Divine Providence, were offered by the venerable Coucil of Calcedony the honour of being called "Universal". But none of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or to take this ill-fated name, for if they did, if because of the status of their pontificate it took upon itself the glory of singularity, it would deny (this same glory) to all their brothers..." (Book V, Epistl XVIII) - Holy Orthodox Pope Gregory, the Great

"This name, "Universal", was offered by the Holy Synod of Calcedony to the pontifice of this apostolic see, which by divine providence I serve. But none of my predecessors ever conscented in using a title so prophane, since if a Patriarch was to be called Universal, the name of "Patriarch" would be taken away from the others. Be this far from the mind of a Christian: that he may wish to grab for him what he may consider to decrease, as little as it may be, the honour of his brothers..." (Book V, Epistle XLIII) - Holy Orthodox Pope Gregory, the Great

"Now, confidently, I say that whosoever calls himself, or wishes to be called, Universal Patriarch, is in this passion the forerunner of Antichrist, for he proudly puts himself above all the others." Book VII - Epistle XXXIII) Holy Orthodox Pope Gregory, the Great


"Your Holiness... you address me saying, "according to your command". This word "command", I beg you, remove from my ears, for I know who I am and who you are. In position, you are my brother, in character my father... in the preface of the epistle you sent me, what I had forbidden you, you found adequate to make use of a proud title, calling me Universal Pope. But, I beg you, Your Most Sweet Holiness, do not do this again, for what is given to someone beyong what reason demands, is subtracted from yourself... for if Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny to yourself that in which associates universality to me." Book VIII - Epistle XXX - Holy Orthodox Pope Gregory, the Great



"Haec Leo posui amore et cautela Orthodoxae Fidei"
"I, Leo, put here (the Orthodox Creed without the Filioque) for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith"
Pope Leo III, resisting the inclusion of the heretical Filioque in the Creed by Charlesmagne.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2010, 11:58:18 AM »

Has the Roman Catholic Pope ever committed heresy? Depends on who you ask. I recall reading about a Pope (can't remember which one, perhaps some fellow Catholics could help me) that privately held a heretical view yet when it came time defend one side or the other, this Pope formally and publicly took the side of orthodoxy.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2010, 12:16:29 PM »

Pope Honorius
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2010, 02:02:12 PM »

Did Honorius proclaim Monothelism ex cathedra?
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2010, 02:35:04 PM »

While we don't believe St. Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome, many Roman Catholics believe he was, so I'll mention this...
St. Peter himself committed heresy. St. Peter fell into the heresy of Judaizing, and eventually he was reprimanded and the heresy was condemned at the Council of Jerusalem. Thankfully St. Peter repented of his Judaizing.

There are instances of Popes committing heresy, even the the Early Church...
The timeline in this .pdf from Fr. Andrew Steven Damick includes dates/notes of a couple Popes that fell into heresy:
http://saintpaulemmaus.org/files/heterodoxy/02---Outline.pdf

"50 - Apostolic Council of Jerusalem overrules St. Peter’s Judaizing."
"255 - St. Cyprian of Carthage rejects Pope Stephen I’s ruling on the Donatist controversy."
"357 - Pope Liberius signs Semi-Arian creed (possibly under duress)."
"417 - Pope Zosimus waffles on Pelagianism."
"ca. 537 - Pope Vigilius allegedly writes letter endorsing Monophysitism."
"680-681 - Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematizes Pope Honorius as a Monothelite heretic."

Those are just a few instances...
« Last Edit: July 10, 2010, 02:35:14 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2010, 02:41:15 PM »

Did Honorius proclaim Monothelism ex cathedra?

RCCs say - no. We say - yes.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2010, 02:53:45 PM »

Why does the RC say no, and the EOC say yes? Could you elaborate?
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,006


"My god is greater."


« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2010, 02:58:42 PM »

Did Honorius proclaim Monothelism ex cathedra?

When Vatican I defined Papal infallibility, they were aware of the case of Pope Honorius. It was the basis on which Catholics such as Cardinal Newman were objecting to the newly proposed dogma. So it is no surprise, nor particularly impressive, that the definition of Papal infallibility somehow circumvents the case of Pope Honorius with this stringent ex cathedra requirement- they had him in mind when they defined it.

But to answer your question, has the RC Pope ever committed heresy, the answer is plainly, "Yes," whether you consider his heresy to be ex cathedra or not. The Sixth Ecumenical Council, which the RCC accepts, plainly says "To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!"

Some modern Vatican apologists attempt to say that Honorius was not actually guilty of heresy, simply of failing to suppress heresy, which plainly contradicts the judgment of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.  
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,991



« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2010, 08:19:32 PM »

Is this really an honest question?  Or are we just trying to be provocative? Wink
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2010, 09:33:34 PM »

Is this really an honest question?  Or are we just trying to be provocative? Wink

I thought the title of this thread was a rhetorical question.
Logged
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2010, 04:47:04 AM »

As a new inquirer, this is a completely honest question. I understand fully that some EO view Filioque as heresy, as well as many of the secondary doctrinal teachings that have arisen in the last 200 years or so, but want I want to know is:

Ex Cathedra, that is, speaking for the whole church, concerning faith/morals, has the Roman Pope proclaimed heresy, NOT including any schism-related issues (i.e. filioque)? I'm absolutely not being provocative; I'm hungry for truth, and I'm hung up on the papacy, bigtime.

I'd also be very interested in a follow-up to "mike's" post saying that the RCC does not believe Honorius made any ex cathedra statements, while the EOC does. Why is that?
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2010, 04:58:19 AM »

The Sad Tale of Pope Honorius

1. His condemnation is found in the Acts of the 13th Session of the 6th Ecumenical Council.

2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same Session.

3. In the 17th session of the 6th Ecumenical Council, the Council Fathers proclaimed:

........................"Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius,..."

........................The above clinches it, unless we want to argue that an Ecumenical Council and the Popes who ratified it may err but in that case the burden of proof is on the person who opposes the Council and the papal ratification.


4. In the decree of faith published at the 17th Session it is stated that "the originator of all evil the Devil...found a fit tool for his will in...Honorius, Pope of Old Rome..."

5. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that "Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome" they had "punished with exclusion and anathema" because he followed the monothelites.

6. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it "has slain Honorius with an anathema"

7. The imperial decree speaks of the "unholy priests who
infected the Church and falsely governed" and mentions among them "Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself."

The Emperor goes on to anathematize "Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."

8. Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.

9. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is
mentioned in the Trullan Canons.

10. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the
anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.

11. Honorius's name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius's life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)

12. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by
each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh centuries, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II:

............................."...smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, together with Honorius because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics."

13. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. This reference to Honorius was removed before the definition of papal infallibility.

14. The Catholic Encylopedia says that no Catholic may deny that Pope Honorius was a heretic.

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact..."

This statement has the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and that the Popes after him used their authority to uphold the decision against him.
Logged
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2010, 05:34:48 AM »

Understood, but did he proclaim Monothelism ex cathedra?
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2010, 05:45:35 AM »

Understood, but did he proclaim Monothelism ex cathedra?

Dear Jim,

It is absolutely imposible to extract from Catholics a list of ex cathedra statements so it is just impossible to know what is ex cathedra and what is not..

Given the fact that he was writing to the Patriarch of Constantinople and commending the heresy of monothelitism to the Patriarch it must have a measure of authority.   This was one big boy writing to another big boy in the Church on an issue which was tearing the Church in half.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 05:46:23 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Robert W
Self-appointed forum herald
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Finland
Posts: 469


Love is no feeling


« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2010, 06:53:45 AM »

Is there any historical point, in the eyes of Orthodoxy, when the Roman Pope DID commit heresy, other than the issues immediately surrounding the schism?

To Honorius the heretic anathema!

If it was serious enough to be a topic of discussion in an ecumenical council then it does not really matter much how the Romans later defined their doctrine of "infallible when ex-cathedra".
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,235



« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2010, 02:05:43 PM »

Understood, but did he proclaim Monothelism ex cathedra?
Well, considering that the whole idea of ex cathedra is relatively new (and not even fathomed when Rome was a part of the Orthodox Church), I think you have your answer.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,604



« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2010, 02:36:13 PM »

As a new inquirer, this is a completely honest question. I understand fully that some EO view Filioque as heresy, as well as many of the secondary doctrinal teachings that have arisen in the last 200 years or so, but want I want to know is:

Ex Cathedra, that is, speaking for the whole church, concerning faith/morals, has the Roman Pope proclaimed heresy, NOT including any schism-related issues (i.e. filioque)? I'm absolutely not being provocative; I'm hungry for truth, and I'm hung up on the papacy, bigtime.

I'd also be very interested in a follow-up to "mike's" post saying that the RCC does not believe Honorius made any ex cathedra statements, while the EOC does. Why is that?
Because trying to get the Vatican to state what an ex cathedra pronouncement requires is like nailing jello. And we Orthodox do not recognize the fictious "ex cathedra" category. A bishop's word is a bishops's word, whenever and wherever it is uttered.

Lumen Gentium:
Quote
This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
So if he doesn't speak ex cathedra, we have to act as if he did.  Big help, infallibility.

We can't get an offical list of "ex cathedra" statements, as the unofficial ones differ widely. The further back we go, the higher the revisionism that goes on.
Quote
It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing. Honorius entirely agrees with the caution which Sergius recommends. He praises Sergius for eventually dropping the new expression "one operation", but he unfortunately also agrees with him that it will be well to avoid "two operations" also; for if the former sounds Eutychian, the latter may be judged to be Nestorian. Another passage is even more difficult to account for. Following the lead of Sergius, who had said that "two operations" might lead people to think two contrary wills were admitted in Christ, Honorius (after explaining the communicatio idiomatum, by which it can be said that God was crucified, and that the Man came down from heaven) adds: "Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, 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." Other passages in the letter are orthodox. But it is plain that the pope simply followed Sergius, without going more deeply into the question. The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance. But before, and even just after, the Vatican Council such a view was sometimes urged, though almost solely by the opponents of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Part of a second letter of Honorius to Sergius was read at the eighth council. It disapproves rather more strongly of the mention of either one operation or two; but it has the merit of referring to the words of St. Leo which Sergius had cited....It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.

St. Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, ...and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted." This appears to express exactly the mind of the council, only that the council avoided suggesting that Honorius disgraced the Roman Church. The last words of the quotation are given above as in the Greek of the letter, because great importance has been attached to them by a large number of Catholic apologists. Pennacchi, followed by Grisar, taught that by these words Leo II explicitly abrogated the condemnation for heresy by the council, and substituted a condemnation for negligence. Nothing, however, could be less explicit. Hefele, with many others before and after him, held that Leo II by the same words explained the sense in which the sentence of Honorius was to be understood. Such a distinction between the pope's view and the council's view is not justified by close examination of the facts. At best such a system of defence was exceedingly precarious, for the milder reading of the Latin is just as likely to be original: "but by profane treachery attempted to pollute its purity". In this form Honorius is certainly not exculpated, yet the pope declares that he did not actually succeed in polluting the immaculate Roman Church. However, in his letter to the Spanish King Erwig, he has: "And with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished." To the Spanish bishops he explains his meaning: "With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence." That is, he did not insist on the "two operations", but agreed with Sergius that the whole matter should be hushed up. Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils without special remark; also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: "Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ii, 9). It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions.

The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth century. Difficulties made themselves felt when, after the Great Western Schism, papal infallibility began to be doubted. Protestantism and Gallicanism made vigorous attacks on the unfortunate pope, and at the time of the Vatican Council Honorius figured in every pamphlet and every speech on ecclesiastical subjects. The question has not only been debated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as well as by the professed controversialists... Bishop Hefele before 1870 took the view that Honorius's letter was not strictly heretical but was gravely incorrect, and that its condemnation by an ecumenical council was a serious difficulty against the "personal" infallibility of the popes. After his hesitating acceptance of the Vatican decrees he modified his view; he now taught that Honorius's letter was a definition ex cathedra, that it was incorrectly worded, but that the thought of the writer was orthodox (true enough; but, in a definition of faith, surely the words are of primary importance); the council judged Honorius by his words, and condemned him simply as a Monothelite; Leo II accepted and confirmed the condemnation by the council, but, in doing so, he carefully defined in what sense the condemnation was to be understood. These views of Hefele's, which he put forth with edifying modesty and submission as the best explanation he could give of what had previously seemed to him a formidable difficulty, have had a surprisingly wide influence, and have been adopted by many Catholic writers, save only his mistaken notion that a letter like that of Honorius can be supposed to fulfil the conditions laid down by the Vatican Council for an ex cathedra judgment (so Jungmann and many controversialists).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#III
Now, if we can only get a ruling on whether Pope St. Leo's Letter of Confirmation was ex cathedra.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2010, 02:38:29 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,140



WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2010, 02:48:39 PM »

Was this statement from Pope Gregory, the Great ex-cathedra?

"Now, confidently, I say that whosoever calls himself, or wishes to be called, Universal Patriarch, is in this passion the forerunner of Antichrist, for he proudly puts himself above all the others." Book VII - Epistle XXXIII) Holy Orthodox Pope Gregory, the Great
« Last Edit: July 16, 2010, 02:48:56 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,604



« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2010, 03:05:44 PM »

Was this statement from Pope Gregory, the Great ex-cathedra?

"Now, confidently, I say that whosoever calls himself, or wishes to be called, Universal Patriarch, is in this passion the forerunner of Antichrist, for he proudly puts himself above all the others." Book VII - Epistle XXXIII) Holy Orthodox Pope Gregory, the Great
How about his letter to Pope Eulogius of Alexandria, in the same correspondance.
Dear Papist,

Do you remember this message of mine?

---------------

There is so much that is wrong with some of the quotes on that website  http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
 that it is difficult to know where to begin to correct it. I've addressed some of the misuse of some of the quotes in earlier posts.

One of the worst examples is the truncated and mangled version of the quote attributed to Saint Gregory of Rome writing to the Pope of Alexandria Eulogius. This quote has been so distorted that it is honestly very difficult not to suspect the author guilty of the intention to be deceptive. (Of course he may have simply taken the quote from another unscrupulous article, in good faith.)

Here is the mangled version on the Catholic Answers website, cunningly designed to make it appear to be supportive of modern papal claims:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

"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]).



Here is what Pope Gregory actually wrote. Compare it with the version on that website.

"Your most sweet Holiness [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.... I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair.... 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 Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19).... though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See [Rome] in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself stablished the See [Antioch] in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside ... "
Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XL. To Eulogius, Bishop




Do you see that phrases which have been cunningly ommited in the Catholic article - the sections where the Pope says that Rome and the other two Petrine sees of Antioch and Alexandria are equal.


For example, this has been cut out:
"...with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one."

And this has been cut out:
"Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside..."

The distortion of this quote on www.catholic.com is very bad scholarship and does the site no credit.


Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 501


Transfiguration


« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2010, 10:35:51 PM »

While we don't believe St. Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome

What?? Since when?  Huh
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2010, 11:14:39 PM »

While we don't believe St. Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome

What?? Since when?  Huh

I've read plenty of Orthodox sources that cite Peter as Bishop of Antioch, but say he never served as the Bishop of Rome. (he didn't even appoint St. Linus as his successor, St. Linus was elected as Bishop)
« Last Edit: July 16, 2010, 11:15:11 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2010, 11:34:28 PM »

Technically, apostles are not bishops. They are appointers of bishops. They outrank bishops.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2010, 11:45:19 PM »

Was this statement from Pope Gregory, the Great ex-cathedra?

"Now, confidently, I say that whosoever calls himself, or wishes to be called, Universal Patriarch, is in this passion the forerunner of Antichrist, for he proudly puts himself above all the others." Book VII - Epistle XXXIII) Holy Orthodox Pope Gregory, the Great

It amused me greatly that Rome's war with the Ecumenical Patriarch title has been a godsend for those who oppose wide and expansive interpretations of Canon 28 - one essay at AOI was practically picking up where Pope Gregory left off. ( Of course, there's the standard apologetic fare for those who weren't too keen on the Western papacy... )
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: July 17, 2010, 12:21:24 AM »

Was this statement from Pope Gregory, the Great ex-cathedra?

"Now, confidently, I say that whosoever calls himself, or wishes to be called, Universal Patriarch, is in this passion the forerunner of Antichrist, for he proudly puts himself above all the others." Book VII - Epistle XXXIII) Holy Orthodox Pope Gregory, the Great

It amused me greatly that Rome's war with the Ecumenical Patriarch title has been a godsend for those who oppose wide and expansive interpretations of Canon 28


When Rome and Constantinople achieve union, Canon 28 will require Rome to relinquish some large territories to Constantinople - North America, South America, Australia...
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,604



« Reply #25 on: July 17, 2010, 12:32:34 AM »

Was this statement from Pope Gregory, the Great ex-cathedra?

"Now, confidently, I say that whosoever calls himself, or wishes to be called, Universal Patriarch, is in this passion the forerunner of Antichrist, for he proudly puts himself above all the others." Book VII - Epistle XXXIII) Holy Orthodox Pope Gregory, the Great

It amused me greatly that Rome's war with the Ecumenical Patriarch title has been a godsend for those who oppose wide and expansive interpretations of Canon 28


When Rome and Constantinople achieve union, Canon 28 will require Rome to relinquish some large territories to Constantinople - North America, South America, Australia...
Speaking for Antioch, I'd say a pox on both their houses.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 12:38:50 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #26 on: July 17, 2010, 12:36:23 AM »

"255 - St. Cyprian of Carthage rejects Pope Stephen I’s ruling on the Donatist controversy."

But were St. Stephen's views actually heretical or just one of several approaches to dealing with some heretics and schismatics? Rome's views prevailed concerning the Novatians (whose followers St. Cyprian wanted (re)baptised).

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/reception_church_a_pagodin.htm

Quote
Even though the First Ecumenical Council made no final ruling on this question, its three canons: 8th, 11th and 19th, breathe with mercy towards those who have fallen during the time of persecution or those who stepped away from Orthodoxy during the Novatian schism[21] or into Paul of Samosata's heresy[22]. Novatian's followers, who called themselves "pure and better," were to be received through repentance. Paulianists were to be received by Baptism since their dogmatic teaching was a distortion of Orthodox teaching, after which their clerics could be received [by ordination, trans.] into the clergy of the Orthodox Church.

Quote
"ca. 537 - Pope Vigilius allegedly writes letter endorsing Monophysitism."

Some Catholic sites - correctly, I think - referred to Vigilius as an anti-pope, certainly the earliest parts of his papacy, which actually overlapped with the previous pope. St. Silverius was forced to resign by Emperor Justinian, and the privations he suffered as a result of the forced abdicacy, resulted him him being considered a martyr in the Western church. Despite being the emperor's man on the papacy, Vigilius dithered back and forth in the Three Chapters controversy and was deeply disliked in both East and West and was actually excommunicated by the African Church (which was bitterly opposed to the Emperor as well).

The one site claimed that the particular letter attributed to Vigilius on behalf of Monophysites emanated from his anti-pope period... !

Quote
"680-681 - Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematizes Pope Honorius as a Monothelite heretic."

One wonders what SS. Martin and Maximus the Confessors would have made of this. St. Martin had the temerity of invoking a council without the emperor's approval, which anathemized monotheletism. Both of them were martyred although their views on Monotheletism prevailed.


« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 12:38:15 AM by John Larocque » Logged
Tags: catholic Pope papacy heresy Rome schism 
Pages: 1   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 0.123 seconds with 54 queries.