OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 05:29:01 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 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Honorius and Pastor Aeternus  (Read 16662 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« on: September 18, 2010, 05:11:59 PM »

It might be that a study on Pastor Aeternus in itself is overdue, but I thought of this in reference to this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29933.msg473254/topicseen.html#msg473254
I'll start with what the Vatican says about itself now. The bolded is what is the bare minimum of what the Vatican says is infallible dogma ex cathedra, but, Lord wiling, I'll be dealing with the rest too, as we should-particularly given that the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

Session 4 : 18 July 1870

First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record.

1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37], in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.

2. Therefore, before he was glorified, he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38].

3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.

4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.

5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41].

6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends.

7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.

8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.

Chapter 1
On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42], that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:

Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .

3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due." [51]

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion [56].

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
"The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled." [57]

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence:
"The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church." [58]

3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59].

5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema
.

Given at Rome in public session, solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of Our Pontificate.

In conformity with the original.

Joseph, Bishop of St. Polten Secretary to the Vatican Council

37 1 Pt 2,25.

38 Jn 17, 20-21.

39 Jn 15, 19.

40 Jn 20, 21.

41 Leo 1, Serm. (Sermons), 4 (elsewhere 3), ch. 2 for the day of his birth (PL 54, 150).

42 Jn 1, 42.

43 Mt 16, 16 19.

44 Jn 21, 15-17.

45 See Mt 7, 25; Lk 6, 48.

46 From the speech of Philip, the Roman legate, at the 3rd session of the Council of Ephesus (D no. 112).

47 Leo I, Serm. (Sermons), 3 (elsewhere 2), ch. 3 (PL 54, 146).

48 Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. (Against Heresies) 1113 (PG 7, 849), Council of Aquilea (381), to be found among: Ambrose, Epistolae (Letters), 11 (PL 16, 946).

49 Council of Florence, session 6 (see above p. 528).

50 See Jn 10, 16.

51 Ep. ad Eulog. Alexandrin. (Letter to Eulogius of Alexandria), VIII 29 (30) (MGH, Ep. 2, 31 28-30, PL 77, 933).

52 Pius VI, Letter Super soliditate dated 28 Nov. 1786.

53 From Michael Palaeologus's profession of faith which was read out at the second Council of Lyons (D no. 466).

54 Nicholas I, Ep. ad Michaelem imp. (Letter to the emperor Michael) (PL 119, 954).

55 Mt 16, 18.

56 From Pope Hormisdas's formula of the year 517 (D no. 171), see above p. 157 n. 1.

57 From Michael Palaeologus's profession of faith which was read out at the second Council of Lyons (D no. 466).

58 Council of Florence, session 6 (see above p. 528). S Bernard, Ep. (Letters) 190 (PL 182, 1053).

59 Bernard, Ep. (Letters) 190 (PL 182, 1053).

60 Lk 22, 32.

The translation found here is that which appears in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils ed. Norman Tanner. S.J. The numbering of the canons is however found in Tanner's text.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6
abridged:
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

I've already posted the thoughts of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils on the Matter of Honorius:
Quote
The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which has been assembled by the grace of God, and the religious decree of the most religious and faithful and mighty Sovereign Constantine, in this God-protected and royal city of Constantinople, New Rome, in the Hall of the imperial Palace, called Trullus, has decreed as follows....The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith.  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, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, 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, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation.  Christ, therefore, our God, has raised up our faithful Sovereign, a new David, having found him a man after his own heart, who as it is written, “has not suffered his eyes to sleep nor his eyelids to slumber,” until he has found a perfect declaration of orthodoxy by this our God-collected and holy Synod
Definition of the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Council
Quote
The holy council said:  After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters...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 343of 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....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.  We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers.  Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches.
The Sentence of the Sixth Ecumenical Council Against the Monothelites
Quote
In the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, the most pious Emperor, the peaceful and Christ-loving Constantine, an Emperor faithful to God in Jesus Christ, to all our Christ-loving people living in this God-preserved and royal city...In the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, the most pious Emperor, the peaceful and Christ-loving Constantine, an Emperor faithful to God in Jesus Christ, to all our Christ-loving people living in this God-preserved and royal city...He, the Emperor, had therefore convoked this holy and Ecumenical Synod, and published the present edict with the confession of faith, in order to confirm and establish its decrees...As he recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy...and ordained that no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and one energy.  In no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved.  Whoever did not obey the imperial edict should, if he were a bishop or cleric be deposed; if an official, punished with confiscation of property and loss of the girdle; if a private person, banished from the residence and all other cities.
The Imperial Edict Posted in the Third Atrium of the Great Church Near What is Called Dicymbala to Enforce the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council
Quote
Many years to the Emperor!  Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor!  Many years to the Orthodox King!  Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace!  Many years to Constantine, a second Martian!  Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius!  Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian!  Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith!  O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches!  O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!...To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!...To all heretics, anathema!  To all who side with heretics, anathema!

May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!
Acclamation of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council

Quote
We affirm that in Christ there be two wills and two operations according to the reality of each nature, as also the Sixth Synod, held at Constantinople, taught, casting out Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, and those who agree with them, and all those who are unwilling to be reverent
Decree of the Seventh Ecumenical Council
Quote
And now having carefully traced the traditions of the Apostles and Fathers, we are bold to speak.  Having but one mind by the inbreathing of the most Holy Spirit, and being all knit together in one, and understanding the harmonious tradition of the Catholic Church, we are in perfect harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecumenical councils; and accordingly we have anathematised the madness of Arius,...also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematised their own evil will.
Letter of the Seventh Ecumenical Council to the Emperor and Empress

Just for starters.
http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/Honorius%20authorID:schaff?bookID=npnf214

I'll just add for now the words of the "Catholic Encyclopedia"
Quote
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.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
« Last Edit: September 18, 2010, 05:36:11 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2010, 05:22:19 PM »

I'll just add for now the words of the "Catholic Encyclopedia"
Quote
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.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Despite what the CE says, there are those who indeed try to defend Pope Honorius,
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3301&CFID=50970295&CFTOKEN=27205757
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2010, 06:26:34 PM »

Just kick things off, the defense linked above says:
Quote
In his letter to the Emperor that was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agatho (678— 681), asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see and stated that he and all of his predecessors, thus inclusive of Honorius, "have never ceased to exhort and warn them (i.e. the monothelites) with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 328—339). Honorius did indeed resist the heresy insofar as he urged "silence" with regard to the expression "one operation," which he rightly considered Eutychian.

The council professed its agreement with Agatho's letter anathematized any who rejected it, and said its condemnations were in accordance with it. Therefore, any conciliar condemnation of Honorius must be understood in light of such agreement. Consequently, since Agatho counted Honorius among his orthodox predecessors, so too did the council.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3301&CFID=50970295&CFTOKEN=27205757

This is nonsense.

The letter refered to from Pope St. Agatho is here, in Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 328—339
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.v.html

In typical fashion, the Vatican apologists hint that this letter is infallible: "was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council...asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see...The council professed its agreement with Agatho's letter anathematized any who rejected it, and said its condemnations were in accordance with it."  The Vatican Apologists, while refraining from calling it ex cathedra, proceed to act as if it is ex cathedra: "Therefore, any conciliar condemnation of Honorius must be understood in light of such agreement."

In this connection it must be noted that although Pastor Aeternus claims "On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff
" "That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching....the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared," it does not cite any Ecumenical Council.  It instead cites the Council of Constantinople voided by the true Eighth Council of IV Constantinople (879), the Formula of Hormizdas (which even the Archbishop of Thessalonica, still under Rome's jurisdiction, IIRC tore in two and trampled underfoot), which, like the next "authorities" (the Emperor Michael Paeleologos; Florence), the pope of Rome instructed to impose on the bishops in the East by force. The Vatican is very selective on what Caesaropapism it, a state unto itself (Papal States 1870/Vatican City State now), condemns.

4:3 "To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received."
4 "It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing."
5. "The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions."
6 "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles"
"Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."
7 "This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."

Well, given this, it is not hard to see how the Pope St. Agatho's Letter can be seen as ex cathdra. However, it is also easy to see how pope Honorius' letters, condemned explicitely by the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, also meet this criteria of ex cathedra.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2010, 06:49:34 PM »

It had been a while shince I read Pastore Aeternus, the Dogmatic Constition that proclaimed the pope of Rome (then the head of state of the Papal States, including Rome).  It having come up, I was reminded that it summarizes the issues about the Ultramontanist views against Orthodox belief in a nice summary.  I then looked to see if it had ever been dealt systematically here.  Not finding anything, I thought I'd start it off.

The bolded is what is the bare minimum of what the Vatican says is infallible dogma ex cathedra, but, Lord wiling, I'll be dealing with the rest too, as we should-particularly given that the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

Session 4 : 18 July 1870

First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record.

1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37], in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.

2. Therefore, before he was glorified, he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38].

3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.

4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.

5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41].

6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends.

7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.

8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.

Chapter 1
On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42], that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:

Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .

3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due." [51]

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion [56].

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
"The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled." [57]

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence:
"The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church." [58]

3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59].

5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema
.

Given at Rome in public session, solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of Our Pontificate.

In conformity with the original.

Joseph, Bishop of St. Polten Secretary to the Vatican Council

37 1 Pt 2,25.

38 Jn 17, 20-21.

39 Jn 15, 19.

40 Jn 20, 21.

41 Leo 1, Serm. (Sermons), 4 (elsewhere 3), ch. 2 for the day of his birth (PL 54, 150).

42 Jn 1, 42.

43 Mt 16, 16 19.

44 Jn 21, 15-17.

45 See Mt 7, 25; Lk 6, 48.

46 From the speech of Philip, the Roman legate, at the 3rd session of the Council of Ephesus (D no. 112).

47 Leo I, Serm. (Sermons), 3 (elsewhere 2), ch. 3 (PL 54, 146).

48 Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. (Against Heresies) 1113 (PG 7, 849), Council of Aquilea (381), to be found among: Ambrose, Epistolae (Letters), 11 (PL 16, 946).

49 Council of Florence, session 6 (see above p. 528).

50 See Jn 10, 16.

51 Ep. ad Eulog. Alexandrin. (Letter to Eulogius of Alexandria), VIII 29 (30) (MGH, Ep. 2, 31 28-30, PL 77, 933).

52 Pius VI, Letter Super soliditate dated 28 Nov. 1786.

53 From Michael Palaeologus's profession of faith which was read out at the second Council of Lyons (D no. 466).

54 Nicholas I, Ep. ad Michaelem imp. (Letter to the emperor Michael) (PL 119, 954).

55 Mt 16, 18.

56 From Pope Hormisdas's formula of the year 517 (D no. 171), see above p. 157 n. 1.

57 From Michael Palaeologus's profession of faith which was read out at the second Council of Lyons (D no. 466).

58 Council of Florence, session 6 (see above p. 528). S Bernard, Ep. (Letters) 190 (PL 182, 1053).

59 Bernard, Ep. (Letters) 190 (PL 182, 1053).

60 Lk 22, 32.

The translation found here is that which appears in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils ed. Norman Tanner. S.J. The numbering of the canons is however found in Tanner's text.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6
abridged:
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2010, 06:59:41 PM »

For the interested, here is the original for reference

Constitutio Dogmatica Pastor Aeternus
PIUS EPISCOPUS SERVUS SERVORUM DEI

SACRO APPROBANTE CONCILIO

Ad perpetuam rei memoriam

Pastor aeternus et episcopus animarum nostrarum, ut salutiferum redemptionis opus perenne redderet, sanctam aedificare Ecclesiam decrevit, in qua veluti in domo Dei viventis fideles omnes unius fidei et charitatis vinculo contuerentur. Quapropter, priusquam clarificaretur, rogavit Patrem non pro Apostolis tantum, sed et pro eis, qui credituri erant per verbum eorum in ipsum, ut omnes unum essent, sicut ipse Filius et Pater unum sunt. Quemadmodum igitur Apostolos, quos sibi de mundo elegerat, misit, sicut ipse missus erat a Patre: ita in Ecclesia sua Pastores et Doctores usque ad consummationem saeculi esse voluit. Ut vero episcopatus ipse unus et indivisus esset, et per cohaerentes sibi invicem sacerdotes credentium multitudo universa in fidei et communionis unitate conservaretur, beatum Petrum ceteris Apostolis praeponens in ipso instituit perpetuum utriusque unitatis principium ac visibile fundamentum, super cuius fortitudinem aeternum exstrueretur templum, et Ecclesiae coelo inferenda sublimitas in huius fidei firmitate consurgeret (1). Et quoniam portae inferi ad evertendam, si fieri posset, Ecclesiam contra eius fundamentum divinitus positum maiori in dies odio undique insurgunt; Nos ad catholici gregis custodiam, incolumitatem, augmentum, necessarium esse iudicamus, sacro approbante Concilio, doctrinam de institutione, perpetuitate, ac natura sacri Apostolici primatus, in quo totius Ecclesiae vis ac soliditas consistit, cunctis fidelibus credendam et tenendam, secundum antiquam atque constantem universalis Ecclesiae fidem, proponere, atque contrarios, dominico gregi adeo perniciosos errores proscribere et condemnare.

(1) S. Leo M. serro. IV (al. III) cap. 2 io diem Natalis sui.

CAPUT I

DE APOSTOLICI PRIMATUS IN BEATO PETRO INSTITUTIONE

Docemus itaque et declaramus, iuxta Evangelii testimonia primatum iurisdictionis in universam Dei Ecclesiam immediate et directe beato Petro Apostolo promissum atque collatum a Christo Domino fuisse. Unum enim Simonem, cui iam pridem dixerat: Tu vocaberis Cephas (1), postquam ille suam edidit confessionem inquiens Tu es Christus, Filius Dei vivi, solemnibus his verbis allocutus est Dominus: Beatus es Simon Bar-Iona; quia caro, et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus, qui in cöelis est: et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam: et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum: et quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum et in coelis: et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in coelis (2). Atque uni Simoni Petro contulit Iesus post suam resurrectionem summi pastoris et rectoris iurisdictionem in totum suum ovile, dicens: Pasce agnos meos: Pasce oves meas (3). Huic tam manifestae sacrarum Scripturarum doctrinae, ut ab Ecclesia catholica semper intellecta est, aperte opponuntur pravae eorum sententiae, qui constitutam a Christo Domino in sua Ecclesia regiminis formam pervertentes negant, solum Petrum prae ceteris Apostolis, sive seorsum singulis sive omnibus simul, vero proprioque iurisdictionis primatu fuisse a Christo instructum; aut qui affirmant, eundem primatum non immediate, directeque ipsi beato Petro, sed Ecclesiae, et per hanc illi ut ipsius Ecclesiae ministro delatum fuisse.

Si quis igitur dixerit, beatum Petrum Apostolum non esse a Christo Domino constitutum Apostolorum omnium principem et totius Ecclesiae militantis visibile caput; vel eundem honoris tantum, non autem verae propriaeque iurisdictionis primatum ab eodem Domino nostro Iesu Christo directe et immediate accepisse; anathema sit.

(1) Ioan. I, 42.

(2) Matth. XVI, 16-19.

(3) Ioan. XXI, 15-17.

CAPUT II

DE PERPETUITATE PRIMATUS BEATI PETRI IN ROMANIS PONTIFICIBUS

Quod autem in beato Apostolo Petro princeps pastorum et pastor magnus ovium Dominus Christus Iesus in perpetuam salutem ac perenne bonum Ecclesiae instituit, id eodem auctore in Ecclesia, quae fundata super petram ad finem saeculorum usque firma stabit, iugiter durare necesse est. Nulli sane dubium, imo saeculis omnibus notum est, quod sanctus beatissimusque Petrus, Apostolorum princeps et caput, fideique columna et Ecclesiae catholicae fundamentum, a Domino nostro Iesu Christo, Salvatore humani generis ac Redemptore, claves regni accepit: qui ad hoc usque tempus et semper in suis successoribus, episcopis sanctae Romanae Sedis, ab ipso fundatae, eiusque consecratae sanguine, vivit et praesidet et iudicium exercet (1). Unde quicumque in hac Cathedra Petro succedit, is secundum Christi ipsius institutionem primatum Petri in universam Ecclesiam obtinet. Manet ergo dispositio veritatis, et beatus Petrus in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans suscepta Ecclesiae gubernacula non reliquit (2). Hac de causa ad Romanam Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse semper fuit omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos, qui sunt undique fideles, ut in ea Sede, e qua venerandae communionis iura in omnes dimanant, tamquam membra in capite consociata, in unam corporis compagem coalesceret (3).

Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione seu iure divino, ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores; aut Roma num Pontificem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem; anathema sit.

(1) Cf. Ephesini Concilii Act. III.

(2) S. Leo M. Serra. III (al. II) cap. 3. —

(3) S. Iren. Adv. haer. I. III c. 3, et Conc. Aquiiei. a. 381 inter opp. S. Ambr. ep. XL.

CAPUT III

DE VI ET RATIONE PRIMATUS ROMANI PONTIFICIS

Quapropter apertis innixi sacrarum litterarum testimoniis, et inhaerentes tum Praedecessorum Nostrorum, Romanorum Pontificum, tum Conciliorum generalium disertis, perspicuisque decretis, innovamus oecumenici Concilii Florentini definitionem, qua credendum ab omnibus Christi fidelibus est, sanctam Apostolicam Sedem, et Romanum Pontificem in universum orbem tenere primatum, et ipsum Pontificem Romanum successorem esse beati Petri principis Apostolorum, et verum Christi Vicarium, totiusque Ecclesiae caput, et omnium Christianorum patrem ac doctorem existere; et ipsi in beato Petro pascendi, regendi ac gubernandi universalem Ecclesiam a Domino nostro Iesu Christo plenam potestatem traditam esse; quemadmodum etiam in gestis oecumenicorum Conciliorum et in sacris canonibus continetur.

Docemus proinde et declaramus, Ecclesiam Romanam, disponente Domino, super omnes alias ordinariae potestatis obtinere principatum, et hanc Romani Pontificis iurisdictionis potestatem, quae vere episcopalis est, immediatam esse: erga quam cuiuscumque ritus et dignitatis pastores atque fideles, tam seorsum singuli quam simul omnes, officio hierarchicae subordinationis, veraeque obedientiae obstringuntur, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; ita ut custodita cum Romano Pontifice tam communionis, quam eiusdem fidei professionis unitate, Ecclesia Christi sit unus grex sub uno summo pastore. Haec est catholicae veritatis doctrina, a qua deviare salva fide atque salute nemo potest.

Tantum autem abest, ut haec Summi Pontificis potestas officiat ordinariae ac immediatae illi episcopalis iurisdictionis potestati, qua Episcopi, qui positi a Spiritu Sancto in Apostolorum locum successerunt, tamquam veri pastores assignatos sibi greges, singuli singulos, pascunt et regunt, ut eadem a supremo et universali Pastore asseratur, roboretur ac vindicetur, secundum illud sancti Gregorii Magni: meus honor est honor universalis Ecclesiae.

Meus honor est fratrum meorum solidus vigor. Tum ego vere honoratus sum, cum singulis quibusque honor debitus non negatur (1). Porro ex suprema illa Romani Pontificis potestate gubernandi universam Ecclesiam ius eidem esse consequitur, in huius sui muneris exercitio libere communicandi cum pastoribus et gregibus totius Ecclesiae, ut iidem ab ipso in via salutis doceri ac regi possint. Quare damnamus ac reprobamus illorum sententias, qui hanc supremi capitis cum pastoribus et gregibus communicationem licite impediri posse dicunt, aut eandem reddunt saeculari potestati obnoxiam, ita ut contendant, quae ab Apostolica Sede vel eius auctoritate ad regimen Ecclesiae eonstituuntur, vim ac valorem non habere, nisi potestatis saecularis placito confirmentur. Et quoniam divino Apostolici primatus iure Romanus Pontifex universae Ecclesiae praeest, docemus etiam et declaramus, eum esse iudicem supremum fidelium (2), et in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticum spectantibus ad ipsius posse iudicium recurri (3); Sedis vero Apostolicae, cuius auctoritate maior non est, iudicium a nemine fore retractandum, neque cuiquam de eius licere iudicare iudicio (4). Quare a recto veritatis tramite aberrant, qui affirmant, licere ab iudiciis Romanorum Pontificum ad oecumenicum Concilium tamquam ad auctoritatem Romano Pontifice superiorem appellare.

Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles; anathema sit.

(1) Ep. ad Eulog. Alexandrin. I. VIII ep. XXX.

(2) Pii PP. VI Breve, Super soliditate d. 28 Nov. 1786.

(3) Concil. Oecum. Lugdun. II.

(4) Ep. Nicolai 1 ad Michaelem Imporatorem.

CAPUT IV

DE ROMANI PONTIFICIS INFALLIBILI MAGISTERIO

Ipso autem Apostolico primatu, quem Romanus Pontifex tamquam Petri principis Apostolorum successor in universam Ecclesiam obtinet, supremam quoque magisterii potestatem comprehendi, haec Sancta Sedes semper tenuit, perpetuus Ecclesiae usus comprobat, ipsaque oecumenica Concilia, ea imprimis, in quibus Oriens cum Occidente in fidei charitatisque unionem conveniebat, declaraverunt. Patres enim Concilii Constantinopolitani quarti, maiorum vestigiis inhaerentes, hanc solemnem ediderunt professionem: prima salus est, rectae fidei regulam custodire. Et quia non potest Domini nostri Iesu Christi praetermitti sententia dicentis: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, haec, quae dicta sunt, rerum probantur effectibus, quia in Sede Apostolica immaculata est semper catholica reservata religio, et sancta celebrata doctrina. Ab huius ergo fide et doctrina separari minime cupientes, speramus, ut in una communione, quam Sedes Apostolica praedicat, esse mereamur, in qua est integra et vera Christianae religionis soliditas (1). Approbante vero Lugdunensi Concilio secundo, Graeci professi sunt: Sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam summum et plenum primatum et principatum super universam Ecclesiam catholicam obtinere, quem se ab ipso Domino in beato Petro Apostolorum principe sive vertice, cuius Romanus Pontifex est successor, cum potestatis plenitudine recepisse veraciter et humiliter recognoscit; et sicut prae ceteris tenetur fidei veritatem defendere, sic et, si quae de fide subortae fuerint quaestiones, suo debent iudicio definiri. Florentinum denique Concilium definivit: Pontificem Romanum, verum Christi Vicarium, totiusque Ecclesiae caput et omnium Christianorum patrem ac doctorem existere ; et ipsi in beato Petro pascendi, regendi ac gubernandi universalem Ecclesiam a Domino nostro Iesu Christo plenam potestatem traditam esse. Huic pastorali muneri ut satisfacerent, Praedecessores Nostri indefessam semper operam dederunt, ut salutaris Christi doctrina apud omnes terrae populos propagaretur, parique cura vigilarunt, ut, ubi recepta esset, sincera et pura conservaretur. Quocirca totius orbis Antistites nunc singuli, nunc in Synodis congregati, longam ecclesiarum consuetudinem et antiquae regulae formam sequentes, ea praesertim pericula, quae in negotiis fidei emergebant, ad hanc Sedem Apostolicam retulerunt, ut ibi potissimum resarcirentur damna fidei, ubi fides non potest sentire defectum (2).

Romani autem Pontifices, prout temporum et rerum conditio suadebat, nunc convocatis oecumenicis Conciliis aut explorata Ecclesiae per orbem dispersae sententia, nunc per Synodos particulares, nunc aliis, quae divina suppeditabat providentia, adhibitis auxiliis, ea tenenda definierunt, quae sacris Scripturis et apostolicis Traditionibus consentanea Deo adiutore cognoverant. Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus Sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam per Apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent. Quorum quidem apostolicam doctrinam omnes venerabiles Patres amplexi et sancti Doctores orthodoxi venerati atque secuti sunt; plenissime scientes, hanc sancti Petri Sedem ab omni semper errore illibatam permanere, secundum Domini Salvatoris nostri divinam pollicitationem discipulorum suorum principi factam: Ego rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua, et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos. Hoc igitur veritatis et fidei numquam deficientis charisma Petro eiusque in hac Cathedra successoribus divinitus collatum est, ut excelso suo munere in omnium salutem fungerentur, ut universus Christi grex per eos ab erroris venenosa esca aversus, coelestis doctrinae pabulo nutriretur, ut sublata schismatis occasione Ecclesia tota una conservaretur, atque suo fundamento innixa firma adversus inferi portas consisteret. At vero cum hac ipsa aetate, qua salutifera Apostolici muneris efficacia vel maxime requiritur, non pauci inveniantur, qui illius auctoritati obtrectant; necessarium omnino esse censemus, praerogativam, quam unigenitus Dei Filius cum summo pastorali officio coniungere dignatus est, solemniter asserere.

Itaque Nos traditioni a fidei Christianae exordio perceptae fideliter inhaerendo, ad Dei Salvatoris nostri gloriam, religionis Catholicae exaltationem et Christianorum populorum salutem, sacro approbante Concilio, docemus et divinitus revelatum dogma esse definimus: Romanum Pontificem, cum ex Cathedra loquitur, id est, cum omnium Christianorum Pastoris et Doctoris munere fungens, pro suprema sua Apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam definit, per assistentiam divinam, ipsi in beato Petro promissam, ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit; ideoque eiusmodi Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae irreformabiles esse.

Si quis autem huic Nostrae definitioni contradicere, quod Deus avertat, praesumpserit; anathema sit.

(1) Ex formula S. Hormisdae Papae prout ab Hadriano II Patribus Concili oecumenici Constantinopolitani IV proposita et ab iisdem subscripta est.

(2) Cf. S. Bern. Epist. CXC.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NrkOAQAAIAAJ&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=Ex+formula+S.+Hormisdae+Papae+prout+ab+Hadriano+II+Patribus+Concili+oecumenici+Constantinopolitani&source=bl&ots=OFtPNsiGGf&sig=HZJ-dYXHw5xHb3oZrvCu02v6jnE&hl=en&ei=y0KVTL3zLMrlnAemu7S1Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Sanctissimi domini nostri Leonis Papae XIII Allocutiones, Epistolae, Constitutiones, Aliaque Acta Praecipua. Volumes 1-3 By Catholic Church. Pope (1878-1903 : Leo XIII), Catholic Church
« Last Edit: September 18, 2010, 07:00:07 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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2010, 08:12:24 PM »

Well, given this, it is not hard to see how the Pope St. Agatho's Letter can be seen as ex cathdra. However, it is also easy to see how pope Honorius' letters, condemned explicitely by the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, also meet this criteria of ex cathedra.
It might be relevant to take a look at what some Catholic theologians have to say about ex cathedra and infallibility declarations.  Father Sullivan is a leading theological authority on the magisterium, who  wrote: Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (Paulist, 1983) and Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Church Documents (Paulist, spring 1996).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_A._Sullivan
According to Father Sullivan:
“If it were already evident that the Catholic bishops throughout the world were in agreement in proposing a particular doctrine as definitively to be held, no doubt the papal teaching of the same doctrine would participate in the infallibility of such an exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium. However, if it were not otherwise evident that there was such a consensus of the whole episcopal college, would a papal declaration suffice to establish that fact, and would such a papal declaration, though not an ex cathedra definition, be an infallible act of papal magisterium?.....
Canon law states that no doctrine is understood as infallibly defined unless this fact is clearly established (nisi id manifeste constiterit). Although canon 749.3 speaks only of doctrine that is infallibly defined, the same requirement would hold for the claim that a doctrine had been infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium, since the consequences for the faithful are the same in either case….
What must be "manifestly established," when the claim is made that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, is that not only the pope, but the whole body of Catholic bishops as well, are proposing the same doctrine as one which the faithful are obliged to hold in a definitive way. I do not see how it could be said that a papal declaration, of itself, without further evidence, would suffice to establish this fact.”
‘Recent theological observations on magisterial documents and public dissent’, by Francis A. Sullivan, Theological Studies, vol. 58, September 1997, pp. 509-515.
Logged
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2010, 08:30:33 PM »

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.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Wow  Shocked
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2010, 08:42:15 PM »

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.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Wow  Shocked
Right, but another Roman Catholic explanation is given here:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2010, 11:11:34 PM »

Well, given this, it is not hard to see how the Pope St. Agatho's Letter can be seen as ex cathdra. However, it is also easy to see how pope Honorius' letters, condemned explicitely by the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, also meet this criteria of ex cathedra.
It might be relevant to take a look at what some Catholic theologians have to say about ex cathedra and infallibility declarations.  Father Sullivan is a leading theological authority on the magisterium, who  wrote: Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (Paulist, 1983) and Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Church Documents (Paulist, spring 1996).

Here is an article by Father Sullivan:

http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/sulliva2.asp
Logged

militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2010, 07:25:19 AM »

Quote
...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.
2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.
3). Honorius was a heretic.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 07:30:44 AM by militantsparrow » Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2010, 11:20:20 AM »

Quote
...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.
2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.
3). Honorius was a heretic.
Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2010, 11:21:57 AM »

Since there is no direct evidence that Honrius was a heretic, then it's silly to say that Catholics have no right to defend him.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2010, 01:40:44 PM »

Since there is no direct evidence that Honrius was a heretic, then it's silly to say that Catholics have no right to defend him.

Pope Honorius responded in an official capacity to a letter from Sergius in which the latter espoused monothelite beliefs; with Pope Honorius responding "These things your fraternity will preach with us as we ourselves preach them like minded with you."

Pope Honorius sent a legate to a council in Cyprus to defend monothelitism. Of course we know from Catholic sources that a papal legate, regardless of rank, is supposedly higher than any bishop. Does it make any sense at all that a papal legate would defend monothelitism if the pope himself didn't hold that position?

He was anathematized by an Ecumenical Council for being a heretic and following the monothelites in all things; and that anathematization was confirmed by Pope Leo and subsequent popes for centuries. If the Council was wrong in anathematizing Honorius why did Pope Leo confirm it? At least according to Pastor Aeternus aren't Catholics required to give assent to Pope Leo's findings?


Quite frankly this case is so cut and dry it seems more than a little ridiculous for Catholics to try and defend Honorius.



In Christ
Joe



« Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 01:41:34 PM by Paisius » Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2010, 05:30:14 PM »

Since there is no direct evidence that Honrius was a heretic, then it's silly to say that Catholics have no right to defend him.
An Ecumenical  Council convened to condemn his heresy condemn him by name and athamatize him. The evidence is from above, and irreformable.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2010, 05:31:17 PM »

Quote
...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.
2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.
3). Honorius was a heretic.
Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.
Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council  was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

We have no reason to think he was not Pope of Rome: he was elected a few days after the death of his predecessor, confirmed by the emperor and the rest of the Patriarchs. The Ecumenical Council specifically defines "Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome." Even your Vatican apologists want to have Pope St. Agatho naming Honorius a predecessor. The official list in the Pontiffical Yearbook lists him. The CE article on him identifies him as pope of Rome, and has the magisterium's seal of approvala: "Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York."

That he was in communion with other hierarchs is shown by the exchange of letters between him and them. That he was not in communion with the Orthodox is shown by his relations with Patriarch St. Sophronius.  The Ecumenical Council affirmed our communion with Pat.St. Sophronius, and anathematized Honorius and those with whom he communed.

I know the facts do not fit the Pastor Aeternus mold. Oh, well.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2010, 10:18:09 AM »

Quote
Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record.
Quote
Constitutio Dogmatica Pastor Aeternus
PIUS EPISCOPUS SERVUS SERVORUM DEI

SACRO APPROBANTE CONCILIO

Ad perpetuam rei memoriam

This is the first issue:for a "Dogmatic Constitution" that goes on to vest the entirety of the Church in one bishop (protestations notwithstanding), it is interesting to compare this with the Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, the authority they invoke, and whence they claim their authority derives.

But first, I'll compare PA with itself: although it frees the pope of any need of any council, it nonetheless invokes "the approval of the Sacred Council" for its dogma.

Behind this is a long and convoluted history of the papacy trying to assert itself as the source of the authority of the synods, their convocation, their acts, their approval and promulgation.  The Seven Ecumenical Councils recognize no such authority vested in the Pope of Rome.  In the 14 councils that the Vatican now calls ecumenical (the list has changed.  Indeed, some of the councils retroactively so elevated left few records of their promulgations), the pronouncements of the councils on their authority has varied, only after centuries settling on the authority of the pope of Rome getting top billing.

I'll cite the Ecumenical Councils on their authority below, and will put transitional council of Constantinople IV (869) there-transitional because it was voided by a Council once accepted as Ecumenical by Rome and so held today by many Orthodox (and accepted as Pan-Orthodox, authoritative but not infallible, by the rest), only after the schism of 1054 retroactively embraced as ecumenical by the Vatican, and held when Rome was still Orthodox.

The next council that the Vatican now promotes as ecumenical seems to be Lateran I, but that is not without problems, as even the Legion of Mary admits:
Quote
This council is often called "general" in the letters and decrees of Pope Callistus II. It is reasonable, however, to doubt its ecumenicity. Indeed the manner in which the council was called and conducted by the pope and the fathers differed from that of the older councils. Moreover several other councils, similar to Lateran I, were convened in the 11th and 12th centuries but were not termed ecumenical. The ecumenicity of this council seems, as far as we can tell, to have been confirmed later by the tradition of the Roman church.
It was the first of the councils that the Vatican now calls ecumenical in which the pope of Rome presided in person. As such, it issued its first canon:
Quote
1. Following the examples of the holy fathers and renewing them as we are bound by our office, by the authority of the apostolic see we altogether forbid anyone to be ordained or promoted in the church of God for money. If anyone indeed should have been ordained or promoted in the church in such a fashion, let him be utterly deprived of the office acquired
It seems, however, that the authority of the apostolic see and discharge of the office did not suffice: the Vatican at this point had to appeal to the voided council of Constantinople (869) and call it ecumenical, and retrieve its canons and acts (mostly lost: the remnants were pieced together from polemics against EP St. Photios)i in this Investiture Constroversy.

By this time, the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum "Book of the Journal of the Pontiffs of the Romans" (the handbook of the Vatican chancellary) and its oath at the investiture of the pope anathematizing Honorius I by name, had fallen into disuse, not to be found until several centuries later and to the embarrassment of Robert Bellamine.

Of the next Lateran council (II), we know even less.  In the words of the Legion of Mary:
Quote
In Lent of 1139 a general council was summoned by Pope Innocent II and held in the Lateran basilica {1}. As we know, the synod had been convoked the previous year; for the papal legates in England and Spain pressed the bishops and abbots to go to the council. Thus, a good number of fathers, at least five hundred, met in Rome. One of these came from the East, the patriarch of Antioch, but he was a Latin. With the pope presiding the council began on 2 April and it seems to have ended before 17 April, as far as we can judge from the sources.
This council is called "general" in the records and more frequently "plenary" by Innocent himself. However, there is a doubt as to its ecumenicity for the same reasons that affect Lateran I.
The Roman church, which for a long time had been divided in its obedience between Innocent II (1130-1143) and Anacletus II (1130-1138), seems to have overcome schism and factionalism, and indeed to have recovered its peace. This was due to the death of Anacletus in 1138 and the efforts of Bernard of Clairvaux, who had fought with the utmost zeal on behalf of Innocent for the restoration of unity. But Innocent, perhaps upset by the agreements which Anacletus had arrived at, vigorously cited and condemned Anacletus' part in the evil affair {2}, an action which seems to have provoked a complaint from Bernard.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM10.HTM
This council was called to smooth over the rivalries of the schism that came at the death of Pope Honorius II, and pope/antipope rivalry that insued (hence the references to Innoncent II and Anacletus II), continuing the Investiture Controversy, which continued to occasion the next Lateran council, III

At the Vatican's present nineth council it resurrected its present eighth council, and at it tenth it had the Crusader it had put in the East. At its eleventh it tried to stop the battles between the Emperors and rival claimants over that font of unity, the papacy at Rome.  It issued only canons, the first which reads:
Quote
1. Although clear enough decrees have been handed down by our predecessors to avoid dissension in the choice of a sovereign pontiff, nevertheless in spite of these, because through wicked and reckless ambition the church has often suffered serious division, we too, in order to avoid this evil, on the advice of our brethren and with the approval of the sacred council, have decided that some addition must be made. Therefore we decree that if by chance, through some enemy sowing tares, there cannot be full agreement among the cardinals on a successor to the papacy, and though two thirds are in agreement a third party is unwilling to agree with them or presumes to appoint someone else for itself, that person shall be held as Roman pontiff who has been chosen and received by the two thirds. But if anyone trusting to his nomination by the third party assumes the name of bishop, since he cannot take the reality, both he and those who receive him are to incur excommunication and be deprived of all sacred order, so that viaticum be denied them, except at the hour of death, and unless they repent, let them receive the lot of Dathan and Abiron, who were swallowed up alive by the earth. Further, if anyone is chosen to the apostolic office by less than two thirds, unless in the meantime he receives a larger support, let him in no way assume it, and let him be subject to the foresaid penalty if he is unwilling humbly to refrain. However, as a result of this decree, let no prejudice arise to the canons and other ecclesiastical constitutions according to which the decision of the greater and senior {1} part should prevail, because any doubt that can arise in them can be settled by a higher authority; whereas in the Roman church there is a special constitution, since no recourse can be had to a superior.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM11.HTM

Having finally resolved the Investiture Controversy, and, having sacked nearly all the sees in the East, appointed Crusader patriarchs for the East, the Vatican began to issue dogmatic statement, not in Definitions which continued the work of the Ecumenical Councils, but "Dogmatic Constitutions." The first summarizes the creed the Vatican had adopted with the filioque, with no reference to the Ecumenical Councls:
Quote
We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature {1}. The Father is from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the holy Spirit from both equally, eternally without beginning or end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal; one principle of all things, creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal; who by his almighty power at the beginning of time created from nothing both spiritual and corporeal creatures, that is to say angelic and earthly, and then created human beings composed as it were of both spirit and body in common. The devil and other demons were created by God naturally good, but they became evil by their own doing. Man, however, sinned at the prompting of the devil.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM12.HTM#1

The next council begins its dogmatic constitutions with the Papal Bull deposing the Emperor Frederick II
Quote
Innocent {1}, bishop, servant of the servants of God, in the presence of the holy council, for an everlasting record.
and then launches on into
Quote
Constitutions
I1.On rescripts
Since in many articles of law failure to define their scope is blameworthy, after prudent consideration we decree that by the general clause "certain others" which frequently occurs in papal letters, no more than three or four persons are to be brought to court. The petitioner should state the names in his first citation, lest by chance a place is left for fraud if the names can be freely altered {18}.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM13.HTM#101

The Vatican then, at Lyons II, tried to treat the Emperor of the Romans at Constantinople the way it had the Germanic Emperors, issuing a dogmatic constitution for more Crusade:
Quote
Zeal for the faith, fervent devotion and compassionate love ought to rouse the hearts of the faithful, so that all who glory in the name of Christian grieved to the heart by the insult to their redeemer, should rise vigorously and openly in defence of the holy Land and support for God's cause....
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM14.HTM#00

The papacy, however, suffered a set back when the knights stopped massacring in the East and stayed home to pillage in the West. Pope Clement V remained in France, the puppet of King Philip, and suppressed the Knights Templar, a hold over from the heyday of the Crusading popes.  The "council of Vienne" consists of a series of papal bulls issued, beginning:
Quote
Clement, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record...
 For an everlasting record. It belongs to Christ's vicar, exercising his vigilant care from the apostolic watch-tower, to judge the changing conditions of the times, to examine the causes of the affairs which crop up and to observe the characters of the people concerned. In this way he can give due consideration to each affair and act opportunely; he can tear out the thistles of vice from the field of the Lord so that virtue may increase; and he can remove the thorns of false dealing so as to plant rather than to destroy. He transfers slips dedicated to God into the places left empty by the eradication of the harmful thistles. By thus transferring and uniting in a provident and profitable way, he brings a joy greater than the harm he has caused to the people uprooted; true justice has compassion for sorrow. By enduring the harm and replacing it profitably, he increases the growth of the virtues and rebuilds what has been destroyed with something better....
Clement, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for assurance in the present and for future record...
To all the administrators and guardians of the property of the former house and order of the Knights Templar, delegated by apostolic and any other authority. Recently we held, as the Lord so disposed, a general council at Vienne...
We therefore strictly command all of you, by apostolic ordinance,...
For a future record...
For everlasting record...
For an everlasting record. Some time ago, in the general council held at Vienne under the Lord's inspiration...
Adhering firmly to the foundation of the catholic faith, other than which, as the Apostle testifies, no one can lay, we openly profess with holy mother church that the only begotten Son of God, subsisting eternally together with the Father in everything in which God the Father exists, assumed in time in the womb of a virgin the parts of our nature united together, from which he himself true God became true man: namely the human, passible body and the intellectual or rational soul truly of itself and essentially informing the body....We, therefore, directing our apostolic attention, to which alone it belongs to define these things, to such splendid testimony and to the common opinion of the holy fathers and doctors, declare with the approval of the sacred council that....
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM15.HTM#09
here Clement alludes to some council, but his bulls were being issued from his own chancellory back in his native France, not Rome. He also used the opportunity to undo the Bull Unam Sanctam (which, given that I see no reason why it is not "infallible" ex cathedra, we'll probably deal with) as it applied to King Phillip. This lead eventually to the Great Western Schism

which necessitated another council over the font of unity, the papacy of Rome, which now had three claimants, resolved only at Constance. The bishops there voted in national blocks, not as individuals.
Quote
John, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for future record. Wishing to carry out those things which were decreed at the council of Pisa [13] by our predecessor of happy memory, pope [14] Alexander V, regarding the summoning of a new general council, we earlier convoked this present council by letters of ours, the contents of which we have ordered to be inserted here:
John, bishop ... [15]
We have therefore come together with our venerable brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, and our court to this city of Constance at the appointed time. Being present here by the grace of God, we now wish, with the advice of this sacred synod, to attend to the peace, exaltation and reform of the church and to the quiet of the Christian people...
(John XXIII publicly offers to resign the papacy)
(Decrees on the integrity and authority of the council, after the pope s flight [18])

For the honour, praise and glory of the most holy Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit, and to obtain on earth, for people of good will, the peace that was divinely promised in God's church, this holy synod, called the sacred general council of Constance, duly assembled here in the holy Spirit for the purpose of bringing union and reform to the said church in its head and members, discerns declares, defines and ordains as follows.
First, that this synod was and is rightly and properly summoned to this city of Constance, and likewise has been rightly and properly begun and held.
Next, that this sacred council has not been dissolved by the departure of our lord pope from Constance, or even by the departure of other prelates or any other persons, but continues in its integrity and authority, even if decrees to the contrary have been made or shall be made in the future.
Next, that this sacred council should not and may not be dissolved until the present schism has been entirely removed and until the church has been reformed in faith and morals, in head and members.
Next, that this sacred council may not be transferred to another place, except for a reasonable cause, which is to be debated and decided on by this sacred council.
Next, that prelates and other persons who should be present at this council may not depart from this place before it has ended, except for a reasonable cause which is to be examined by persons who have been, or will be, deputed by this sacred council. When the reason has been examined and approved, they may depart with the permission of the person or persons in authority. When the individual departs, he is bound to give his power to others who stay, under penalty of the law, as well as to others appointed by this sacred council, and those who act to the contrary are to be prosecuted.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit Amen. This holy synod of Constance, which is a general council, for the eradication of the present schism and for bringing unity and reform to God's church in head and members, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit to the praise of almighty God, ordains, defines, decrees, discerns and declares as follows, in order that this union and reform of God's church may be obtained the more easily, securely, fruitfully and freely.
First, that this synod, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council, representing the catholic church militant, has power immediately from Christ, and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith and the eradication of the said schism. [19]
Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII may not move or transfer the Roman curia and its public offices, or its or their officials, from this city to another place, nor directly or indirectly compel the persons of the said offices to follow him, without the deliberation and consent of the same holy synod; this refers to those officials or offices by whose absence the council would probably be dissolved or harmed. If he has acted to the contrary in the past, or shall in the future, or if he has in the past, is now or shall in the future fulminate any processes or mandates or ecclesiastical censures or any other penalties against the said officials or any other adherents of this council, to the effect that they should follow him then all is null and void and in no way are the said processes, censures and penalties to be obeyed, inasmuch as they are null and void, and they are invalid. The said officials are rather to exercise their offices in the said city of Constance, and to carry them out freely as before, as long as this holy synod is being held in the said city....
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, which is a general council, for the eradication of the present schism and for bringing unity and reform to God's church in head and members, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit to the praise of almighty God, ordains, defines, decrees, discerns and declares as follows, in order that this union and reform of God's church may be obtained the more easily, securely, fruitfully and freely.
First it declares that, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.
Next, it declares that anyone of whatever condition, state or dignity, even papal, who contumaciously refuses to obey the past or future mandates, statutes, ordinances or precepts of this sacred council or of any other legitimately assembled general council, regarding the aforesaid things or matters pertaining to them, shall be subjected to well-deserved penance, unless he repents, and shall be duly punished, even by having recourse, if necessary, to other supports of the law.
Next, the said holy synod defines and ordains that the lord pope John XXIII may not move or transfer the Roman curia and its public offices, or its or their officials, from the city of Constance to another place, nor directly or indirectly compel the said officials to follow him, without the deliberation and consent of the same holy synod. If he has acted to the contrary in the past, or shall in the future, or if he has in the past, is now or shall in the future fulminate any processes or mandates or ecclesiastical censures or any other penalties, against the said officials or any other adherents of this sacred council, to the effect that they should follow him, then all is null and void and in no way are the said processes, censures and penalties to be obeyed, inasmuch as they are null and void. The said officials are rather to exercise their offices in the said city of Constance, and to carry them out freely as before, as long as this holy synod h being held in the said City....
This most holy synod of Constance, which is a general council and represents the catholic church and is legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, for the eradication of the present schism and the elimination of the errors and heresies which are sprouting beneath its shade and for the reform of the church, make this perpetual record of its acts....
This most holy general synod of Constance, representing the catholic church, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, for the eradication of the present schism and errors, for bringing about the reform of the church in head and members, and in order that the unity of the church may be obtained more easily, quickly and freely, pronounces, determines, decrees and ordains that if it happens that the apostolic see becomes vacant, by whatever means this may happen, then the process of electing the next supreme pontiff may not begin without the deliberation and consent of this sacred general council. If the contrary is done then it is by this very fact, by the authority of the said sacred council, null and void. Nobody may accept anyone elected to the papacy in defiance of this decree, nor in any way adhere to or obey him as pope, under pain of eternal damnation and of becoming a supporter of the said schism. Those who make the election in such a case, as well as the person elected, if he consents, and those who adhere to him, are to be punished in the forms prescribed by this sacred council. The said holy synod, moreover, for the good of the church's unity, suspends all positive laws, even those promulgated in general councils, and their statutes, ordinances, customs and privileges, by whomsoever they may have been granted, and penalties promulgated against any persons, insofar as these may in any way impede the effect of this decree.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit Amen. This most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, having invoked Christ's name and holding God alone before its eyes, having seen the articles drawn up and presented in this case against the lord pope John XXIII, the proofs brought forward, his spontaneous submission and the whole process of the case, and having deliberated maturely on them, pronounces, decrees and declares by this definitive sentence which it commits to writing: that the departure of the aforesaid lord pope John XXIII from this city of Constance and from this sacred general council, secretly and at a suspicious hour of the night, in disguised and indecent dress, was and is unlawful, notoriously scandalous to God's church and to this council, disturbing and damaging for the church's peace and unity, supportive of this long-standing schism, and at variance with the vow, promise and oath made by the said lord pope John to God, to the church and to this sacred council; that the said lord pope John has been and is a notorious simoniac, a notorious destroyer of the goods and rights not only of the Roman church but also of other churches and of many pious places, and an evil administrator and dispenser of the church's spiritualities and temporalities; that he has notoriously scandalised God's church and the Christian people by his detestable and dishonest life and morals, both before his promotion to the papacy and afterwards until the present time, that by the above he has scandalised and is scandalising in a notorious fashion God's church and the Christian people; that after due and charitable warnings, frequently reiterated to him, he obstinately persevered in the aforesaid evils and thereby rendered himself notoriously incorrigible; and that on account of the above and other crimes drawn from and contained in the said process against him, he should be deprived of and deposed from, as an unworthy, useless and damnable person, the papacy and all its spiritual and temporal administration. The said holy synod does now remove, deprive and depose him. It declares each and every Christian, of whatever state, dignity or condition, to be absolved from obedience, fidelity and oaths to him. It forbids all Christians henceforth to recognise him as pope, now that as mentioned he has been deposed from the papacy, or to call him pope, or to adhere to or in any way to obey him as pope. The said holy synod, moreover, from certain knowledge and its fullness of power, supplies for all and singular defects that may have occurred in the above-mentioned procedures or in any one of them. It condemns the said person, by this same sentence, to stay and remain in a good and suitable place, in the name of this sacred general council, in the safe custody of the most serene prince lord Sigismund, king of the Romans and of Hungary, etc., and most devoted advocate and defender of the universal church, as long as it seems to the said general council to be for the good of the unity of God's church that he should be so condemned. The said council reserves the right to declare and inflict other punishments that should be imposed for the said crimes and faults in accordance with canonical sanctions, according as the rigour of justice or the counsel of mercy may advise.
The said holy synod decrees, determines and ordains for the good of unity in God's church that neither the lord Baldassare de Cossa, recently John XXIII, nor Angelo Correr nor Peter de Luna, called Gregory XII and Benedict XIII by their respective obediences, shall ever be re-elected as pope. If the contrary happens, it is by this very fact null and void. Nobody, of whatever dignity or pre-eminence even if he be emperor, king, cardinal or pontiff, may ever adhere to or obey them or any one of them, contrary to this decree, under pain of eternal damnation and of being a supporter of the said schism. Let those who presume to the contrary, if there are any in the future, also be firmly proceeded against in other ways, even by invoking the secular arm.
In order that the reunion of the church may be possible and that a beginning may be made which is fitting and pleasing to God, since the most important part of any matter is its beginning, and in order that the two obediences—namely the one claiming that the lord John XXIII was formerly pope and the other claiming that the lord Gregory XII is pope—may be united together under Christ as head, this most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit and representing the catholic church, accepts in all matters the convoking, authorising, approving and confirming that is now being made in the name of the lord who is called Gregory XII by those obedient to him, insofar as it seems to pertain to him to do this, since the certainty obtained by taking a precaution harms nobody and benefits all, and it decrees and declares that the aforesaid two obediences are joined and united in the one body of our lord Jesus Christ and of this sacred universal general council, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit.
The most holy general synod of Constance, etc., enacts, pronounces, ordains and decrees, in order that God's holy church may be provided for better, more genuinely and more securely, that the next election of the future Roman pontiff is to be made in the manner, form, place, time and way that shall be decided upon by the sacred council; that the same council can and may henceforth declare fit, accept and designate, in the manner and form that then seems suitable, any persons for the purposes of this election, whether by active or by passive voice, of whatever state or obedience they are or may have been, and any other ecclesiastical acts and all other suitable things, notwithstanding any proceedings, penalties or sentences; and that the sacred council shall not be dissolved until the said election has been held. The said holy synod therefore exhorts and requires the most victorious prince lord Sigismund, king of the Romans and of Hungary, as the church's devoted advocate and as the sacred council's defender and protector, to direct all his efforts to this end and to promise on his royal word that he wishes to do this and to order letters of his majesty to be made out for this purpose.
The most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal catholic church, accepts, approves and commends, in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit, the cession renunciation and resignation made on behalf of the lord who was called Gregory XII in his obedience, by the magnificent and powerful lord Charles Malatesta. here present, his irrevocable procurator for this business, of the right, title and possession that he had, or may have had, in regard to the papacy.
May this judgment come forth from the face of him who sits on the throne, and from his mouth proceeds a double-edged sword, whose scales are just and weights are true, who will come to judge the living and the dead, our lord Jesus Christ, Amen. The Lord is just and loves just deeds, his face looks on righteousness. But the Lord looks on those who do evil so as to cut off their remembrance from the earth. Let there perish, says the holy prophet, the memory of him who did not remember to show mercy and who persecuted the poor and needy. How much more should there perish the memory of Peter de Luna, called by some Benedict XIII, who persecuted and disturbed all people and the universal church? For, how greatly he has sinned against God's church and the entire Christian people, fostering, nourishing and continuing the schism and division of God's church How ardent and frequent have been the devout and humble prayers, exhortations and requests of kings, princes and prelates with which he has been warned in charity, in accordance with the teaching of the gospel, to bring peace to the church, to heal its wounds and to reconstitute its divided parts into one structure and one body, as he had sworn to do, and as for a long time it was within his power to do ! He was unwilling, however, to listen to their charitable admonitions. How many were the persons afterwards sent to attest to him! Because he did not listen at all even to these, it has been necessary, in accordance with the aforesaid evangelical teaching of Christ, to say to the church, since he has not listened even to her, that he should be treated as a heathen and a publican. All these things have been clearly proved by the articles coming from the inquiry into faith and the schism held before this present synod, regarding the above and other matters brought against him, as well as by their truth and notoriety. The proceedings have been correct and canonical, all the acts have been correctly and carefully examined and there has been mature deliberation. Therefore this same holy general synod, representing the universal church and sitting as a tribunal in the aforesaid inquiry, pronounces, decrees and declares by this definitive sentence written here, that the same Peter de Luna, called Benedict XIII as has been said, has been and is a perjurer, a cause of scandal to the universal church, a promoter and breeder of the ancient schism, that long established fission and division in God's holy church, an obstructer of the peace and unity of the said church, a schismatic disturber and a heretic, a deviator from the faith, a persistent violator of the article of the faith One holy catholic church, incorrigible, notorious and manifest in his scandal to God's church, and that he has rendered himself unworthy of every title, rank, honour and dignity, rejected and cut off by God, deprived by the law itself of every right in any way belonging to him in the papacy or pertaining to the Roman pontiff and the Roman church, and cut off from the catholic church like a withered member. This same holy synod, moreover, as a precautionary measure, since according to himself he actually holds the papacy, deprives, deposes and casts out the said Peter from the papacy and from being the supreme pontiff of the Roman church and from every title, rank, honour, dignity, benefice and office whatsoever. It forbids him to act henceforth as the pope or as the supreme and Roman pontiff. It absolves and declares to be absolved all Christ's faithful from obedience to him, and from every duty of obedience to him and from oaths and obligations in any way made to him. It forbids each and every one of Christ's faithful to obey, respond to or attend to, as if he were pope, the said Peter de Luna, who is a notorious, declared and deposed schismatic and incorrigible heretic, or to sustain or harbour him in any way contrary to the aforesaid, or to offer him help, advice or good will. This is forbidden under pain of the offender being counted as a promoter of schism and heresy and of being deprived of all benefices, dignities and ecclesiastical or secular honours, and under other penalties of the law, even if the dignity is that of a bishop, a patriarch, a cardinal, a king or the emperor. If they act contrary to this prohibition, they are by this very fact deprived of these things, on the authority of this decree and sentence, and they incur the other penalties of the law. This holy synod, moreover, declares and decrees that all and singular prohibitions and all processes, sentences, constitutions, censures and any other things whatsoever that were issued by him and might impede the aforesaid, are without effect; and it invalidates, revokes and annuls them; saving always the other penalties which the law decrees for the above cases.
The frequent holding of general councils is a pre-eminent means of cultivating the Lord's patrimony. It roots out the briars, thorns and thistles of heresies, errors and schisms, corrects deviations, reforms what is deformed and produces a richly fertile crop for the Lord's vineyard. Neglect of councils, on the other hand, spreads and fosters the aforesaid evils. This conclusion is brought before our eyes by the memory of past times and reflection on the present situation. For this reason we establish, enact, decree and ordain, by a perpetual edict, that general councils shall be held henceforth in the following way. The first shall follow in five years immediately after the end of this council, the second in seven years immediately after the end of the next council, and thereafter they are to be held every ten years for ever. They are to be held in places which the supreme pontiff is bound to nominate and assign within a month before the end of each preceding council, with the approval and consent of the council, or which, in his default, the council itself is bound to nominate. Thus, by a certain continuity, there will always be either a council in existence or one expected within a given time. If perchance emergencies arise, the time may be shortened by the supreme pontiff, acting on the advice of his brothers, the cardinals of the Roman church, but it may never be prolonged. Moreover, he may not change the place assigned for the next council without evident necessity. If an emergency arises whereby it seems necessary to change the place—for example in the case of a siege, war, disease or the like—then the supreme pontiff may, with the consent and written endorsement of his aforesaid brothers or of two-thirds of them, substitute another place which is suitable and fairly near to the place previously assigned. It must, however, be within the same nation unless the same or a similar impediment exists throughout the nation. In the latter case he may summon the council to another suitable place which is nearby but within another nation, and the prelates and other persons who are customarily summoned to a council will be obliged to come to it as if it had been the place originally assigned. The supreme pontiff is bound to announce and publish the change of place or the shortening of time in a legal and solemn form within a year before the date assigned, so that the aforesaid persons may be able to meet and hold the council at the appointed time.
The most holy synod of Constance [40] declares and decrees that the future supreme Roman pontiff, who by God's grace is to be elected very soon, together with this sacred council or those to be deputed by the individual nations, is bound to reform the church in its head and in the Roman curia, according to justice and the good government of the church, before this council is dissolved, under the topics contained in the following articles, which were at various times put forward by the nations by way of reforms.
For the praise, glory and honour of almighty God and for the peace and unity of the universal church and of the whole Christian people. The election of the future Roman and supreme pontiff is soon to be held. We wish that it may be confirmed with greater authority and by the assent of many persons and that, mindful as we are of the state of the church, no doubts or scruples may later remain in people's minds regarding the said election but rather that a secure, true full and perfect union of the faithful may result from it. Therefore this most holy general synod of Constance, mindful of the common good and with the special and express consent and the united wish of the cardinals of the holy Roman church present at the same synod, and of the college of cardinals and of all the nations at this present council, declares, ordains and decrees that, for this time only, at the election of the Roman and supreme pontiff, there shall be added to the cardinals six prelates or other honourable churchmen in holy orders, from each of the nations currently present and named at the same synod, who are to be chosen by each of the said nations within ten days. This same holy synod gives power to all these people, insofar as it is necessary, to elect the Roman pontiff according to the form here laid down. That is to say, the person is to be regarded as the Roman pontiff by the universal church without exception who is elected and admitted by two-thirds of the cardinals present at the conclave and by two-thirds of those from each nation who are to be and have been added to the cardinals. Moreover, the election is not valid nor is the person elected to be regarded as supreme pontiff unless two-thirds of the cardinals present at the conclave, and two-thirds of those from each nation who should be and have been added to the same cardinals, agree to elect him as Roman pontiff. The synod also declares, ordains and decrees that the votes of any persons cast at the election are null unless, as has been said, two-thirds of the cardinals, and two-thirds of those from each nation who should be and have been added to them, agree, directly or by way of addition, upon one person. This must be added, moreover, that the prelates and other persons who should be and have been added to the cardinals for the election, are bound to observe all and singular apostolic constitutions, even penal ones, which have been promulgated regarding the election of the Roman pontiff, just as the cardinals themselves are bound to observe them, and they are bound to their observance. The said electors, both cardinals and others, are also bound to swear, before they proceed to the election, that in attending to the business of the election, they will proceed with pure and sincere minds—since it is a question of creating the vicar Jesus Christ, the successor of the blessed Peter, the governor of the universal church and the leader of the Lord's flock—and that they firmly believe it will benefit the public good of the universal church if they entirely prescind from all affection for persons of any particular nation, or other inordinate affections, as well as from hatred and graces or favours bestowed, in order that by their ministry a beneficial and suitable pastor may be provided for the universal church. This same holy synod, mindful of this notorious vacancy in the Roman church, fixes and assigns the next ten days for all and singular cardinals of the holy Roman church, whether present here or absent, and the other electors mentioned above, to enter into the conclave which is to be held in this city of Constance, in the commune's principal building which has already been allocated for this purpose. The synod ordains, declares and decrees that within these next ten days the aforesaid electors, both cardinals and others mentioned above, must enter into the conclave for the purpose of holding the election and of doing and carrying out all the other matters according as the laws ordain and decree in all things, besides those mentioned above regarding the cardinals and other electors, concerning the election of a Roman pontiff. The same holy synod wishes all these laws to remain in force after the above matters have been observed. For this time, however, it approves, ordains, establishes and decrees this particular form and manner of election. The same holy synod, in order to remove all scruples, makes and declares fit for actively and passively carrying out all legitimate acts at the same synod, insofar as this is necessary, all those who are present at the same synod as well as those who will come and adhere to it, always saving the other decrees of this same sacred council, and it will supply for any defects, if perchance any shall occur in the above, notwithstanding any apostolic constitutions, even those published in general councils, and other constitutions to the contrary.
I quote at length because the opponents at Vatican I to Pastor Aeternus looked to Constance for their inspiration (and hence further quotes from it on the papacy will be in order, especially as the Vatican still considers it ecumenical). What is clear is that the council sees itself as an authority not dependent on another (i.e. the papacy) for its authority.  It fact, it dictates to the pope of Rome.  When it finally settled on one, Martin V, and he agreed to the councils terms, he issued
Quote
Martin, bishop and servant of the servants of God. We note that from the time of the death of pope Gregory XI, our predecessor of happy memory, some Roman pontiffs, or those who claimed to be and were reputed as such in their various obediences..
Martin, etc. We wish and desire to put into effect a decree of this general council [45] which lays down, among other things, that general councils must always be held in the place which the supreme pontiff, with the consent and approval of the council, is bound to depute and assign, within the month before the end of this council, as the place for the next council after the end of the present one. With the consent and approval of this present council, we therefore, by this present decree, depute and assign the city of Pavia for this purpose, and we ordain and decree that prelates and others who ought to be summoned to general councils are obliged to go to Pavia at the aforesaid time. Let nobody therefore ... If anyone however .... Given and enacted at Constance, in the place of this public session ....
Martin, etc. We dissolve the council, as the sacred council itself requires, for reasons that are certain, reasonable and just. We give permission, with the council's approval, to each and every person at the council to return home. Furthermore, on the authority of almighty God and of his blessed apostles Peter and Paul and on our authority, we grant to each and every person who has taken part in this sacred council and its business a full absolution of all his sins, once in his life, provided he takes advantage of the absolution in the correct form within two months of his hearing about it. We grant the same at the hour of death. This is to be understood as applying to both lords and members of their households; provided that they fast on each Friday for a year from the day they come to know of this indulgence, in the case of those who seek the absolution for while they are alive, and for another year in the case of those who seek it for the hour of death, unless they are legitimately prevented from doing so, in which case they should perform other pious works. After the second year, they ought to fast on Fridays until the end of their lives or to perform other pious works. Let nobody therefore .... If anyone however ....
Given and enacted at Constance in the place of this public session ...
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM16.HTM#4
Martin did convene the council of Parva-Siena, according to the decrees of constance, but then through his own constitutions and concordants with the secular powers brought Constance's decrees to nought.  Siena is not even any longer considered ecumenical by the Vatican, but it led to Basel-Florence, which opened
Quote
We, Nicholas, legate of the apostolic see, announce that we preside on behalf of our most holy lord pope Eugenius IV in this sacred synod which was translated from Basel to the city of Ferrara and is already legitimately assembled, and that the continuation of this translated synod has been effected today 8 January, and that the synod is and ought to be continued from today onwards for all the purposes for which the synod of Basel was convened, including being the ecumenical council at which the union of the western and the eastern church is treated and with God's help achieved.
For the praise of almighty God, the exaltation of the catholic faith and the peace, tranquillity and unity of the whole Christian people. This holy universal synod, through the grace of God authorized by the most blessed lord pope Eugenius IV, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit in this city of Ferrara, represents the universal church. Its president, on behalf and in the name of the said most holy lord Eugenius, is the most reverend father and lord in Christ lord Nicholas, cardinal-priest of the holy Roman church of the title of holy Cross in Jerusalem, legate of the apostolic see. It adheres to the firm foundation of him who said to the prince of the apostles: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. It is eager to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, so that we might be one body and one spirit, just as we were called in the one hope of our calling. It records that much was done in days past both at the former council of Basel and after its translation by some staying on there without any authority, and also by the said most blessed pope lord Eugenius, especially in respect of the business of the most holy union of the western and the eastern church, namely the following: the decree of the nineteenth session of the former council of Basel beginning As a dutiful mother, to which the most holy lord Eugenius gave his assent by his letter; also an agreed proposal on the choice of a place to which the council of Basel should be translated which was agreed upon and confirmed by all the fathers in common and which led to the decree of the twenty-fifth session of the former council, which begins This holy synod from its outset etc. and which the pope himself, urged on by the envoys of the Greeks, accepted and confirmed by his letter given in a general consistory at Bologna and published in the presence of these envoys, also the letter of the same most blessed Eugenius dated 18 September last, issued in a general consistory at Bologna and solemnly read out at the beginning of the continuation of this synod, by which the pope with the counsel and consent of the most reverend cardinals of the holy Roman church and with the approval of the prelates then in the curia, transferred the council to this city of Ferrara; also the letter of the declaration of the same, dated 30 December, immediately following the said translation; all of which this holy synod has ordered to be registered verbatim in its acts as a permanent record, as is contained in these same acts...
This holy synod further declares that, since the well known necessity of the above reasons demanded and impelled the said most holy lord Eugenius to that translation, the matter in no way falls within the decrees of the eighth, the eleventh or any other session of the former council of Basel.
It decrees that the assembly at Basel, and every other assembly which may perchance convene there or elsewhere under the name of a general council, rather is and ought to be considered a spurious gathering and conventicle, and can in no way exist with the authority of a general council.
It quashes, invalidates and annuls, and declares to be invalid, quashed, null and of no force or moment, each and all of the things done in the city of Basel in the name of a general council after the said translation, and whatever may be attempted there or elsewhere in the future in the name of a general council.
Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. The duties of the pastoral office over which we preside by divine mercy, despite our lack of merit, demand that we repress by opportune remedies the nefarious excesses of evil-minded persons, especially those who, unless prevented, strive to force the peaceful state of the church into various dangerous storms and disturbances and who endeavour to overturn the barque of Peter, and that we inflict due retribution for their excesses, lest boasting of their malice they give occasion to others to commit mischief. For it is a crime to be slack in punishing crimes that harm many people, as canonical regulations state.
Thus, the former council of Basel debated the choice of a place for the future ecumenical council. Those on whom the power of choosing the place devolved, passed a decree which was accepted by the ambassadors of our most dear son in Christ John, emperor of the Greeks, and of our venerable brother Joseph, patriarch of Constantinople. Some persons chose Avignon or another place, but the said ambassadors protested that most assuredly they did not want to go there, declaring as certain that the said emperor and patriarch would by no means go to the said sacred council unless we attended in person. Those who asked for Avignon, afraid that the Greeks certainly would not come to them, dared to concoct a certain decree or notorious pamphlet, which they call a monition, against us, even though it is null and indeed leads to serious scandal and a split in the church, disrupting this holy work of union with the Greeks.
In order to preserve the unity of the church and to promote the said union with the Greeks, we, for just, necessary and pressing reasons, with the advice and assent of our venerable brothers the cardinals of the holy Roman church, and with the advice and approval of very many of our venerable brothers the archbishops, bishops, beloved chosen sons and abbots who were present at the apostolic see, translated the said council of Basel, by our apostolic authority and in a fixed manner and form, to the city of Ferrara, which is suitable for the Greeks and for us, so that those at Basel might duly recoil from their scandalous actions, as is contained at greater length in the letter composed for the occasion'
Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. It befits us to render thanks to almighty God who, mindful of his past mercies, always bestows on his church even richer growth and, although he allows her to be tossed on occasions by the waves of trials and tribulations, yet never permits her to be submerged but keeps her safe amid the mountainous waters, so that by his mercy she emerges from the various vicissitudes even stronger than before. For behold, the western and eastern peoples, who have been separated for long, hasten to enter into a pact of harmony and unity; and those who were justly distressed at the long dissension that kept them apart, at last after many centuries, under the impulse of him from whom every good gift comes, meet together in person in this place out of desire for holy union.
Therefore we decree and declare, in every way and form as best we can, with the assent of the said emperor and patriarch and of all those in the present synod, that there exists a holy universal or ecumenical synod in this city of Ferrara, which is free and safe for all; and therefore it should be deemed and called such a synod by all, in which this holy business of union will be conducted without any quarrelsome contention but with all charity and, as we hope, will be brought by divine favour to a happy conclusion together with the other holy tasks for which the synod is known to have been instituted.
Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. With the agreement of our most dear son John Palaeologus, illustrious emperor of the Romans, of the deputies of our venerable brothers the patriarchs and of other representatives of the eastern church, to the following
thereupon follow papal bulls of union on the authority of "Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record"
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM17.HTM#8

The unions came to nought, and a few decades later the King of France was holding a council at Pisa with a few cardinals, and the pope at Rome Julian I had to convene a counter-council, whose decrees consist of a series of papal bulls
Quote
Julius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. We intend, with the help of the most High, to proceed with the holding of this sacred Lateran council which has now begun for the praise of God, the peace of the whole church, the union of the faithful the overthrow of heresies and schisms, the reform of morals, and the campaign against the dangerous enemies of the faith, so that the mouths of all schismatics and enemies of peace, those howling dogs, may be silenced and Christians may be able to keep themselves unstained from such pernicious and poisonous contagion.
Julius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. To the praise and glory of him whose works are perfect, we are continuing the sacred council of the Lateran, lawfully assembled by favour of the holy Spirit, in this third session....We condemn, reject and detest, with the approval of this same sacred council, each and every thing done by those sons of damnation, Bernard Carvajal, Guillaume Briconnet, Rene de Prie, and Frederick of San Severino, formerly cardinals, and their supporters, adherents, accomplices and disciples—who are schismatics and heretics and have worked madly to their own and others' ruin, aiming to split asunder the unity of holy mother church at the quasi-council held at Pisa, Milan, Lyons and elsewhere—whatever the things were in number and kind that have been enacted, carried out, done, written, published or ordained up to the present day, including the imposition of taxes carried out by them throughout the kingdom of France, or shall be done in the future. Even though they are indeed null, useless and void and have already been condemned and rejected by us with the approval of the aforesaid sacred council, we nevertheless retain this present condemnation and rejection for the sake of greater precaution....
although the constitution against simony in the election of the pope is on the authority of "Julius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record." When he died, his successor Pope Leo picked up
Quote
Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. By the supreme ordinance of the omnipotent who governs the things of heaven and of earth by his providence, we preside over his holy and universal church, though we are unworthy.Indeed, after the holding of five sessions of the sacred general Lateran council, pope Julius II of happy memory, our predecessor, by the advice and agreement of our venerable brothers the cardinals of the holy Roman church, of whose number we then were, in a praiseworthy and lawful manner and for sound reasons, guided by the holy Spirit, summoned the sixth session of the council to take place on the eleventh day of this month. But after he had been taken from our midst, we postponed the sixth session until today, with the advice and consent of our said brothers, for reasons which were then expressed and for other reasons influencing the attitude of us and of our said brothers. But since there had always been an inner determination within us, while we were of lesser rank, to see the general council being celebrated (as a principal means of cultivating the Lord's field), now that we have been raised to the highest point of the apostolate, considering that a duty which results from the office of pastoral care enjoined on us has coincided with our honourable and beneficial wish, we have undertaken this matter with a more earnest desire and complete readiness of mind. Consequently, with the approval of the same sacred Lateran council we approve the postponement which we made and the council itself, until the aims for which it was summoned have been completed, in particular that a general and settled peace may be arranged between Christian princes and rulers after the violence of wars has been stilled and armed conflict set aside..
Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. The burden of apostolic government ever drives us on so that, for the weaknesses of souls requiring to be healed, of which the almighty Creator from on high has willed us to have the care, and for those ills in particular which are now seen to be pressing most urgently on the faithful, we may exercise...
Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. We are continuing the sacred Lateran council for the praise of the almighty and undivided Trinity and for the glory of him whose place we represent on earth, who develops peace and harmony in his high heavens, and who, on his departure from this world, left peace as a lawful inheritance to his disciples....
Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. Placed by the gift of divine grace at the supreme point of the apostolic hierarchy, we thought nothing was more in keeping with our official duty than to survey, with zeal and care, everything which could pertain to the protection, soundness and extension of the catholic flock entrusted to us. To this purpose we have applied all the force of our activity and the strength of our mind and talent. Our predecessor of happy memory, pope Julius II, since he was concerned about the well-being of the faithful and anxious to protect it, had summoned the ecumenical Lateran council for many other reasons indeed,...
Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. After we had been called by divine dispensation to the care and rule of the universal church, even though we are unworthy of so great a responsibility, we began from the highest point of the apostolate, as from the top of Mount Sion, to turn our immediate gaze and direct our mind to the things that seem to be of primary importance for the salvation, peace and extension of the church itself...
Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. It is eminently fitting for the Roman pontiff to carry out the duty of a provident shepherd, in order to care for and keep safe the Lord's flock entrusted to him by God, since, by the will of the supreme ordinance by which the things of heaven and of earth are arranged by ineffable providence, he acts on the lofty throne of St Peter as vicar on earth of Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. When we notice, out of solicitude for our said pastoral office, that church discipline and the pattern of a sound and upright life are worsening, disappearing and going further astray from the right path throughout almost all the ranks of Christ's faithful, with a disregard for law and with exemption from punishment,...
Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. We ought to give first place in our pastoral office, among our many anxious cares, to ensuring that what is healthy, praiseworthy, in keeping with the Christian faith, and in harmony with good customs may be not only clarified in our time but also made known to future generations,...
Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. Presiding over the government of the universal church (the Lord so disposing), we readily aim to secure the advantages of subjects, in conformity with the obligation of our pastoral office. Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the council, for an everlasting record. We have been set over nations and kingdoms, as the prophet declared, although our merits are unequal to this. We are suitably carrying out the duty of our office when we renew again that reform of the whole church and its affairs which we have accomplished with profit; when we plan to apply suitable remedies for the unchallenged observance of the reform...
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM18.HTM

It is to be noted that the bulls all are on the pope authority, constanting refering to the presumed powers and responsibilities of his office.  Yet he mentions the approval of the council, as done in Pastor Aeternus.

Quote
Under Pope Paul III, Bishop, servant of the servants of God, for a perpetual remembrance hereof
Since there is being disseminated at this time, not without the loss of many souls and grievous detriment to the unity of the Church, a certain erroneous doctrine concerning justification, the holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the most reverend John Maria, Bishop of Praeneste de Monte, and Marcellus, priest of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, cardinals of the holy Roman Church and legates Apostolic a latere, presiding in the name of our most holy Father and Lord in Christ, Paul III, by the providence of God, Pope, intends, for the praise and glory of Almighty God, for the tranquillity of the Church and the salvation of souls, to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and salutary doctrine of justification, which the Sun of justice,[1] Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith[2] taught, which the Apostles transmitted and which the Catholic Church under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost has always retained; strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth presume to believe, preach or teach otherwise than is defined and declared in the present decree.
That our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God,[1] may, after the destruction of errors, remain integral and spotless in its purity, and that the Christian people may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine,[2] since that old serpent,[3] the everlasting enemy of the human race, has, among the many evil
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2010, 11:00:16 AM »

Quote
...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.
2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.
3). Honorius was a heretic.
Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.
Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council  was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

I know the facts do not fit the Pastor Aeternus mold. Oh, well.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas. 

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence.  It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God.  Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false.  Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2010, 03:31:40 PM »

Quote
...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.
2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.
3). Honorius was a heretic.
Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.
Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council  was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

I know the facts do not fit the Pastor Aeternus mold. Oh, well.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas. 

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence.  It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God.  Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false.  Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.
I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2010, 06:44:09 PM »

Quote
...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.
2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.
3). Honorius was a heretic.
Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.
Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council  was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

I know the facts do not fit the Pastor Aeternus mold. Oh, well.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas. 

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence.  It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God.  Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false.  Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.
I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.
According to the article on Honorius  in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "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."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2010, 07:02:07 PM »

Given that Pastor Aeternus claims it comes "with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record," it bears to investigate the make up of that council. I'll start with sources loyal to the Vatican.

The Legion of Mary makes the summary
Quote
This council was summoned by Pope Pius IX by the bull Aeterni Patris of 29 June 1868. The first session was held in St. Peter's basilica on 8 December 1869 in the presence and under the presidency of the Pope.

The purpose of the council was, besides the condemnation of contemporary errors, to define the Catholic doctrine concerning the Church of Christ. In fact, in the three following sessions, there was discussion and approval of only two constitutions: Dogmatic Constitution On The Catholic Faith and First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, the latter dealing with the primacy and infallibility of the bishop of Rome. The discussion and approval of the latter constitution gave rise, particularly in Germany, to bitter and most serious controversies which led to the withdrawal from the Church of those known as "Old Catholics".

The outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war led to the interruption of the council. It was in fact never resumed, nor was it ever officially closed. As in other councils at which the Pope was present and presided, the decrees were in the form of bulls, at the end of which was the clear declaration: "with the approval of the sacred council". Very large numbers attended this council, including, for the first time, bishops from outside Europe and its neighboring lands. Bishops from the eastern Orthodox Churches were also invited, but did not come.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM20.HTM

The "Catholic Encyclopedia" (Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York) states:
Quote
On 6 December, 1864, two days before the publication of the Syllabus, Pius IX announced, at a session of the Congregation of Rites, his intention to call a general council. He commissioned the cardinals residing at Rome to express in writing their views as to the opportuneness of the scheme, and also to name the subjects which, in their opinion, should be laid before the council for discussion. Of the twenty-one reports sent in, only one, that of Cardinal Pentini, expressed the opinion that there was no occasion for the holding of an ecumenical council. The others affirmed the relative necessity of such an assembly, although five did not consider the time suitable. Nearly all sent lists of questions that seemed to need conciliar discussion. Early in March, 1865, the pope appointed a commission of five cardinals to discuss preliminary questions in regard to the council. This was the important "Congregazione speziale direttrice per gli affari del futuro concilio generale", generally called the directing preparatory commission, or the central commission. Four more cardinals were added to the number of its members, and besides a secretary it was given eight consultors. It held numerous meetings in the interval between 9 March, 1865, and Dec., 1869. Its first motion was that bishops of various countries should also be called upon for suggestions as to matters for discussion, and on 27 March, 1865, the pope commanded thirty-six bishops of the Latin Rite designated by him to express their views under pledge of silence. Early in 1866 he also designated several bishops of the Oriental Rite under the same conditions. It was now necessary to form commissions for the more thorough discussion of the subjects to be debated at the council. Accordingly, theologians and canonists, belonging to the secular and regular clergy, were summoned to Rome from the various countries to co-operate in the work. As early as 1865 the nuncios were asked to suggest names of suitable people for these preliminary commissions. The war between Austria and Italy in 1866 and the withdrawal of the French troops from Rome on 11 Dec. of the same year caused an unwelcome interruption of the preparatory labours. They also made the original plan, which was to open the council on the eighteenth centenary festiva of the martyrdom of the two great Apostles, 29 June, 1867, impossible. However, the pope made use of the presence at Rome of nearly five hundred bishops, who had come to attend the centennial celebration, to make the first public announcement of the council at a consistory held on 26 June, 1867. The bishops expressed their agreement with joy in an address dated 1 July. After the return of the French army of protection on 30 Oct., 1867, the continuance of the preparations and the holding of the council itself seemed again possible. The preparatory commission now debated exhaustively the question who should be invited to attend the council. That the cardinals and diocesan bishops should be summoned was self-evident. It was also decided that the titular bishops had the right to be called, and that of the heads of the orders an invitation should be given to the abbots nullius, the abbots general of congregations formed from several monasteries, and lastly, to the generals of the religious orders. It was considered wiser, on account of the state of affairs at the time, not to send an actual invitation to Catholic princes, yet it was intended to grant admission to them or their representatives on demand. In this sense, therefore, the Bull of Convocation, "Æterni Patris", was promulgated, 29 June, 1868; it appointed 8 Dec., 1869, as the date for the opening of the council. The objects of the council were to be the correction of modern errors and a seasonable revision of the legislation of the Church. A special Brief, "Arcano divinæ providentiæ", of 8 Sept., 1868 invited non-Uniate Orientals to appear. A third Brief, "Jam vos omnes", of 13 Sept., 1868, notified Protestants also of the convoking of the council, and exhorted them to use the occasion to reflect on the return to the one household of faith.

Although the Bull convoking the council was received with joy by the bulk of the Catholic masses, it aroused much discontent in many places, especially in Germany, France, and England. In these countries it was feared that the council would promulgate an exact determination of the primatial prerogatives of the papacy and the definition of papal infallibility. The dean of the theological faculty of Paris, Bishop Maret, wrote in opposition to these doctrines the work "Du concile générale et de la paix religieuse" (2 vols., Paris 1869). Bishop Dupanloup of Orléans published the work "Observations sur la controverse soulevée relativement à la définition de l infaillibilité au prochain concile" (Paris, Nov., 1869). Maret's work was answered by several French bishops and by Archbishop Manning. Archbishop Dechamps of Mechlin, Belgium, who had written a work in favour of the definition entitled "L infaillibilité et le concile générale" (Paris, 1869), became involved in a controversy with Dupanloup. In England a book entitled "The Condemnation of Pope Honorius" (London, 1868), written by the convert, Le Page Renouf, aroused animated discussions in newspapers and periodicals. Renouf's publication was refuted by Father Botalla, S.J., in "Honorius Reconsidered with Reference to Recent Apologies" (London, 1869). Letters from French correspondents in the first number for Feb., 1869, of the "Civiltà Cattolica", which stated that the majority of French Catholics desired the declaration of infallibility, added fresh fuel to the flames. In particular, it led to the appearance in the discussion of Ignaz Döllinger, provost of St. Cajetan and professor of church history at Munich. From now onwards Döllinger was the leading spirit of the movement in Germany hostile to the council. He disputed most passionately the Syllabus and the doctrine of papal infallibility in five anonymous articles that were published in March, 1869, in the "Allgemeine Zeitung" of Augsburg. A large number of Catholic scholars opposed him vigorously, especially after he published his articles in book form under the pseudonym of "Janus", "Der Papst und das Konzil" (Leipzig, 1869). Among these was Professor Joseph Hergenröther of Würzburg, who issued in reply "Anti-Janus" (Freiburg, 1870). Still the excitement over the matter grew in such measure that fourteen of the twenty-two German bishops who met at Fulda early in Sept., 1869, felt themselves constrained to call the attention of the Holy Father to it in a special address, stating that on account of the excitement the time was not opportune for defining papal infallibility. The papal notifications addressed to the schismatic Orientals and the Protestants did not produce the desired effect. The European Governments received from Prince Hohenlohe, president of the Bavarian ministry, a circular letter drawn up by Döllinger, designed to prejudice the different Courts against the coming council; but they decided to remain neutral for the time being. Russia alone forbade its Catholic bishops to attend the council.

In the meantime zealous work had been done at Rome in preparation for the council. Besides the general direction that it exercised, the preparatory commission had to draw up an exhaustive order of procedure for the debates of the council. Five special committees, each presided over by a cardinal and having together eighty-eight consultors, prepared the plan (schemata) to be laid before the council. These committees were appointed to consider respectively:

dogma;
church discipline;
orders;
Oriental Churches and missions;
ecclesiastico-political questions.
It may justly be doubted whether the preliminary preparations for any council had ever been made more thoroughly, or more clearly directed to the aim to be attained. As the day of its opening approached, the following drafts were ready for discussion:
three great dogmatic drafts, (a) on the Catholic doctrine in opposition to the errors which frequently spring from Rationalism, (b) on the Church of Christ and, (c) on Christian marriage;
twenty-eight drafts treating matters of church discipline. They had reference to bishops, episcopal sees, the different grades of the other clergy seminaries, the arrangement of philosophical and theological studies, sermons, the catechism, rituals, impediments to marriage, civil marriage, mixed marriages, improvement of Christian morals, feast days, fasts and abstinences, duelling, magnetism, spiritualism, secret societies, etc.;
eighteen drafts of decrees had reference to the religious orders;
two were on the Oriental Rites and missions; these subjects had also been considered in the other drafts of decrees.
In addition a large number of subjects for discussion had been sent by the bishops of various countries. Thus, for instance, the bishops of the church provinces of Quebec and Halifax demanded the lessening of the impediments to marriage, revision of the Breviary, and, above all, the reform and codification of the entire canon law. The petition of Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore treated, among other things, the relations between Church and State religious indifference, secret societies, and the infallibility of the pope. The definition of this last was demanded by various bishops. Others desired a revision of the index of forbidden books. No less than nine petitions bearing nearly two hundred signatures demanded the definition of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. Over three hundred fathers of the council requested the elevation of St. Joseph as patron saint of the Universal Church.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2010, 07:02:37 PM »

Quote
...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.
2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.
3). Honorius was a heretic.
Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.
Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council  was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

I know the facts do not fit the Pastor Aeternus mold. Oh, well.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas. 


4:3 "To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received."
4 "It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing."
5. "The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions."
6 "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles"
"Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."
7 "This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."

Well, given this, it is not hard to see how the Pope St. Agatho's Letter can be seen as ex cathdra. However, it is also easy to see how pope Honorius' letters, condemned explicitely by the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, also meet this criteria of ex cathedra.

"I confess to almighty God,
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned through my own fault,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do"-the Roman Missal

It would seem that the act of omission committed by Honorius' discharge of office would constitute a counterpart of an act of commission like Munificentissimus Deus by Pope Pius XII, at less according to what Pastor Aeternus, backed by the Sentence and Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence.

No documentary evidence exists that shows that the Fathers indulged in hair splitting over formal and informal heretic, material v. immaterial heresy, etc.

They just say "anathema to Honorius the heretic!"

It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God.  Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false.

We know that he makes mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind. That is not what is argued here.

What is argued is that by the terms of Pastor Aeternus, the Vatican has to affirm the Sixth Councils anathematization of Honorius as a heretic.

Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.
If that were true, it wouldn't have come up even as V I was opening, and Hefele wouldn't have had to rewrite his account, and Bellarmine would not have been undone by the discovery the  Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, and the prominent condemnation of Honorius in the old office of the commemoration of Pope St. Leo II would not have been removed.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2010, 07:02:52 PM »

Quote
...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.
2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.
3). Honorius was a heretic.
Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.
Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council  was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

I know the facts do not fit the Pastor Aeternus mold. Oh, well.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas. 

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence.  It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God.  Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false.  Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.
I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.
Nice try.

The Definition of the Fourth Ecumenical Council condemned the teaching of Eutychus, and stills does.

It did not condemn, nor mention, Pope Dioscoros at all, and it is his partisans that the boldfaced, i.e. the OO, apply. The Council only deposed Pope Dioscoros for refusing to answer its summons:

Quote
The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God according to the constitution of our most pious and beloved of God emperors assembled together at Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the martyry of the most holy and victorious Martyr Euphemia to Dioscorus.

We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order (θεσμοῦ ) by the holy and ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of your disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod and on account of the other crimes of which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did not come.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.x.html

Compare that to the condemnation of Nestorius:
Quote
As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our citation, and did not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him, we were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines.  We discovered that he had held and published impious doctrines in his letters and treatises, as well as in discourses which he delivered in this city, and which have been testified to.  Compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter (ἀναγκαίως κατεπειχθέντες ἀπό τε τῶν κανόνων, καὶ ἐκ τὴς ἐπιστολῆς, κ.τ.λ.) of our most holy father and fellow-servant Cœlestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xi.html

And then Honorius:
I've already posted the thoughts of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils on the Matter of Honorius:
Quote
The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which has been assembled by the grace of God, and the religious decree of the most religious and faithful and mighty Sovereign Constantine, in this God-protected and royal city of Constantinople, New Rome, in the Hall of the imperial Palace, called Trullus, has decreed as follows....The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith.  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, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, 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, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation.  Christ, therefore, our God, has raised up our faithful Sovereign, a new David, having found him a man after his own heart, who as it is written, “has not suffered his eyes to sleep nor his eyelids to slumber,” until he has found a perfect declaration of orthodoxy by this our God-collected and holy Synod
Definition of the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Council
Quote
The holy council said:  After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters...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....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.  We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers.  Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches.
The Sentence of the Sixth Ecumenical Council Against the Monothelites
Quote
In the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, the most pious Emperor, the peaceful and Christ-loving Constantine, an Emperor faithful to God in Jesus Christ, to all our Christ-loving people living in this God-preserved and royal city...In the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, the most pious Emperor, the peaceful and Christ-loving Constantine, an Emperor faithful to God in Jesus Christ, to all our Christ-loving people living in this God-preserved and royal city...He, the Emperor, had therefore convoked this holy and Ecumenical Synod, and published the present edict with the confession of faith, in order to confirm and establish its decrees...As he recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy...and ordained that no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and one energy.  In no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved.  Whoever did not obey the imperial edict should, if he were a bishop or cleric be deposed; if an official, punished with confiscation of property and loss of the girdle; if a private person, banished from the residence and all other cities.
The Imperial Edict Posted in the Third Atrium of the Great Church Near What is Called Dicymbala to Enforce the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council
Quote
Many years to the Emperor!  Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor!  Many years to the Orthodox King!  Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace!  Many years to Constantine, a second Martian!  Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius!  Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian!  Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith!  O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches!  O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!...To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!...To all heretics, anathema!  To all who side with heretics, anathema!
May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!
Acclamation of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council

Quote
We affirm that in Christ there be two wills and two operations according to the reality of each nature, as also the Sixth Synod, held at Constantinople, taught, casting out Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, and those who agree with them, and all those who are unwilling to be reverent
Decree of the Seventh Ecumenical Council
Quote
And now having carefully traced the traditions of the Apostles and Fathers, we are bold to speak.  Having but one mind by the inbreathing of the most Holy Spirit, and being all knit together in one, and understanding the harmonious tradition of the Catholic Church, we are in perfect harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecumenical councils; and accordingly we have anathematised the madness of Arius,...also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematised their own evil will.
Letter of the Seventh Ecumenical Council to the Emperor and Empress

Just for starters.
http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/Honorius%20authorID:schaff?bookID=npnf214

I'll just add for now the words of the "Catholic Encyclopedia"
Quote
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.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

No, no post mortem rehabilitation is in the offering for Honrius.
 
 
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2010, 07:19:31 PM »

Quote
...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.
2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.
3). Honorius was a heretic.
Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.
Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council  was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

I know the facts do not fit the Pastor Aeternus mold. Oh, well.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas. 

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence.  It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God.  Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false.  Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.
I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.
According to the article on Honorius  in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "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."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI
I don't agree with the article.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2010, 08:06:51 PM »

Here is the author of the Encyclopedia extract. Looks like one of the Oxford Movement patristic converts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chapman_%28priest%29

Interesting he believed in the priority of the St. Matthew gospel. Some of his other books are favourites of Roman Catholic apologists in favour of the papacy, regularly cited in the online tug of war between Catholics and Anglicans on St. Cyprian.

Quote
John Chapman was thought by competent critics to be the greatest patristics scholar of his time. Reputedly he had read all 378 volumes of Migne. However, he did not only read both Greek and Latin with the greatest facility, but also read and wrote French, Italian and German with similar ease. Many of his contributions to biblical scholarship and patristics have proved of lasting value, especially his work on St Cyprian, St John the Presbyter (of Papias), and on the priority of the Gospel according to Matthew that, so Chapman argued in support of the early Church tradition, was the first Gospel account to have been written (see also Synoptic Problem).

Among the novices that Chapman clothed in the monastic habit was in 1932 John Bernard Orchard, who soon felt drawn to follow his Abbot into researching the priority of the Gospel according to Matthew in the light of the patristic evidence, and eventually, after also constructing a synopsis of the four Gospel accounts in Greek and English for the easier study of the compositional sequence Matthew-Luke-Mark-John that is supported by certain early Christian writers, produced what by hindsight may be considered a synthesis of his and his mentor's insights.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 08:07:51 PM by John Larocque » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2010, 12:32:34 AM »

Quote
...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.
2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.
3). Honorius was a heretic.
Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.
Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council  was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

I know the facts do not fit the Pastor Aeternus mold. Oh, well.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas. 

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence.  It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God.  Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false.  Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.
I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.
According to the article on Honorius  in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "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."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI
I don't agree with the article.
OK. But it looks like some Catholics do agree with the article? So it presents a problem of sorts.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 21, 2010, 01:36:12 AM »


No documentary evidence exists that shows that the Fathers indulged in hair splitting over formal and informal heretic, material v. immaterial heresy, etc.
They just say "anathema to Honorius the heretic!"


There is no documentary evidence that supports that Honorius intended to teach against the Church.  There is no formal heresy and one has to ask why they waited until LONG after he was dead to pronounce against him rather than moving against him immediately.  What he was trying to do was hardly a secret.  So there is a great deal missing in your interpretive scheme.

Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.
If that were true, it wouldn't have come up even as V I was opening, and Hefele wouldn't have had to rewrite his account, and Bellarmine would not have been undone by the discovery the  Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, and the prominent condemnation of Honorius in the old office of the commemoration of Pope St. Leo II would not have been removed.
[/quote]
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2010, 01:36:12 AM »

Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.
If that were true, it wouldn't have come up even as V I was opening, and Hefele wouldn't have had to rewrite his account, and Bellarmine would not have been undone by the discovery the  Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, and the prominent condemnation of Honorius in the old office of the commemoration of Pope St. Leo II would not have been removed.

Let me repeat.  Your interpretive scheme is faulty and there is nothing in the story of Honorius that mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

Mary
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 21, 2010, 01:36:13 AM »

Quote
...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.
2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.
3). Honorius was a heretic.
Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.
Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council  was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

I know the facts do not fit the Pastor Aeternus mold. Oh, well.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas. 

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence.  It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God.  Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false.  Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.
I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.
According to the article on Honorius  in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "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."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI
I don't agree with the article.

Why not.  It is telling the truth.  The anathema is of his public statement, not of the man, his personal beliefs or his intentions.  That very fact makes the whole issue a non-issue with respect to the First Vatican Council and there are no documents to prove otherwise.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2010, 01:36:13 AM »

According to the article on Honorius  in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "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."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI
I don't agree with the article.
Here's the article's Nihil obstat and Imprematur
Quote
Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Where's yours?
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2010, 02:44:19 AM »


No documentary evidence exists that shows that the Fathers indulged in hair splitting over formal and informal heretic, material v. immaterial heresy, etc.
They just say "anathema to Honorius the heretic!"

There is no documentary evidence that supports that Honorius intended to teach against the Church.
The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council found otherwise. Of course, the problem is that they destroyed the evidence. But then, they destroyed the evidence against the gnostics, Arius, Origen, Nestorius, etc. as well. Or maybe they're not heretics either.  Is EP Sergius a heretic?

 
There is no formal heresy and one has to ask why they waited until LONG after he was dead to pronounce against him rather than moving against him immediately.
The Emperor.

 
What he was trying to do was hardly a secret.  So there is a great deal missing in your interpretive scheme.
Blame the Fathers.

But no, there is plenty. I've be posting more.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2010, 03:19:29 AM »

On first glance, it would seem that we would agree with Pastor Aeternus in its beginning:
Quote
1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37], in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.

2. Therefore, before he was glorified, he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38].

3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.

Pastor aeternus et episcopus animarum nostrarum, ut salutiferum redemptionis opus perenne redderet, sanctam aedificare Ecclesiam decrevit, in qua veluti in domo Dei viventis fideles omnes unius fidei et charitatis vinculo contuerentur. Quapropter, priusquam clarificaretur, rogavit Patrem non pro Apostolis tantum, sed et pro eis, qui credituri erant per verbum eorum in ipsum, ut omnes unum essent, sicut ipse Filius et Pater unum sunt. Quemadmodum igitur Apostolos, quos sibi de mundo elegerat, misit, sicut ipse missus erat a Patre: ita in Ecclesia sua Pastores et Doctores usque ad consummationem saeculi esse voluit.

but the devil is always in the details, and PA continues to give them.
Quote
4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.

5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41].

6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends.

7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.

8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.

Ut vero episcopatus ipse unus et indivisus esset, et per cohaerentes sibi invicem sacerdotes credentium multitudo universa in fidei et communionis unitate conservaretur, beatum Petrum ceteris Apostolis praeponens in ipso instituit perpetuum utriusque unitatis principium ac visibile fundamentum, super cuius fortitudinem aeternum exstrueretur templum, et Ecclesiae coelo inferenda sublimitas in huius fidei firmitate consurgeret (1). Et quoniam portae inferi ad evertendam, si fieri posset, Ecclesiam contra eius fundamentum divinitus positum maiori in dies odio undique insurgunt; Nos ad catholici gregis custodiam, incolumitatem, augmentum, necessarium esse iudicamus, sacro approbante Concilio, doctrinam de institutione, perpetuitate, ac natura sacri Apostolici primatus, in quo totius Ecclesiae vis ac soliditas consistit, cunctis fidelibus credendam et tenendam, secundum antiquam atque constantem universalis Ecclesiae fidem, proponere, atque contrarios, dominico gregi adeo perniciosos errores proscribere et condemnare.

It there is any doubts as to what was envisioned by this, the Roman Catechism, mandated by Trent and promulgated by Pope Pius V
Quote
The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.

It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and as clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the .flood.

The same doctrine was long before established by Saints Irenaeus and Cyprian. The latter, speaking of the unity of the Church observes: The Lord said to Peter, I say to thee, Peter! thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church. He builds His Church on one. And although after His Resurrection He gave equal power to all His Apostles, saying: As the Father hath sent me, I also send you, receive ye the Holy Ghost; yet to make unity more manifest, He decided by His own authority that it should be derived from one alone, etc.

Again, Optatus of Milevi says: You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, who occupied it as head of the Apostles; in order that in that one chair the unity of the Church might be preserved by all, and that the other Apostles might not claim each a chair for himself; so that now he who erects another in opposition to this single chair is a schismatic and a prevaricator.

Later on St. Basil wrote: Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants.

Lastly, St. Ambrose says: Because he alone of all of them professed (Christ) he was placed above all.

Should anyone object that the Church is content with one Head and one Spouse, Jesus Christ, and requires no other, the answer is obvious. For as we deem Christ not only the author of all the Sacraments, but also their invisible minister �� He it is who baptises, He it is who absolves, although men are appointed by Him the external ministers of the Sacraments �� so has He placed over His Church, which He governs by His invisible Spirit, a man to be His vicar and the minister of His power. A visible Church requires a visible head; therefore the Saviour appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful, when He committed to his care the feeding of all His sheep, in such ample terms that He willed the very same power of ruling and governing the entire Church to descend to Peter's successors.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed09.htm

Quote
Patriarchs
In the fourth degree come Patriarchs, that is to say, the first and highest of the Fathers. Formerly, besides the Roman Pontiff, there were in the universal Church only four Patriarchs, who, however, were not of equal dignity. Thus Constantinople, though it reached the patriarchal honour only after all the others, yet it obtained a higher rank by reason of being the capital of the Empire. Next in rank came the Patriarch of Alexandria, which Church had been founded by St. Mark the Evangelist by order of the Prince of the Apostles. The third was that of Antioch, where Peter fixed his first See. Finally, that of Jerusalem, a See first governed by James, the brother of our Lord.

The Pope
Above all these, the Catholic Church has always placed the Supreme Pontiff of Rome, whom Cyril of Alexandria, in the Council of Ephesus, named the Chief Bishop, Father and Patriarch of the whole world. He sits in that chair of Peter in which beyond every shadow of doubt the Prince of the Apostles sat to the end of his days, and hence it is that in him the Church recognises the highest degree of dignity, and a universality of jurisdiction derived, not from the decrees of men or Councils, but from God Himself. Wherefore he is the Father and guide of all the faithful, of all the Bishops, and of all the prelates, no matter how high their power and office; and as successor of St. Peter, as true and lawful Vicar of Christ our Lord, he governs the universal Church.From what has been said, therefore, pastors should teach what are the principal duties and functions of the various ecclesiastical orders and degrees, and also who is the minister of this Sacrament.

The Minister of Holy Orders
Beyond all doubt, it is to the Bishop that the administration (of orders) belongs, as is easily proved by the authority of Holy Scripture, by most certain tradition, by the testimony of all the Fathers, by the decrees of the Councils, and by the usage and practice of Holy Church.

It is true that permission has been granted to some abbots occasionally to administer those orders that are minor and not sacred; yet there is no doubt whatever that it is the proper office of the Bishop, and of the Bishop alone to confer the orders called holy or major.

To ordain subdeacons, deacons and priests, one Bishop suffices; but in accordance with an Apostolic tradition that has been always observed in the Church, Bishops are consecrated by three Bishops.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-o.htm

The Roman Catechism, PA, and the CCC (which Lord willing we will get to) are wrong, of course, but before I get into that, I'll tie these claims, given the merger of the threads, to the case against Honorius.

In the words of the CE
Quote
Pope (625-12 October, 638), a , consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V.
Quote
The origin of the Monothelite controversy is thus related by Sergius in his letter to Pope Honorius. When the Emperor Heraclius in the course of the war which he began about 619, came to Theodosiopolis (Erzeroum) in Armenia (about 622), a Monophysite named Paul, a leader of the Acephali, made a speech before him in favour of his heresy. The emperor refuted him with theological arguments, and incidentally made use of the expression "one operation" of Christ. Later on (about 626) he inquired of Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis and metropolitan of the Lazi, whether his words were correct. Cyrus was uncertain, and by the emperor's order wrote to Sergius the Patriarch of Constantinople, whom Heraclius greatly trusted, for advice. Sergius in reply sent him a letter said to have been written by Mennas of Constantinople to Pope Vigilius and approved by the latter, in which several authorities were cited for one operation and one will. This letter was afterwards declared to be a forgery and was admitted to be such at the Sixth General Council. Nothing more occurred, according to Sergius, until in June, 631, Cyrus was promoted by the emperor to the See of Alexandria...
In 631 Cyrus took the throne of Alexandria as his reward, and on the basis of the monoenergist formula many miaphysites were received into his patriarchate. Negotiations were begun in 629 with the miaphyisite Patriarch Athanasius of Antioch, who entered into union with the Patriarchy, taking the see of Antioch, on the basis of the formula "two united natures in Christ, one will and one activity."  The Catholicos of All Armenia was brought into back into union with the Pentarchy at the Synod of Theodosiopolis (Karin/Erzerum) in 633 on the basis of the monoenergist formula.  Arcadius of Cyprus received the dogma in 623, and ascended to head the Church of Cyprus and lead it into heresy in 630 (so I remembered incorrectly on Cyprus' record).

So what?

Well, if Honorius ascended the apostolic throne of St. Peter in 630, then, according to PA, all authority in the Church flowed from him. Which means he is responsible for Cyrus becoming Pope of Alexandria, for Athanasius entering into union (as the papal assent, to judge from Lyons, Florence, Brest, Uzhhorod, etc, is necessary) as the Patriarch of Antioch, for the Armenian Catholicate entering into union via heresy with Rome, and Arcadius taking over Cyprus. And if, when EP Sergius wrote to him, Honorius, " in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority," using "this gift of truth and never-failing faith [being] therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error" instead of taking the opportunity to depose the bishops misusing their authority to teach heresy-as, according to PA, they were "bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world"-instead of Orthodoxy, Honorius faciliated heresy as well as Sergius did.

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.  For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body." Honorius, receiving Cyrus, Athanasius, Arcadius etc. as members of the body of which he, Honorius, was head, did "abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received" and being "in agreement with" the other heresiarchs usurping the thrones of the Pentarchy, effectively lead the Roman Church into heresy. He who does not gather, scatters. Instead of making "sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received"

And Honorius cannot claim invincible ignorance. Pat. St. Sophronius had gone to Rome, Constantiople, Alexandria and Antioch before ascending as worthy successor to St. James the Brother of God, fighting the monoenergic/monothelete heresy. He used his enthronement address to denounce it, and published it far and wide, until the Sixth Council adopted it as the Fourth Council did Leo's Tome, and put it in contrast to the damned correspondance of Honorius.  In Cyprus, his legate St. Maximus fought Honorius' legate.
Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy: The Synodical Letter and Seventh Century Heresy By Pauline Allen
http://books.google.com/books?id=_d0mx7Di1QkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Sophronius+of+Jerusalem+Synodical+letter&hl=en&ei=f1eYTIfjNYKgnwf6seD9Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Byzantine Rome and the Greek popes: Eastern influences on Rome and the Papacy, Parts 590-752 By Andrew J. Ekonomou
http://books.google.com/books?id=zomZk6DbFTIC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=ekthesis+monothelitism&source=bl&ots=ZTamkY3v_y&sig=8S38bDnwq0TkZ45XdkvkJdGvuv8&hl=en&ei=BkCYTLb4JYX_ngfwy6wY&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ekthesis%20monothelitism&f=false

Honorius, if he had the powers PA claims, left the shepherds in place who were poisoning the sheep. Whether they ate it difrectly from his hand or not matters not. "by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith" they became one dead flock.

"This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor," defending them by allowing them to continue to preach heresy.

"The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon" If Honorius gave Sergius and company a pass, who was to condemn them?

"And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff"? Rather, those who did not stray from the genuine path of truth lived to see St. Sophronius, not Honorius, vindicated in Ecumenical Council.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #31 on: September 21, 2010, 01:05:18 PM »

Quote
...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.
2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.
3). Honorius was a heretic.
Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.
Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council  was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

I know the facts do not fit the Pastor Aeternus mold. Oh, well.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas. 

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence.  It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God.  Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false.  Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.
I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.
According to the article on Honorius  in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "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."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI
I don't agree with the article.

Why not.  It is telling the truth.  The anathema is of his public statement, not of the man, his personal beliefs or his intentions.  That very fact makes the whole issue a non-issue with respect to the First Vatican Council and there are no documents to prove otherwise.

M.
I don't agree that he held to heretical beliefs because the statements that he makes are definitely ambiguos. He seems more concerned with prudent termonology than he is about defining a particular belief.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2010, 05:27:01 PM »

I don't agree with the article.
Why not.  It is telling the truth.  The anathema is of his public statement, not of the man, his personal beliefs or his intentions.  That very fact makes the whole issue a non-issue with respect to the First Vatican Council and there are no documents to prove otherwise.M.
I don't agree that he held to heretical beliefs because the statements that he makes are definitely ambiguos. He seems more concerned with prudent termonology than he is about defining a particular belief.
What statements are you talking about, as Honorius' writings, like any other heretic, were consigned to the flames by the Fathers.

The Fathers, seeing the encyclical of Honorius to Sergius, "[found] in his letter to Sergius that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines."

It seems others, so taken by Ultramontanist fever, have taken the present absence of evidence as evidence of absence, including Robert Bellarmine:
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/HonoriusCalumny.htm
Quote
The Calumny against Pope Honorius I
HONORIUS I (625 - 638):
THE SULLIED REPUTATION OF A HOLY [!? Huh!?] POPE.
St. Robert Bellarmine ended the sixth chapter of his fourth book about the spiritual power of the popes (Controversiarum De Summo Pontifice, Liber Quartus, De Potestate Spirituali, Caput VI) by noting “...that up to now no supreme Pontiff has ever been an haeretic, since it certainly cannot be proven of any of them that he was an haeretic: therefore it is a sign (from Heaven) that such a thing cannot happen”....
But his longer historical research has been devoted to everything falsely pretended about the Monothelist deviation of Honorius I. For, there has been a crowd of people relentlessly blackening this Pope's pontifical actions before Bellarmine, afterwards, and up to now. Here is what Bellarmine says to begin with:
The twenty third (slandered) one is Honorius I whom Nilus declares to have been a Monothelist . . . In the same way, the "Magdeburgenses centuries" . . . put him amidst manifest heretics: Melchior Cano, for example, did this.
St. Robert then argues a long series of pros and cons. He gives all the details he has found true, and they fill seven large in-quarto pages. To make our summary clearer, we will divide his answers between those concerning the substance of Honorius' letters, and those concerning the proofs of numberless falsifications and forgeries that caused many people, especially during the Middle Ages, to believe that Honorius had been solemnly condemned by the Church.
As St. Robert reports, all the scandalous stories started with the Sixth Synod of Constantinople (681-682), e.g. “That synod has condemned Honorius as an heretic (act. 13) and has burnt his letters”...
Next, we cover his assertions and proofs that Honorius' letters to Sergius may have been tampered with by heretics, and then placed into the conciliar register.  He first notes that:
    . . . the supposition would not be rash because pseudo-letters of pope Vigil and of Manna the Constantinopolitan Patriarch had previously been introduced into the records of the Fifth General Council. This has been testified in the 12th and 14th acts of the Sixth General Council, when the hoax was discovered as the Fathers read over the acts of the preceding Fifth Synod and found that files containing fabricated letters had been inserted. There would be nothing extraordinary if the same kind of forgers had falsified the register of the Sixth General Council.
This, surely, is enough to convince sensible Christians that Honorius has never been an heretic.  But because so much is made of the condemnation of this disciple of Gregory (Gregorius Magnus, i.e. St. Gregory the Great) by the so-called Sixth Synod of Constantinople, to satisfy interested readers' curiosity, let us go on with what Bellarmine says about it:
No doubt the enemies of the Roman Church have achieved (this inclusion of) Honorius in the list of those condemned by the sixth council, as well as interpolating every charge invented against him in the conciliar register. That is what I demonstrate first of all through the testimony of Anastasius the librarian who reports in his “History” that (that particular) treachery really happened, according to the description of the Greek Theophanus Isaurus; secondly by reminding people that it was an almost universal practice among Greeks to falsify texts.
Coming from the see of the Donation of Constantine and the False Decretals, this last bit is quite rich indeed. Alas! for Bellarmine, after his defense of Honorius-in effect calling the Sixth Ecumenical Council a Robber Council, impuned its Fathers and forgers and its conclusions as worthless-the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, the handbook of the Vatican's chancellary until the 11th century, full of denunciation of Honorius, was found a few years after Bellarmine's death.

Unfortunately for PA, Ultramontanism and Honorius, Bellarmine is not the court of appeal from the Ecumenical Council. The Fathers saw the evidence and rendered judgment, binding Honorius for his heresy.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2010, 05:27:02 PM »

According to the article on Honorius  in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "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."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI
I don't agree with the article.
Here's the article's Nihil obstat and Imprematur
Quote
Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Where's yours?

This article actually makes my point.

Mary
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2010, 05:28:24 PM »

Quote
...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.
2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.
3). Honorius was a heretic.
Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.
Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council  was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

I know the facts do not fit the Pastor Aeternus mold. Oh, well.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas. 

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence.  It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God.  Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false.  Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.
I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.
According to the article on Honorius  in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "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."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI
I don't agree with the article.

Why not.  It is telling the truth.  The anathema is of his public statement, not of the man, his personal beliefs or his intentions.  That very fact makes the whole issue a non-issue with respect to the First Vatican Council and there are no documents to prove otherwise.

M.
I don't agree that he held to heretical beliefs because the statements that he makes are definitely ambiguos. He seems more concerned with prudent termonology than he is about defining a particular belief.

We don't even need to split that hair.  Truly.

I am out of this topic for the time being because it has slid down the hole into Wonderland, and my name ain't Alice yet!!

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2010, 05:29:59 PM »

Well, given this, it is not hard to see how the Pope St. Agatho's Letter can be seen as ex cathdra. However, it is also easy to see how pope Honorius' letters, condemned explicitely by the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, also meet this criteria of ex cathedra.
It might be relevant to take a look at what some Catholic theologians have to say about ex cathedra and infallibility declarations.  Father Sullivan is a leading theological authority on the magisterium, who  wrote: Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (Paulist, 1983) and Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Church Documents (Paulist, spring 1996).

Here is an article by Father Sullivan:

http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/sulliva2.asp

Finally got a chance to look at your link. Rather odd that you pick a site
Quote
While Archbishop Bertone is second in charge of the CDF under the Prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger, his article cannot be described as an official document issued by the congregation. On the other hand, when the Secretary of the CDF publishes "theological observations" concerning the doctrinal weight of recent documents of the Roman magisterium, one can hardly ignore the likelihood that his views represent an understanding of the matter that is shared by the Cardinal Prefect and other members of the CDF. If this is the case, it would not be surprising if official documents emanating from Rome in the future were to give magisterial authority to opinions expressed in this article by Archbishop Bertone. Hence, his article deserves a careful reading. In this Note, I focus on what he says about the doctrinal weight of a papal statement affirming that a particular doctrine had been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium.
It is well known that such an affirmation has been made by the CDF in its Responsum ad dubium concerning the doctrine that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood.(FN3) To my knowledge, this is the first time that the Roman magisterium has ever declared that a specific doctrine was taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium. When Pope Pius IX insisted that Catholic theologians must give their assent of faith not only to defined dogmas, but also to doctrines that are "handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed," he did not name any specific doctrine as falling in that category.(FN4) Nor did the First Vatican Council do so, when it declared that the assent of "divine and Catholic faith" must be given to doctrines which are proposed by the Church "by its ordinary and universal magisterium as divinely revealed and to be believed as such."(FN5) Vatican II spelled out the conditions under which the teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium would be infallible, but it did not specify which doctrines had been so taught.(FN6)
Private theologians have not been so reticent. When they wrote manuals for the use of students, they usually assigned a "theological note" to each of their theses. While the note de fide definita was attached to "defined dogma," the note de fide without definita could mean that, in the judgment of the manualist, the doctrine was taught as of faith by the ordinary universal magisterium. More recently, some Catholic theologians have claimed that the wrongfulness of the use of artificial means of contraception has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium.(FN7) William E. May extended such a claim to the "core of Catholic moral teaching," when he wrote: "Vatican II definitely teaches that the magisterium does teach infallibly on questions of morality when specific conditions are met, and I submit that these conditions have been met with respect to the core of Catholic moral teaching concerning the inviolability of innocent human life, the evil of adultery and fornication and similar issues."(FN8)
With after nearly two centuries of these proclamations of infallibility, and still the Vatican's leading theological authorities on "infallibility" seem not to be able to tell us what is "infallibly" defined.

As I have said many a time, the dogma of papal infallibility has solved no problems but created many.

They can't tell what a present day pope of Rome teaches "infallibly," and yet we are supposed to trust their judgment over the Father of the Ecumenical Council on a pope of Rome whose writings do not survive and died over a millenium ago, in the "Dark Ages."

Quote
I repeat, then, that to my knowledge the Responsum ad dubium issued by the CDF in 1995 is the first official document of the Roman magisterium that has ever declared that a specific doctrine was taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium. While Pope John Paul II approved the publication of the Responsum and, as Cardinal Ratzinger has said, "actually wanted this text,"(FN12) it is still a statement of the CDF and not a papal declaration.

The letter of Honorius, however, was a papal declaration.  Hence the topic of the article has no relevance to it.  Perhaps it does for the acts of Honorius' legate at the council at Cyprus which led to the Ekthesis, but even then,, Honorius support, passive or active, in face of Pat. St. Sophronius active opposition, raised this above "ordinary magisterium" if that existed.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2010, 08:13:05 PM »

On first glance, it would seem that we would agree with Pastor Aeternus in its beginning:
Quote
1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37], in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.

2. Therefore, before he was glorified, he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38].

3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.

Pastor aeternus et episcopus animarum nostrarum, ut salutiferum redemptionis opus perenne redderet, sanctam aedificare Ecclesiam decrevit, in qua veluti in domo Dei viventis fideles omnes unius fidei et charitatis vinculo contuerentur. Quapropter, priusquam clarificaretur, rogavit Patrem non pro Apostolis tantum, sed et pro eis, qui credituri erant per verbum eorum in ipsum, ut omnes unum essent, sicut ipse Filius et Pater unum sunt. Quemadmodum igitur Apostolos, quos sibi de mundo elegerat, misit, sicut ipse missus erat a Patre: ita in Ecclesia sua Pastores et Doctores usque ad consummationem saeculi esse voluit.

but the devil is always in the details, and PA continues to give them.
Quote
4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.

5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41].

6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends.

7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.

8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.

Ut vero episcopatus ipse unus et indivisus esset, et per cohaerentes sibi invicem sacerdotes credentium multitudo universa in fidei et communionis unitate conservaretur, beatum Petrum ceteris Apostolis praeponens in ipso instituit perpetuum utriusque unitatis principium ac visibile fundamentum, super cuius fortitudinem aeternum exstrueretur templum, et Ecclesiae coelo inferenda sublimitas in huius fidei firmitate consurgeret (1). Et quoniam portae inferi ad evertendam, si fieri posset, Ecclesiam contra eius fundamentum divinitus positum maiori in dies odio undique insurgunt; Nos ad catholici gregis custodiam, incolumitatem, augmentum, necessarium esse iudicamus, sacro approbante Concilio, doctrinam de institutione, perpetuitate, ac natura sacri Apostolici primatus, in quo totius Ecclesiae vis ac soliditas consistit, cunctis fidelibus credendam et tenendam, secundum antiquam atque constantem universalis Ecclesiae fidem, proponere, atque contrarios, dominico gregi adeo perniciosos errores proscribere et condemnare.

It there is any doubts as to what was envisioned by this, the Roman Catechism, mandated by Trent and promulgated by Pope Pius V
Quote
The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.

It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and as clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the .flood.

The same doctrine was long before established by Saints Irenaeus and Cyprian. The latter, speaking of the unity of the Church observes: The Lord said to Peter, I say to thee, Peter! thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church. He builds His Church on one. And although after His Resurrection He gave equal power to all His Apostles, saying: As the Father hath sent me, I also send you, receive ye the Holy Ghost; yet to make unity more manifest, He decided by His own authority that it should be derived from one alone, etc.

Again, Optatus of Milevi says: You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, who occupied it as head of the Apostles; in order that in that one chair the unity of the Church might be preserved by all, and that the other Apostles might not claim each a chair for himself; so that now he who erects another in opposition to this single chair is a schismatic and a prevaricator.

Later on St. Basil wrote: Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants.

Lastly, St. Ambrose says: Because he alone of all of them professed (Christ) he was placed above all.

Should anyone object that the Church is content with one Head and one Spouse, Jesus Christ, and requires no other, the answer is obvious. For as we deem Christ not only the author of all the Sacraments, but also their invisible minister �� He it is who baptises, He it is who absolves, although men are appointed by Him the external ministers of the Sacraments �� so has He placed over His Church, which He governs by His invisible Spirit, a man to be His vicar and the minister of His power. A visible Church requires a visible head; therefore the Saviour appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful, when He committed to his care the feeding of all His sheep, in such ample terms that He willed the very same power of ruling and governing the entire Church to descend to Peter's successors.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed09.htm

Quote
Patriarchs
In the fourth degree come Patriarchs, that is to say, the first and highest of the Fathers. Formerly, besides the Roman Pontiff, there were in the universal Church only four Patriarchs, who, however, were not of equal dignity. Thus Constantinople, though it reached the patriarchal honour only after all the others, yet it obtained a higher rank by reason of being the capital of the Empire. Next in rank came the Patriarch of Alexandria, which Church had been founded by St. Mark the Evangelist by order of the Prince of the Apostles. The third was that of Antioch, where Peter fixed his first See. Finally, that of Jerusalem, a See first governed by James, the brother of our Lord.

The Pope
Above all these, the Catholic Church has always placed the Supreme Pontiff of Rome, whom Cyril of Alexandria, in the Council of Ephesus, named the Chief Bishop, Father and Patriarch of the whole world. He sits in that chair of Peter in which beyond every shadow of doubt the Prince of the Apostles sat to the end of his days, and hence it is that in him the Church recognises the highest degree of dignity, and a universality of jurisdiction derived, not from the decrees of men or Councils, but from God Himself. Wherefore he is the Father and guide of all the faithful, of all the Bishops, and of all the prelates, no matter how high their power and office; and as successor of St. Peter, as true and lawful Vicar of Christ our Lord, he governs the universal Church.From what has been said, therefore, pastors should teach what are the principal duties and functions of the various ecclesiastical orders and degrees, and also who is the minister of this Sacrament.

The Minister of Holy Orders
Beyond all doubt, it is to the Bishop that the administration (of orders) belongs, as is easily proved by the authority of Holy Scripture, by most certain tradition, by the testimony of all the Fathers, by the decrees of the Councils, and by the usage and practice of Holy Church.

It is true that permission has been granted to some abbots occasionally to administer those orders that are minor and not sacred; yet there is no doubt whatever that it is the proper office of the Bishop, and of the Bishop alone to confer the orders called holy or major.

To ordain subdeacons, deacons and priests, one Bishop suffices; but in accordance with an Apostolic tradition that has been always observed in the Church, Bishops are consecrated by three Bishops.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-o.htm

The Roman Catechism, PA, and the CCC (which Lord willing we will get to) are wrong, of course, but before I get into that, I'll tie these claims, given the merger of the threads, to the case against Honorius.

In the words of the CE
Quote
Pope (625-12 October, 638), a , consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V.
Quote
The origin of the Monothelite controversy is thus related by Sergius in his letter to Pope Honorius. When the Emperor Heraclius in the course of the war which he began about 619, came to Theodosiopolis (Erzeroum) in Armenia (about 622), a Monophysite named Paul, a leader of the Acephali, made a speech before him in favour of his heresy. The emperor refuted him with theological arguments, and incidentally made use of the expression "one operation" of Christ. Later on (about 626) he inquired of Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis and metropolitan of the Lazi, whether his words were correct. Cyrus was uncertain, and by the emperor's order wrote to Sergius the Patriarch of Constantinople, whom Heraclius greatly trusted, for advice. Sergius in reply sent him a letter said to have been written by Mennas of Constantinople to Pope Vigilius and approved by the latter, in which several authorities were cited for one operation and one will. This letter was afterwards declared to be a forgery and was admitted to be such at the Sixth General Council. Nothing more occurred, according to Sergius, until in June, 631, Cyrus was promoted by the emperor to the See of Alexandria...
In 631 Cyrus took the throne of Alexandria as his reward, and on the basis of the monoenergist formula many miaphysites were received into his patriarchate. Negotiations were begun in 629 with the miaphyisite Patriarch Athanasius of Antioch, who entered into union with the Patriarchy, taking the see of Antioch, on the basis of the formula "two united natures in Christ, one will and one activity."  The Catholicos of All Armenia was brought into back into union with the Pentarchy at the Synod of Theodosiopolis (Karin/Erzerum) in 633 on the basis of the monoenergist formula.  Arcadius of Cyprus received the dogma in 623, and ascended to head the Church of Cyprus and lead it into heresy in 630 (so I remembered incorrectly on Cyprus' record).

So what?

Well, if Honorius ascended the apostolic throne of St. Peter in 630, then, according to PA, all authority in the Church flowed from him. Which means he is responsible for Cyrus becoming Pope of Alexandria, for Athanasius entering into union (as the papal assent, to judge from Lyons, Florence, Brest, Uzhhorod, etc, is necessary) as the Patriarch of Antioch, for the Armenian Catholicate entering into union via heresy with Rome, and Arcadius taking over Cyprus. And if, when EP Sergius wrote to him, Honorius, " in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority," using "this gift of truth and never-failing faith [being] therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error" instead of taking the opportunity to depose the bishops misusing their authority to teach heresy-as, according to PA, they were "bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world"-instead of Orthodoxy, Honorius faciliated heresy as well as Sergius did.

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.  For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body." Honorius, receiving Cyrus, Athanasius, Arcadius etc. as members of the body of which he, Honorius, was head, did "abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received" and being "in agreement with" the other heresiarchs usurping the thrones of the Pentarchy, effectively lead the Roman Church into heresy. He who does not gather, scatters. Instead of making "sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received"

And Honorius cannot claim invincible ignorance. Pat. St. Sophronius had gone to Rome, Constantiople, Alexandria and Antioch before ascending as worthy successor to St. James the Brother of God, fighting the monoenergic/monothelete heresy. He used his enthronement address to denounce it, and published it far and wide, until the Sixth Council adopted it as the Fourth Council did Leo's Tome, and put it in contrast to the damned correspondance of Honorius.  In Cyprus, his legate St. Maximus fought Honorius' legate.
Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy: The Synodical Letter and Seventh Century Heresy By Pauline Allen
http://books.google.com/books?id=_d0mx7Di1QkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Sophronius+of+Jerusalem+Synodical+letter&hl=en&ei=f1eYTIfjNYKgnwf6seD9Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Byzantine Rome and the Greek popes: Eastern influences on Rome and the Papacy, Parts 590-752 By Andrew J. Ekonomou
http://books.google.com/books?id=zomZk6DbFTIC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=ekthesis+monothelitism&source=bl&ots=ZTamkY3v_y&sig=8S38bDnwq0TkZ45XdkvkJdGvuv8&hl=en&ei=BkCYTLb4JYX_ngfwy6wY&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ekthesis%20monothelitism&f=false

Honorius, if he had the powers PA claims, left the shepherds in place who were poisoning the sheep. Whether they ate it difrectly from his hand or not matters not. "by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith" they became one dead flock.

"This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor," defending them by allowing them to continue to preach heresy.

"The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon" If Honorius gave Sergius and company a pass, who was to condemn them?

"And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff"? Rather, those who did not stray from the genuine path of truth lived to see St. Sophronius, not Honorius, vindicated in Ecumenical Council.


I am sorry.  This is all just your reading into the teaching what you want to make of it.  You take it to the extremities of absurd misreading and then argue it.

You'd no more get away with this kind of debating tactic in the secular world than fly to the moon.

No right minded Catholic is going to join you in this kind of exercise....eh Papist?....LOL

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2010, 04:24:32 PM »

I am sorry.  This is all just your reading into the teaching what you want to make of it.

So you are admittng that the bishops did not derive their authority from Rome?

You take it to the extremities of absurd misreading and then argue it.

I agree that this is extreme:
Quote
Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff
But that is what your church argues.

You'd no more get away with this kind of debating tactic in the secular world than fly to the moon.

Documentation, you mean?

No right minded Catholic is going to join you in this kind of exercise....eh Papist?....LOL

A right minded Catholic is Orthodox.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 04:25:04 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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,825



WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 23, 2010, 04:50:31 PM »

Indeed the "extreme" is part of a tactics that is used by RC very cunningly. It works thus:

1) they make extreme statements of authority for the pope;

2) during historical periods the RC is secularly weak, these statements are not to be taken literally in their secular meaning. All opposition to it is depicted as deriving from the pettiness of mind of the critics, after all the pope is not up to conquer the world; they act diplomatically and with talks of approximation;

3) when, for cyclical reasons, the RC becomes secularly strong again those extreme statements are to be taken literally and enforced by arms if necessary. The "brothers" with approximation was fulfilled are forced to become subjects. With this they increase their power and position in the world. This is the time to make even bolder statements that shall be described as a mistake by the next weak phase and considered to be the basis for bolder statements in the next strong phase. Go back to (1).

If you thought "one step back, two forward", you got it right. That is why some of the most "shocking" old statements about papal authority are not on the Vatican website now, why some titles are not being in use but not abolished. As soon as the RC get some real political power back, all those will be remembered and enforced.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 23, 2010, 04:50:52 PM »

I am sorry.  This is all just your reading into the teaching what you want to make of it.

So you are admittng that the bishops did not derive their authority from Rome?

You take it to the extremities of absurd misreading and then argue it.

I agree that this is extreme:
Quote
Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff
But that is what your church argues.

You'd no more get away with this kind of debating tactic in the secular world than fly to the moon.

Documentation, you mean?

No right minded Catholic is going to join you in this kind of exercise....eh Papist?....LOL

A right minded Catholic is Orthodox.

I am a right minded Catholic.  I know what the Catholic Church teaches.

You do not, and more to the point you do not seem to wish to do so.

My sympathies...since there is no path but the one of confusion between us.

Do you think babies are born with Original sin?

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 23, 2010, 04:55:42 PM »

This has the weight and bearing of nothing but gossip and presumption and yellow journalism.

You quite ignore what the Church DOES say about her documents and present them in the most uncharitable lite...

And call it what?...truth?

Well...it is to be expected.

Do you believe that babies are born with original sin?

M.

Indeed the "extreme" is part of a tactics that is used by RC very cunningly. It works thus:

1) they make extreme statements of authority for the pope;

2) during historical periods the RC is secularly weak, these statements are not to be taken literally in their secular meaning. All opposition to it is depicted as deriving from the pettiness of mind of the critics, after all the pope is not up to conquer the world; they act diplomatically and with talks of approximation;

3) when, for cyclical reasons, the RC becomes secularly strong again those extreme statements are to be taken literally and enforced by arms if necessary. The "brothers" with approximation was fulfilled are forced to become subjects. With this they increase their power and position in the world. This is the time to make even bolder statements that shall be described as a mistake by the next weak phase and considered to be the basis for bolder statements in the next strong phase. Go back to (1).

If you thought "one step back, two forward", you got it right. That is why some of the most "shocking" old statements about papal authority are not on the Vatican website now, why some titles are not being in use but not abolished. As soon as the RC get some real political power back, all those will be remembered and enforced.
Logged

Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,512


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #41 on: September 23, 2010, 04:56:34 PM »

Quote
...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.
2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.
3). Honorius was a heretic.
Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.

  And the winner is, the Blue Pill :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-odXzS6wTE
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,825



WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 23, 2010, 05:03:04 PM »

This has the weight and bearing of nothing but gossip and presumption and yellow journalism.

You quite ignore what the Church DOES say about her documents and present them in the most uncharitable lite...

And call it what?...truth?

Well...it is to be expected.

Do you believe that babies are born with original sin?

M.

Indeed the "extreme" is part of a tactics that is used by RC very cunningly. It works thus:

1) they make extreme statements of authority for the pope;

2) during historical periods the RC is secularly weak, these statements are not to be taken literally in their secular meaning. All opposition to it is depicted as deriving from the pettiness of mind of the critics, after all the pope is not up to conquer the world; they act diplomatically and with talks of approximation;

3) when, for cyclical reasons, the RC becomes secularly strong again those extreme statements are to be taken literally and enforced by arms if necessary. The "brothers" with approximation was fulfilled are forced to become subjects. With this they increase their power and position in the world. This is the time to make even bolder statements that shall be described as a mistake by the next weak phase and considered to be the basis for bolder statements in the next strong phase. Go back to (1).

If you thought "one step back, two forward", you got it right. That is why some of the most "shocking" old statements about papal authority are not on the Vatican website now, why some titles are not being in use but not abolished. As soon as the RC get some real political power back, all those will be remembered and enforced.

"All opposition to it is depicted as deriving from the pettiness of mind of the critics"

Wait a couple of decades, a century or so. Go to (3).
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #43 on: September 23, 2010, 05:06:26 PM »

I am sorry.  This is all just your reading into the teaching what you want to make of it.

So you are admittng that the bishops did not derive their authority from Rome?

You take it to the extremities of absurd misreading and then argue it.

I agree that this is extreme:
Quote
Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff
But that is what your church argues.

You'd no more get away with this kind of debating tactic in the secular world than fly to the moon.

Documentation, you mean?

No right minded Catholic is going to join you in this kind of exercise....eh Papist?....LOL

A right minded Catholic is Orthodox.

I am a right minded Catholic.  I know what the Catholic Church teaches.

So you testify of yourself.

You do not, and more to the point you do not seem to wish to do so.

I know what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church teaches. And, among other things, having been taught by the Resurrectionists, I know what the Vatican teaches as well.

My sympathies...since there is no path but the one of confusion between us.

No, Patriarch St. Photios made things quite clear.

Do you think babies are born with Original sin?

LOL. I think you are on the wrong thread.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=212
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 05:13:40 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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,825



WWW
« Reply #44 on: September 23, 2010, 05:10:08 PM »

Unfortunately, Mary, historically, the RC has used the various tones in different documents as it was convenient in each historical periods.

There is an even more radical case of that. When it was caught outright falsefying arguments (the false donations and pseudo-isidore for example) it simply pretends that the increase in papal power caused by these falsifications was not due to them, although history *proves* it was. And by the way, we are not blameless in that since it seems that was done with some Romaic imperial backing to "help" the papacy against the barbarians.

Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2010, 06:06:23 PM »

Unfortunately, Mary, historically, the RC has used the various tones in different documents as it was convenient in each historical periods.

There is an even more radical case of that. When it was caught outright falsefying arguments (the false donations and pseudo-isidore for example) it simply pretends that the increase in papal power caused by these falsifications was not due to them, although history *proves* it was. And by the way, we are not blameless in that since it seems that was done with some Romaic imperial backing to "help" the papacy against the barbarians.

Right.  And non of it stands the test of time so it does not endure under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

We all know that we are not expected to take ever word out of the mouth of the pope as a protected truth for all time.

So why not leave it at that.  Why use it to derail every possible conveyance of ideas that might bear fruit that might be useful toward reunion.

This isn't discussion.  This is just finger pointing and very little of it is either systematic or cogent much less both.

It's boring.  It's a word version of shooting paper clips at one another on a hot late spring afternoon in fourth grade.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #46 on: December 11, 2010, 07:58:10 PM »

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09554a.htm

Joseph de Maistre published at Lyons in 1819 his masterpiece "Du Pape". The work (2 vols. in 8vo.) is divided into four parts. In the first the author proves that in the Church the pope is sovereign, and that it is an essential characteristic of all sovereign power that that its decisions should be subject to no appeal. The doctrinal declarations of the pope are binding on man without right of appeal. Consequently, the pope is infallible in his teaching, since it is by his teaching that he exercises his sovereignty. And in point of fact "no sovereign pontiff, speaking freely to the Church, has ever made a mistake in the matter of faith". In the remaining divisions of his work the author examines the relations of the pope and the temporal powers: civilization and the welfare of nations; the schismatical Churches. He establishes that nations require to be guaranteed against abuses of the power to which they are subject by a sovereignty superior to all others; now, this sovereignty can be none but the papacy, which, even in the Middle Ages, had, in fact, already saved European civilization from the barbarians. As to the schismatical Churches, the writer thinks that they will inevitably fall into Protestantism, and from Protestantism through Socinianism into philosophic indifference. For "no religion can resist science, except one."
Quote
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Interesting chap:
Quote
The author maintains the thesis that France has a mission from God: she is the principal instrument of good and of evil on earth. De Maistre looks on the Revolution as a providential occurrence: the monarchy, the aristocracy, the whole of the old French society, instead of turning the powerful influence of French civilization to benefit mankind, had used it to foster the doctrines of the eighteenth-century philosophers: the crimes of the Reign of Terror were the punishment thus merited. The author added that the foreign nations were dupes of a foolish dream, in undertaking the dismemberment of France, "the most beautiful kingdom after that of heaven". Finally, he predicted a speedy restoration, and disappearance of the abuses of the past. In connection with this work must be mentioned a little book composed in 1809, under the title "Essai sur le principe générateur des constitutions politiques et des autres institutions humaines". Its main idea is, that constitutions are not the artificial products of the study but come in due time and under suitable circumstances from God, who slowly brings them to maturity.  After the appearance in 1816 of the treatise "Sur les délais de la justice divine dans la punition des coupables", translated from Plutarch, with additions and notes, Joseph de Maistre published at Lyons in 1819 his masterpiece "Du Pape". The work (2 vols. in 8vo.) is divided into four parts. In the first the author proves that in the Church the pope is sovereign, and that it is an essential characteristic of all sovereign power that that its decisions should be subject to no appeal...To appreciate de Maistre in his writings as a whole, one may remark that his ideas are bold and penetrating, and his views so clear and accurate that at times they seem prophetic. An enthusiastic believer in the principle of authority, which the Revolution tried to destroy, he defends it everywhere: in the State by extolling the monarchy, in the Church by exalting the privileges of the papacy; in the world by glorifying the rights and the conduct of God.
but why should we put any stock in his ravings?
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #47 on: January 06, 2011, 12:22:45 PM »

Quote from: ialmisry
The Holy Spirit and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council found otherwise, and anathematized accordingly.

Nope. But your failure to take account of the nature of Papal dogmatic definition does render the words of the Saint incomprehensible to you.

Going on two centuries after Pastor Aeternus was issued, and ya'll still reading tea leaves of when your supreme pontiff speaks infallibly. No official list of the supposed "ex cathedra" statements.

Quote from: ialmisry
Thereby demonstrating how vaccuous and  bankrupt the dogma of Pastor Aeternus. Utterly worthless.

Nope.


That inscrutible dognamtic definition of Pastor Aeternus hasn't clarified anything for you.  If it had, we would have a list of ex cathedra statements, and no debate on what one is (e.g. is Humanae Vitae "infallible"?).

Quote from: ialmisry
Honorius was judged and anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Yep. The Vatican took part in doing so, so that has no bearing on the question of the Vatican's court jurisdiction.

He wasn't not judged in the Vatican by the supreme pontiff, and according to the Vatican's rules, the supreme pontiff did not participate: Pope St. Agatho died during the Council, and his successor Pope St. Leo II was not consecrated until almost a year after the Ecumenical Council had passed its sentences, issued its anathemas, wrote its definitions, and closed on September 16, 681.
Quote
Pope (682-83), date of birth unknown; d. 28 June, 683. He was a Sicilian, and son of one Paul. Though elected pope a few days after the death of St. Agatho (10 January, 681), he was not consecrated till after the lapse of a year and seven months (17 Aug., 682). Under Leo's predecessor St. Agatho, negotiations had been opened between the Holy See and Emperor Constantine Pogonatus concerning the relations of the Byzantine Court to papal elections. Constantine had already promised Agatho to abolish or reduce the tax which for about a century the popes had had to pay to the imperial treasury on the occasion of their consecration, and under Leo's successor he made other changes in what had hitherto been required of the Roman Church at the time of a papal election. In all probability, therefore, it was continued correspondence on this matter which caused the delay of the imperial confirmation of Leo's election, and hence the long postponement of his consecration.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09157a.htm

Quote from: ialmisry
Obviously you have not read it.

No dogmatic definition made by Honorius, as context made clear.

Not to speak is to speak, ex cathedra or otherwise. The Fathers made that clear.

We have LOTS of threads on Pastor Aeternus, Honorius, etc. Please do respond on one.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #48 on: January 06, 2011, 12:47:24 PM »

Nope. But your failure to take account of the nature of Papal dogmatic definition does render the words of the Saint incomprehensible to you.

Going on two centuries after Pastor Aeternus was issued, and ya'll still reading tea leaves of when your supreme pontiff speaks infallibly. No official list of the supposed "ex cathedra" statements.

This really is an extraordinary thing, isn't it!   Having created at Vatican I an infallible source of doctrine, this source has become a source of confusion.  

Nobody is really sure what is infallible and what is not. Theologians hold conferences on whether Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae are infallible.  Some write learned monographs as to whether John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis against the ordination of women is infallible...... and meanwhile the man with the infallible power sits on his hands in the Vatican and watches his faithful squirm and try to figure it out!!
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 12:49:45 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #49 on: January 06, 2011, 01:42:13 PM »

Nope. But your failure to take account of the nature of Papal dogmatic definition does render the words of the Saint incomprehensible to you.

Going on two centuries after Pastor Aeternus was issued, and ya'll still reading tea leaves of when your supreme pontiff speaks infallibly. No official list of the supposed "ex cathedra" statements.

This really is an extraordinary thing, isn't it!   Having created at Vatican I an infallible source of doctrine, this source has become a source of confusion.  

Nobody is really sure what is infallible and what is not. Theologians hold conferences on whether Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae are infallible.  Some write learned monographs as to whether John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis against the ordination of women is infallible...... and meanwhile the man with the infallible power sits on his hands in the Vatican and watches his faithful squirm and try to figure it out!!
It seems Pastor Aeternus is used to give an aura of infallibility around the Vatican, rather than any practical effect of clarifying anything, to give a mystique rather than clarity. But when the mystique is gone, all hell breaks loose, which explains a lot of the post Vatican II nonsense.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #50 on: January 06, 2011, 05:16:00 PM »

Nope. But your failure to take account of the nature of Papal dogmatic definition does render the words of the Saint incomprehensible to you.

Going on two centuries after Pastor Aeternus was issued, and ya'll still reading tea leaves of when your supreme pontiff speaks infallibly. No official list of the supposed "ex cathedra" statements.

This really is an extraordinary thing, isn't it!   Having created at Vatican I an infallible source of doctrine, this source has become a source of confusion.  

Nobody is really sure what is infallible and what is not. Theologians hold conferences on whether Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae are infallible.  Some write learned monographs as to whether John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis against the ordination of women is infallible...... and meanwhile the man with the infallible power sits on his hands in the Vatican and watches his faithful squirm and try to figure it out!!

This is nonsense.  The same kinds of rules apply to discerning the faith for the Catholic Church as it does in Orthodoxy.  The only real difference is that your rules are not spelled out as clearly and there's no court of last appeal at all in Orthodoxy...So you can be dodgy and it is not noticeable.

You have nothing really useful to expend on this dialogue about papal primacy and infallibility at all.

As though the doctrine was established so that we could make laundry lists out of a living and lived faith...Tell that to the Fathers...whose real consensus is ONLY real in the eyes of the beholder after the fact.  Otherwise, in reality, they lived with doctrinal and canonical tension in a living breathing Church.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #51 on: January 06, 2011, 05:16:01 PM »

Nope. But your failure to take account of the nature of Papal dogmatic definition does render the words of the Saint incomprehensible to you.

Going on two centuries after Pastor Aeternus was issued, and ya'll still reading tea leaves of when your supreme pontiff speaks infallibly. No official list of the supposed "ex cathedra" statements.

This really is an extraordinary thing, isn't it!   Having created at Vatican I an infallible source of doctrine, this source has become a source of confusion.  

Nobody is really sure what is infallible and what is not. Theologians hold conferences on whether Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae are infallible.  Some write learned monographs as to whether John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis against the ordination of women is infallible...... and meanwhile the man with the infallible power sits on his hands in the Vatican and watches his faithful squirm and try to figure it out!!
It seems Pastor Aeternus is used to give an aura of infallibility around the Vatican, rather than any practical effect of clarifying anything, to give a mystique rather than clarity. But when the mystique is gone, all hell breaks loose, which explains a lot of the post Vatican II nonsense.

We can do this same kind of "telling" and "analyzing" with Orthodoxy...mocking and making sport and being critical of something that is not at all reflective of Orthodox realities.    The same kinds of methods that you use here can be turned against you.

Apparently there are no Catholics here who are eager or willing to engage that kind of false witness against Orthodoxy.

Bless them!

Mary
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #52 on: January 06, 2011, 09:57:50 PM »

You have nothing really useful to expend on this dialogue about papal primacy and infallibility at all.


May I contribute to this dialogue the most useful thing of all - the truth.

papal primacy:  in order to be united to the holy Church the Pope will need to accept that he becomes ONE bishop with ONE vote at all synods and councils, like every other bishop in the Church

infallibility:  in order to be united to the Church, the Pope must realise that the word and concept of infallibility does not exist within the Church.

Here on the Forum we enjoy writing back and forth and waffling on about these topics, playing in our surreal sandpit, but I have given you the bottom-line truth.  I hope it will be useful.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 09:58:54 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #53 on: January 06, 2011, 10:23:38 PM »

Honorius didn't issue any dogmatic definitions or ex cathedra teachings that were heretical, so for all the overwrought information flood here, nothing about the life or anathematization of Honorius is relevant to the question of Papal Infallibility.

However, it should also be noted that in receiving the council in the west, Pope Saint Leo II utilized his unique papal prerogatives to amend and further define the rulings of the council after it had closed, making it clear that Honorius' condemnation extended only as far as Honorius had failed to teach against the monothelites as forcefully as he should have. The Sixth Ecumenical Council was much more forceful, saying "To the heretic Honorius, anathema!". However, Leo overrode the council:

Quote
The most important act accomplished by Leo in his short pontificate was his confirmation of the acts of the Sixth Oecumenical Council (680-1). This council had been held in Constantinople against the Monothelites, and had been presided over by the legates of Pope Agatho. After Leo had notified the emperor that the decrees of the council had been confirmed by him, he proceeded to make them known to the nations of the West. The letters which he sent for this end to the king and to the bishops and nobles of Spain have come down to us. In them he explained what the council had effected, and he called upon the bishops to subscribe to its decrees. At the same time he was at pains to make it clear that in condemning his predecessor Honorius I, he did so, not because he taught heresy, but because he was not active enough in opposing it. In accordance with the papal mandate, a synod was held at Toledo (684) in which the Council of Constantinople was accepted.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09157a.htm

No issue was made of this in the east. It was the unique prerogative of Leo, as Bishop of Rome, to attach amendments to the rulings of even an ecumenical council of the Church.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 10:29:10 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #54 on: January 06, 2011, 10:37:41 PM »


No issue was made of this in the east. It was the unique prerogative of Leo, as Bishop of Rome, to attach amendments to the rulings of even an ecumenical council of the Church.


It is a bit fatuous to use this example to lay claim to the Archbishop of Rome's supposed claim to superiority over Councils

1.  Was his 'amendment' accepted by the bishops of the Christian world?  Are there any codicils to the 6th Council, noting that the anathema for heresy has been revoked?   (The answer is of course, No!  The anathema and the reason for it stands untouched.)

2.  There are cases where a Pope has wanted to override canons formulated by Councils and the Church has simply ignored him.

If the Pope ever wishes to unite with us he needs to be prepared to come back into communion and abandon his false claims.  He was never superior to Councils in the Church.  He was one bishop, a greatly respected bishop, with one vote.

Unus episcopus, unum suffragium
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 10:43:40 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #55 on: January 06, 2011, 10:38:04 PM »

Nope. But your failure to take account of the nature of Papal dogmatic definition does render the words of the Saint incomprehensible to you.

Going on two centuries after Pastor Aeternus was issued, and ya'll still reading tea leaves of when your supreme pontiff speaks infallibly. No official list of the supposed "ex cathedra" statements.

This really is an extraordinary thing, isn't it!   Having created at Vatican I an infallible source of doctrine, this source has become a source of confusion.  

Nobody is really sure what is infallible and what is not. Theologians hold conferences on whether Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae are infallible.  Some write learned monographs as to whether John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis against the ordination of women is infallible...... and meanwhile the man with the infallible power sits on his hands in the Vatican and watches his faithful squirm and try to figure it out!!
It seems Pastor Aeternus is used to give an aura of infallibility around the Vatican, rather than any practical effect of clarifying anything, to give a mystique rather than clarity. But when the mystique is gone, all hell breaks loose, which explains a lot of the post Vatican II nonsense.

We can do this same kind of "telling" and "analyzing" with Orthodoxy...mocking and making sport and being critical of something that is not at all reflective of Orthodox realities.    The same kinds of methods that you use here can be turned against you.

Have at it. Pure gold fears no fire.

Quote
Apparently there are no Catholics here who are eager or willing to engage that kind of false witness against Orthodoxy.
Rather, there is nothing to witness against Orthodoxy.
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
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #56 on: January 06, 2011, 10:44:53 PM »


No issue was made of this in the east. It was the unique prerogative of Leo, as Bishop of Rome, to attach amendments to the rulings of even an ecumenical council of the Church.


It is a bit fatuous to use this example to lay claim to the Archbishop of Rome's supposed claim to superiority over Councils

1.  Was his 'amendment' accepted by the bishops of the Christian world?  Are there any codicils to the 6th Council, noting that the anathema for heresy has been revoked?   (The answer is of course, No!  The anathema and the reason for it stands untouched.)

2.  There are cases where a Pope has wanted to override canons formulated by Councils and the Church has simply ignored him.

If the Pope ever wishes to unite with us he needs to be prepared to come back into communion and abandon his false claims.  He was never superior to Councils in the Church.  He was one bishop, a greatly respected bishop, with one vote.

The rulings of the council had to be accepted by the west. This is in accordance even with the 'reception' doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox, wherein it is the reception of a council by the whole church that identifies it as ecumenical. Pope Saint Leo II made the reception of the council by the west predicate upon the amendment in question, and wrote in his letter to the Emperor in which he accepted the council: Profana proditione immaculatem fidem subverti permisit, which made clear that he accepted only that Honorius was guilty of failing to censure monothelitism vigorously enough. The Synod of Toledo also accepted the Council on these terms.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 10:46:33 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #57 on: January 06, 2011, 10:56:54 PM »


The rulings of the council had to be accepted by the west. This is in accordance even with the 'reception' doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox, wherein it is the reception of a council by the whole church that identifies it as ecumenical. Pope Saint Leo II made the reception of the council by the west predicate upon the amendment in question,


SIX only Ecumenical Councils?

You have created, unintentionally I am sure, an interesting scenario which has nullified the 6th Ecumenical Council as ecumenical per se and you have reduced it to a mere local Council of some of the Patriarchates.   None of the other 4 Patriarchates accepted the Roman demand for the withdrawal of the Anathema for heresy against Honorius.    Ergo, lacking the full conciliarity of the Church the Council is not ecumenical.

I find that a piece of gross nonsense but nonetheless it is your assertion "Pope Saint Leo II made the reception of the council by the west predicate upon the amendment in question,...
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #58 on: January 06, 2011, 11:04:56 PM »

Leo did not challenge the anathematization, he simply amended the nature of the judgment. No one in the east either challenged his letter to the Emperor or the Synod of Toledo, which accepted the acts of the Sixth Council and amended them, so the Church proceeded along just fine to the next council.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 11:08:24 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #59 on: January 06, 2011, 11:23:48 PM »

Honorius didn't issue any dogmatic definitions or ex cathedra teachings that were heretical, so for all the overwrought information flood here, nothing about the life or anathematization of Honorius is relevant to the question of Papal Infallibility.

When I get the time or chance (I missed one a week ago, I by chance came across some pope's bull that made the statements I'll be talking about-) I'll post the oft repeated statements of the popes and Councils, in bulls, definitions, (IIRC) canons, that to remain silent in the face of heresy is to profess the heresy.  

However, it should also be noted that in receiving the council in the west, Pope Saint Leo II utilized his unique papal prerogatives to amend and further define[/quote]

LOL. It always amuses me how ultramontanists make such claims for Rome in utter oblivion of the rest of the Church, both in that these "unique papal prerogatives" aren't unique (Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria reached an understanding with Patriarch John of Antioch after the Council of Ephesus; cf. also the exagerated claims made for the signature of EP St. John on the Formula of Hormisdas with no mention that EP St. John ammended it first, further defining Constantinople as the equal of Old Rome), and often the case when Rome exercised them it was ignored (that Pope Leo contradicted the degree of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church at Constatninople I and Chalcedon made no impression on the Church).  Which such magical thinking, where results and reality count for nothing, they should seek employment in political campaigns (if I was more detailed, we would end up in politics).

In the Legion of Mary account of the Sixth Council
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM06.HTM
there is no mention of any "amendment": the Council finished its business, issued the Definition of Faith, and adjurned before Pope Leo II was consecrated.
Quote
The doctrinal conclusions of the council were defined in the 17th session and promulgated in the 18th and last session on 16 September 681. The acts of the council, signed both by 174 fathers and finally by the emperor himself, were sent to Pope Leo II, who had succeeded Agatho, and he, when he had approved them, ordered them to be translated into Latin and to be signed by all the bishops of the west. Constantine IV, however, promulgated the decrees of the council in all parts of the empire by imperial edict.

the rulings of the council after it had closed, making it clear that Honorius' condemnation extended only as far as Honorius had failed to teach against the monothelites as forcefully as he should have.
Maybe in his personal opinion, or are you claiming it was an "ex cathedra" statement?

The Sixth Ecumenical Council was much more forceful, saying "To the heretic Honorius, anathema!". However, Leo overrode the council

Pope Leo had no authority to override the Council, particularly since it was convened and closed  nearly a year before he was consecrated and nearly before he was elected.  (though he are free to contradict yourself on Pope Adrian V again).

Quote
The most important act accomplished by Leo in his short pontificate was his confirmation of the acts of the Sixth Oecumenical Council (680-1). This council had been held in Constantinople against the Monothelites, and had been presided over by the legates of Pope Agatho. After Leo had notified the emperor that the decrees of the council had been confirmed by him, he proceeded to make them known to the nations of the West. The letters which he sent for this end to the king and to the bishops and nobles of Spain have come down to us. In them he explained what the council had effected, and he called upon the bishops to subscribe to its decrees. At the same time he was at pains to make it clear that in condemning his predecessor Honorius I, he did so, not because he taught heresy, but because he was not active enough in opposing it. In accordance with the papal mandate, a synod was held at Toledo (684) in which the Council of Constantinople was accepted.

The Council of Constantinople does not depend on Toledo, birthplace of heresy.  

No issue was made of this in the east.
LOL. Not much on geography, eh? Toledo is in the West.

It was the unique prerogative of Leo, as Bishop of Rome, to attach amendments to the rulings of even an ecumenical council of the Church.
So you claim. Sort of like the British monarchs claiming to be the rulers of France.

Btw, do you have a copy of those letters to Spain, perhaps in the same file with the Donation of Constantine and Pope Isodore's decretals?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 11:29:56 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #60 on: January 06, 2011, 11:26:32 PM »


The rulings of the council had to be accepted by the west. This is in accordance even with the 'reception' doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox, wherein it is the reception of a council by the whole church that identifies it as ecumenical. Pope Saint Leo II made the reception of the council by the west predicate upon the amendment in question,


SIX only Ecumenical Councils?

You have created, unintentionally I am sure, an interesting scenario which has nullified the 6th Ecumenical Council as ecumenical per se and you have reduced it to a mere local Council of some of the Patriarchates.   None of the other 4 Patriarchates accepted the Roman demand for the withdrawal of the Anathema for heresy against Honorius.    Ergo, lacking the full conciliarity of the Church the Council is not ecumenical.

I find that a piece of gross nonsense but nonetheless it is your assertion "Pope Saint Leo II made the reception of the council by the west predicate upon the amendment in question,...


Particularly given the history of the Council
Quote
To make an end of the Monothelite controversy, Emperor Constantine IV asked Pope Donus in 678 to send twelve bishops and four western Greek monastic superiors to represent the pope at an assembly of eastern and western theologians. Pope Agatho, who meanwhile had succeeded Donus, ordered consultation in the west on this important matter. Around Easter 680 a synod in Rome of 125 Italian bishops, with Pope Agatho presiding, assessed the replies of the regional synods of the west and composed a profession of faith in which Monothelitism was condemned. Legates of the pope took this profession to Constantinople, arriving at the beginning of September 680.

On 10 September 680 the emperor issued an edict to Patriarch George of Constantinople, ordering a council of bishops to be convoked. The council assembled on 7 November in the hall of the imperial palace in Constantinople. It immediately called itself an ecumenical council. There were 18 sessions, at the first eleven of which the emperor presided.

In the 8th session, on 7 March 681, the council adopted the teaching of Pope Agatho in condemnation of Monothelitism. Patriarch Macarius of Antioch was one of the few who refused his assent; he was deposed in the 12th session.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM06.HTM
and given that Pope Leo wasn't pope during the whole of the Council.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 11:27:46 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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #61 on: January 06, 2011, 11:26:42 PM »

Leo did not challenge the anathematization, he simply amended the nature of the judgment. No one in the east either challenged his letter to the Emperor or the Synod of Toledo, which accepted the acts of the Sixth Council and amended them, so the Church proceeded along just fine to the next council.

It portrays a disturbing lack of balance to assert that a small council in Spain had authority to 'amend' a Council of the Universal Church.  Apparently you even  believe that the bishops of the Church, East and West, had to kowtow to this provincial council and say, "Yes, we, all 300 of us, were all wrong.  Thank God you in Spain, a handful of bishops, have got it right and corrected us!"

"The council [the fourteenth of Toledo], due to bad weather and the recent travels to and from Toledo for the Thirteenth Council, was attended only by the bishops of Carthaginiensis, the metropolitans, and a bishop from each of the other provinces: Narbonensis, Tarraconensis, and Gallaecia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Council_of_Toledo
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #62 on: January 06, 2011, 11:29:08 PM »

Leo did not challenge the anathematization, he simply amended the nature of the judgment. No one in the east either challenged his letter to the Emperor or the Synod of Toledo, which accepted the acts of the Sixth Council and amended them, so the Church proceeded along just fine to the next council.

It portrays a disturbing lack of balance to assert that a small council in Spain had authority to 'amend' a Council of the Universal Church.  Apparently you even  believe that the bishops of the Church, East and West, had to kowtow to this provincial council and say, "Yes, we, all 300 of us, were all wrong.  Thank God you in Spain, a handful of bishops, have got it right and corrected us!"
LOL. Why not? Toledo corrected the Creed for us. LOL.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #63 on: January 06, 2011, 11:32:18 PM »

Leo did not challenge the anathematization, he simply amended the nature of the judgment. No one in the east either challenged his letter to the Emperor or the Synod of Toledo, which accepted the acts of the Sixth Council and amended them, so the Church proceeded along just fine to the next council.
without knowing, and hence not noticing, what went on in the backwaters on the fringe of the Church on their way out.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 11:47:16 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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #64 on: January 06, 2011, 11:39:10 PM »

Bishop Bossuet in his writings had no problem admitting that Honorius was condemned as a heretic at Constantinople III, and that Honorius' condemnation was supported by Pope Leo II, who believed that Honorius had - by his heresy - sullied the Church of Rome.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 11:46:15 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #65 on: January 06, 2011, 11:57:34 PM »

Another interesting bit of information can be found in Bossuet's book entitled "Defensio declarationis Conventüs cleri gallicani" (page 29, section 28), for in that text he gives the following quotation written by Adriaan Florenszoon Boeyens while he was working as a professor of theology at the University of Louvain:

"If by the Roman Church is understood its head, that is the pope, it is certain that it can err, even in those matters which concern the Faith, by publishing heresy in its decisions and decrees.  For many Roman Pontiffs have been heretics.  Of recent times it is reported that Pope John XXII publicly taught, declared, and commanded to be believed by all, that purified souls do not have the clear vision of God before the Final Judgment."

The importance of this quotation should not be underestimated, because professor Boeyens later became Pope Adrian VI and he had the text from which the quotation derives republished during his pontificate.  Apparently Pope Adrian VI had no idea that he was infallible, and he also seems to have believed that many of his predecessors had been heretics.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #66 on: January 07, 2011, 12:00:30 AM »

Apotheoun: Nobody is disputing that Honorius was a heretic. The question of Leo's amendment is to make clear that he did not teach heresy in his official capacity as Pope, as that is the question that has bearing on a dispute about the nature of the Papacy. Any Pope could be a heretic privately.


Quote from: ialmisry
LOL. It always amuses me how ultramontanists make such claims for Rome in utter oblivion of the rest of the Church, both in that these "unique papal prerogatives" aren't unique (Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria reached an understanding with Patriarch John of Antioch after the Council of Ephesus; cf. also the exagerated claims made for the signature of EP St. John on the Formula of Hormisdas with no mention that EP St. John ammended it first, further defining Constantinople as the equal of Old Rome), and often the case when Rome exercised them it was ignored (that Pope Leo contradicted the degree of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church at Constatninople I and Chalcedon made no impression on the Church).  Which such magical thinking, where results and reality count for nothing, they should seek employment in political campaigns (if I was more detailed, we would end up in politics).

Rome didn't "reach an understanding" with anyone. The Third Council of Constantinople reached its conclusions, and closed. Pope Saint Leo II then unilaterally amended its rulings after the fact before accepting it. He didn't seek an understanding with the other patriarchs, he just wrote to the Emperor and told him.

Quote from: Ialmisry
there is no mention of any "amendment": the Council finished its business, issued the Definition of Faith, and adjurned before Pope Leo II was consecrated.

Yes, as I mentioned the first time I brought it up, the Council had already closed when Pope Saint Leo II amended its conclusions. That's what an amendment is.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Maybe in his personal opinion, or are you claiming it was an "ex cathedra" statement?

No, it doesn't need to be ex cathedra, it's purely practical; ecumenical councils aren't ecumenical unless ratified by Rome; thus, a Roman Pontiff can amend their rulings in ratifying them.

Quote from: ialmisry
Pope Leo had no authority to override the Council, particularly since it was convened and closed  nearly a year before he was consecrated and nearly before he was elected.  (though he are free to contradict yourself on Pope Adrian V again).

Incomparable situations, Leo had not been consecrated because of ongoing negotiations with the Empire vis-a-vis the Byzantine Papacy. It was understood by all that Rome was merely waiting for the formality until the negotiations were complete. Had they not, the Emperor would have tried to extort a tax out of them, in accordance with the practices of the Byzantine Papacy.

Quote from: ialmisry
The Council of Constantinople does not depend on Toledo, birthplace of heresy.

Yes, it does, even by the Eastern Orthodox "reception" theory, the Council is only ecumenical because it was accepted by the whole Church, and it was only accepted by the west predicate upon the amendment in question. Of course in reality, the "reception" theory is no theory at all, it's just a means for accepting things which are convenient to accept and rejecting things that aren't.

Quote from: Ialmisry
LOL. Not much on geography, eh? Toledo is in the West.

Not much on reading comprehension, eh? I said no issue was made in the east of the amendments in question.

Quote from: Ialmisry
So you claim. Sort of like the British monarchs claiming to be the rulers of France.

Btw, do you have a copy of those letters to Spain, perhaps in the same file with the Donation of Constantine and Pope Isodore's decretals?

What "letters to Spain" are you talking about? Do you mean Pope Saint Leo II's letter to the Emperor? The Emperor was in Constantinople, you know.






« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 12:07:53 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #67 on: January 07, 2011, 12:13:30 AM »

Apotheoun: Nobody is disputing that Honorius was a heretic. The question of Leo's amendment is to make clear that he did not teach heresy in his official capacity as Pope, as that is the question that has bearing on a dispute about the nature of the Papacy. Any Pope could be a heretic privately.
Bishop Bossuet dealt with that proposition in his own writings and held that it was untenable, because Sergius had asked for Honorius to give his judgment, which would be an official act between the two patriarchs.  Honorius was a heretic and he sullied the face of the see of Rome with his heresy.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 12:18:50 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #68 on: January 07, 2011, 12:19:11 AM »

I disagree. A private letter to a Patriarch does not constitute an official decree.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #69 on: January 07, 2011, 12:23:01 AM »

I disagree. A private letter to a Patriarch does not constitute an official decree.
Your anachronistic application of Vatican I's distinction between the pope as a public person or private person helps you to see past the heresy of Pope Honorius, but since this is not a distinction found in the ancient sources it is not going to be convincing to your Eastern Orthodox interlocutors.  It smacks of special pleading.

What you call a "private letter" is an official letter for the Eastern Orthodox and for the Fathers of Constantinople III.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 12:24:30 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #70 on: January 07, 2011, 12:27:33 AM »

No, your understanding of papal infallibility is simply polemical is all. Nothing in Pope Honorius' letter to Sergius suggests he was speaking ex cathedra in his official capacity as Pope to define a belief to be held by all Christians. Indeed, we know quite the opposite to be the case, since he simply urged silence on the dispute.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #71 on: January 07, 2011, 12:29:12 AM »

No, your understanding of papal infallibility is simply polemical is all. Nothing in Pope Honorius' letter to Sergius suggests he was speaking ex cathedra in his official capacity as Pope to define a belief to be held by all Christians. Indeed, we know quite the opposite to be the case, since he simply urged silence on the dispute.
Another anachronism, there was no theory of "ex cathedra" pronouncements in the seventh century.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #72 on: January 07, 2011, 12:31:27 AM »

Uh the idea of Bishops speaking "from the chair" (any bishop can speak ex cathedra) was definitely established in the 7th century, even if we were to reject the idea of Papal infallibility. And there is nothing in Honorius' letter to suggest that he was speaking from the chair to make an official promulgation of doctrine to be held. Indeed, there is nothing to suggest he even thought anyone other than Patriarch Sergius was going to read the letter.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #73 on: January 07, 2011, 12:33:19 AM »

Uh the idea of Bishops speaking "from the chair" (any bishop can speak ex cathedra) was definitely established in the 7th century, even if we were to reject the idea of Papal infallibility. And there is nothing in Honorius' letter to suggest that he was speaking from the chair to make an official promulgation of doctrine to be held. Indeed, there is nothing to suggest he even thought anyone other than Patriarch Sergius was going to read the letter.
Use the personal correspondence between Nestorius and Cyril to prove your case.  Poor Nestorius all he had to do was claim that his letters to Cyril were not official and he could have avoided being deposed from his see.

Your attempts to apply theories espoused at Vatican I to the first millennium are doomed to failure.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 12:34:12 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #74 on: January 07, 2011, 12:35:24 AM »

Quote
On the other hand the chief advocates of papal infallibility, for instance, such great men as Melchior Canus in the sixteenth century, Thomassinus in the seventeenth, Pietro Ballerini in the eighteenth, Cardinal Perrone in the nineteenth, have been careful to point out that Honorius did not define anything ex cathedra. But they were not content with this amply sufficient defence. Some followed Baronius, but most, if not all, showed themselves anxious to prove that the letters of Honorius were entirely orthodox. There was indeed no difficulty in showing that Honorius was probably not a Monothelite. It would have been only just to extend the same kindly interpretation to the words of Sergius. The learned Jesuit Garnier saw clearly, however, that it was not as a Monothelite that Honorius was condemned. He was coupled with Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, the Ecthesis, and the Type. It is by no means clear that Sergius, Pyrrhus, and the Ecthesis are to be accounted as Monothelite, since they forbade the mention of "one operation"; it is quite certain that Paul and the Type were anti-Monothelite, for they prohibited "one Will" also. Garnier pointed out that the council condemned Honorius for approving Sergius and for "fomenting" the dogmas of Pyrrhus and Paul. This view was followed by many great writers, including Pagi.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

In his official capacity, Honorius was not encouraging monothelitism.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 12:38:28 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #75 on: January 07, 2011, 12:35:28 AM »

Indeed, there is nothing to suggest he even thought anyone other than Patriarch Sergius was going to read the letter.
The same can be said of the correspondence between Cyril and Nestorius, but no theologian of any merit would agree that what Nestorius wrote in his letters was not his official teaching.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #76 on: January 07, 2011, 12:36:53 AM »

Except that we do have the record of what Honorius wanted done in his official capacity of Pope, and it was decidedly not to promulgate the doctrine of monothelitism; he thought it best for the Church to simply set the dispute aside.
Sergius asked Honorius for his ruling, and Honorius gave it.  Honorius as bishop of Rome promoted heresy and actually even forbid the use of the orthodox expression "two energies."  There is no way around it, Honorius officially taught heresy and was condemned for it by an ecumenical council.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #77 on: January 07, 2011, 12:39:39 AM »

Thomist,

I know that as a Roman Catholic you have a vested interest in reading history through the lense of the First Vatican Council, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not share that same interest.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #78 on: January 07, 2011, 12:42:59 AM »

Pope Adrian VI had no problem believing that many of his predecessors in the see of Rome had been heretics.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #79 on: January 07, 2011, 12:44:21 AM »

Honorius condemned the use of either "one operation" or "two operations". He attempted to prevent the dispute from occurring at all, not to promulgate the Monothelite side of it.

Quote from: Apotheoun
I know that as a Roman Catholic you have a vested interest in reading history through the lense of the First Vatican Council, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not share that same interest.

You have a vested interest in reading history through the lens of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, which is why you so often fail to mention facts of great relevance, as you have done just now in mentioning that Honorius condemned the use of "two operations" but failed to mention that he also condemned the use of "one operation".
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 12:47:01 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #80 on: January 07, 2011, 12:45:11 AM »

Honorius condemned the use of either "one operation" or "two operations". He attempted to prevent the dispute from occurring at all, not to promulgate the Monothelite side of it.
Yes, he officially condemned the orthodox expression "two energies," which is why he is a heretic.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #81 on: January 07, 2011, 12:46:49 AM »

Yes, he is a heretic, this is not being disputed. Your claim, that he officially taught monothelitism in his capacity as Pope, is plainly incorrect. This is what Leo clarified in his amendment. However no, he didn't "officially condemn" either view, nor did he officially promulgate either view. He just tried to get the two sides to stop arguing about it all.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 12:47:59 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #82 on: January 07, 2011, 12:47:43 AM »

Honorius condemned the use of either "one operation" or "two operations". He attempted to prevent the dispute from occurring at all, not to promulgate the Monothelite side of it.

Quote from: Apotheoun
I know that as a Roman Catholic you have a vested interest in reading history through the lense of the First Vatican Council, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not share that same interest.

You have a vested interest in reading history through the lens of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, which is why you so often fail to mention facts of great relevance, as you have done just now in mentioning that Honorius condemned the use of "two operations" but failed to mention that he also condemned the use of "one operation".
I read history as a Melkite Catholic, and I have never pretended to do otherwise. 

But unlike you, I have seen these issues from both sides, because I was a Roman Catholic for eighteen years before becoming a Melkite Catholic in 2005.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 12:51:18 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #83 on: January 07, 2011, 12:49:00 AM »

Yes, he is a heretic, this is not being disputed. Your claim, that he officially taught monothelitism in his capacity as Pope, is plainly incorrect. This is what Leo clarified in his amendment. However no, he didn't "officially condemn" either view, nor did he officially promulgate either view. He just tried to get the two sides to stop arguing about it all.
He is a heretic because he officially taught heresy, and that is why the Fathers of Constantinople III anathematized him.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #84 on: January 07, 2011, 12:51:40 AM »

You can tell yourself you are a member of whatever religion you like, pretend to be a Hindu for all I care, it doesn't concern me as long as you stick to the arguments. Your religious identity is not among them.

Quote from: Apotheoun
He is a heretic because he officially taught heresy, and that is why the Fathers of Constantinople III anathematized him.

Their anathematization was amended by Pope Saint Leo II to more accurately reflect reality. He never gave an official view on either side of the dispute.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 12:52:21 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #85 on: January 07, 2011, 12:51:53 AM »

Thomist,

I know that as a Roman Catholic you have a vested interest in reading history through the lense of the First Vatican Council, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not share that same interest.

As a Melkite Catholic, how do you define heresy?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #86 on: January 07, 2011, 12:52:48 AM »

Thomist,

I know that as a Roman Catholic you have a vested interest in reading history through the lense of the First Vatican Council, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not share that same interest.

As a Melkite Catholic, how do you define heresy?
Heresy is the formal adherence to a proposition contrary to divine revelation and the teaching of the seven holy councils.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #87 on: January 07, 2011, 12:53:57 AM »

You can tell yourself you are a member of whatever religion you like, pretend to be a Hindu for all I care, it doesn't concern me as long as you stick to the arguments. Your religious identity is not among them.

Quote from: Apotheoun
He is a heretic because he officially taught heresy, and that is why the Fathers of Constantinople III anathematized him.

Their anathematization was amended by Pope Saint Leo II to more accurately reflect reality. He never gave an official view on either side of the dispute.
I do not believe that the pope has the authority to amend a decree of a council.  So, that argument fails to convince me that your position is viable.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #88 on: January 07, 2011, 12:54:25 AM »

Thomist,

I know that as a Roman Catholic you have a vested interest in reading history through the lense of the First Vatican Council, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not share that same interest.

As a Melkite Catholic, how do you define heresy?
Heresy is the formal adherence to a proposition contrary to divine revelation and the teaching of the seven holy councils.

So you don't think papal supremacy and infallibility are contrary to divine revelation and the teaching of the seven holy councils?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #89 on: January 07, 2011, 12:56:28 AM »

He considers himself to be in communion with a body he considers to be heretical. It doesn't appear to trouble him.

Quote from: Apotheoun
I do not believe that the pope has the authority to amend a decree of a council.  So, that argument fails to convince me that your position is viable.

I believe you stated in the past that you hold to the reception theory, yes? Under that theory, you'd have to believe that he does, as we know that the council was "ecumenical" because it was received by the whole Church, and the only reason the West received it was predicate upon that amendment.

The Orthodox can't get around the problem by saying they don't believe in Papal supremacy.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 12:57:18 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #90 on: January 07, 2011, 01:03:04 AM »

Thomist,

I know that as a Roman Catholic you have a vested interest in reading history through the lense of the First Vatican Council, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not share that same interest.

As a Melkite Catholic, how do you define heresy?
Heresy is the formal adherence to a proposition contrary to divine revelation and the teaching of the seven holy councils.

So you don't think papal supremacy and infallibility are contrary to divine revelation and the teaching of the seven holy councils?
I believe in papal primacy, but not supremacy, and in this belief I am following the teaching proposed by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and the Melkite Holy Synod, which accept primacy only as it was lived and understood in the first millennium. 

Since my Church does not accept Vatican I or Vatican II as ecumenical councils it follows that they have no dogmatic authority, and can only be seen as expressions of theological opinions, which are either true or false depending upon the case, as Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby said some years ago (see his book "Ecumenical Reflections").  Moreover, since none of the fourteen Latin councils of the second millennium are ecumenical, the most that can be said about a person who accepts ideas espoused at those synods is that he holds an erroneous opinion, again depending upon the case, but he cannot be deemed a heretic yet because the opinions in question have not yet been declared anathema by an ecumenical council.

As far as Pope Honorius is concerned, he is a heretic because his theological views were condemned at Constantinople III.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:21:47 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #91 on: January 07, 2011, 01:07:49 AM »

You can tell yourself you are a member of whatever religion you like, pretend to be a Hindu for all I care, it doesn't concern me as long as you stick to the arguments. Your religious identity is not among them.

Quote from: Apotheoun
He is a heretic because he officially taught heresy, and that is why the Fathers of Constantinople III anathematized him.

Their anathematization was amended by Pope Saint Leo II to more accurately reflect reality. He never gave an official view on either side of the dispute.
I do not believe that the pope has the authority to amend a decree of a council.  So, that argument fails to convince me that your position is viable.

I know that I keep saying this ad nauseam but if the Pope genuinely wishes to reunite with the Church he must accept the fact that he is inferior to Councils of the Church and that, as all bishops, he wields one vote.

Unus episcopus, unum suffragium

Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #92 on: January 07, 2011, 01:08:43 AM »

He considers himself to be in communion with a body he considers to be heretical. It doesn't appear to trouble him.

Quote from: Apotheoun
I do not believe that the pope has the authority to amend a decree of a council.  So, that argument fails to convince me that your position is viable.

I believe you stated in the past that you hold to the reception theory, yes? Under that theory, you'd have to believe that he does, as we know that the council was "ecumenical" because it was received by the whole Church, and the only reason the West received it was predicate upon that amendment.

The Orthodox can't get around the problem by saying they don't believe in Papal supremacy.
I do not accept the idea that the pope is above an ecumenical council, which is why I reject the notion that he can change the decrees (horoi) of the councils.  The pope cannot act independently of the universal episcopate, nor can it act independently of him (see Canon 34 of the Apostles).  Primacy only exists within synodality and never in separation from it.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:09:46 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #93 on: January 07, 2011, 01:08:51 AM »

He was a heretic, and he was anathematized, but his anathematization was subject to the amendment of Pope Saint Leo II. And saying you believe in Papal Primacy rather than Papal Supremacy doesn't get you out of that. It holds in the reception theory just as much as it does in the Catholic theory. And it would certainly hold in your application of Canon 34 that the Pope had aamendment power over the Council's decision, since they can't act without his consent. His amendment was accepted by the Church, since no issue was made about it despite Leo being quite clear when writing to the Emperor and others what he was doing.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:10:40 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #94 on: January 07, 2011, 01:11:16 AM »

He was a heretic, and he was anathematized, but his anathematization was subject to the amendment of Pope Saint Leo II.
We shall have to agree to disagree.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #95 on: January 07, 2011, 01:13:21 AM »

He was a heretic, and he was anathematized, but his anathematization was subject to the amendment of Pope Saint Leo II. And saying you believe in Papal Primacy rather than Papal Supremacy doesn't get you out of that. It holds in the reception theory just as much as it does in the Catholic theory. And it would certainly hold in your application of Canon 34 that the Pope had aamendment power over the Council's decision, since they can't act without his consent. His amendment was accepted by the Church, since no issue was made about it despite Leo being quite clear when writing to the Emperor and others what he was doing.
No, the canon clearly says that they must work together.  Pope Leo, for good or ill, accepted the decrees against Honorius, which was his right, but he had no right to amend the decrees enacted by the council and the papal representatives sent by Pope Agatho.  If he disagreed with the canons he should have rejected them, and asked that the Fathers of the Council meet again to hear his concerns, but alas he did not do that.

It is important to remember that according to tradition the primate holds only one vote within the synod; nevertheless, both the primate and the bishops assembled should express the Church's teaching as a symphony.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:17:22 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #96 on: January 07, 2011, 01:14:02 AM »

Quote from: Apotheoun
No, the canon clearly says that they must work together.  Pope Leo, for good or ill, accepted the decrees against Honorius, which was his right, but he has no right to amend the decrees enacted by the council of the papal representatives sent by Pope Agatho.

The Fathers do not appear to have agreed, as they went with it.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:14:38 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #97 on: January 07, 2011, 01:15:31 AM »

You have nothing really useful to expend on this dialogue about papal primacy and infallibility at all.


May I contribute to this dialogue the most useful thing of all - the truth.

papal primacy:  in order to be united to the holy Church the Pope will need to accept that he becomes ONE bishop with ONE vote at all synods and councils, like every other bishop in the Church

infallibility:  in order to be united to the Church, the Pope must realise that the word and concept of infallibility does not exist within the Church.

Here on the Forum we enjoy writing back and forth and waffling on about these topics, playing in our surreal sandpit, but I have given you the bottom-line truth.  I hope it will be useful.

Neither my truth, nor the truth Christ left with us.

This is the truth according to a priest-monk living on a sizeable island on the other side of the world from me, who rejects all the truths that I hold dear.

I will follow Christ's truth.

When some Orthodox get tired of playing at being personally infallible...then we'll be able to have a real dialogue.



Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #98 on: January 07, 2011, 01:17:07 AM »

Quote from: Apotheoun
No, the canon clearly says that they must work together.  Pope Leo, for good or ill, accepted the decrees against Honorius, which was his right, but he has no right to amend the decrees enacted by the council of the papal representatives sent by Pope Agatho.

The Fathers do not appear to have agreed, as they went with it.

Please substantiate that claim.  For example, was the anathema withdrawn at the 7th Council?
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #99 on: January 07, 2011, 01:20:23 AM »

You can tell yourself you are a member of whatever religion you like, pretend to be a Hindu for all I care, it doesn't concern me as long as you stick to the arguments. Your religious identity is not among them.

Quote from: Apotheoun
He is a heretic because he officially taught heresy, and that is why the Fathers of Constantinople III anathematized him.

Their anathematization was amended by Pope Saint Leo II to more accurately reflect reality. He never gave an official view on either side of the dispute.
I do not believe that the pope has the authority to amend a decree of a council.  So, that argument fails to convince me that your position is viable.

I know that I keep saying this ad nauseam but if the Pope genuinely wishes to reunite with the Church he must accept the fact that he is inferior to Councils of the Church and that, as all bishops, he wields one vote.

Unus episcopus, unum suffragium
The Western Council of Constance had no problem judging the pope (or rather the three papal claimants) and choosing a new pope to replace them.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #100 on: January 07, 2011, 01:21:12 AM »

Leo's amendment was not to the effect of withdrawing the anathema or denying that Honorius was a heretic, so of course not. He was further defining the anathema, not contradicting it.

Nobody raised any challenge to Leo's stated actions. There was consent by allowance. And once again, Orthodox reception theory would empower Leo to do this, since the whole Church must receive a council in order for it to be ecumenical, and the west was receiving the council predicate upon the amendment in question to further define what Honorius' crime had been.

Quote from: apotheoun
The Western Council of Constance had no problem judging the pope (or rather the three papal claimants) and choosing a new pope to replace them.

The Council in question was called by Pope Gregory XII and Antipope John XXIII, at which they both abdicated for the purpose of electing a new pope. The Avignon antipope Clement VIII later recognized that Pope Martin V (Constance's Pope) was the valid claimant. The Council was not "judging popes", it was called by them. There was the document Haec Sancti issued at the previous council called by Antipope John XXIII and Emperor Sigismund which attempted to place the authority of councils above that of Popes, but that was not part of the valid council (the one called by Gregory XII and John XXIII). Pope Pius II condemned the Conciliarist Heresy in no uncertain terms.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:23:35 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #101 on: January 07, 2011, 01:24:33 AM »

You have nothing really useful to expend on this dialogue about papal primacy and infallibility at all.


May I contribute to this dialogue the most useful thing of all - the truth.

papal primacy:  in order to be united to the holy Church the Pope will need to accept that he becomes ONE bishop with ONE vote at all synods and councils, like every other bishop in the Church

infallibility:  in order to be united to the Church, the Pope must realise that the word and concept of infallibility does not exist within the Church.

Here on the Forum we enjoy writing back and forth and waffling on about these topics, playing in our surreal sandpit, but I have given you the bottom-line truth.  I hope it will be useful.

Neither my truth, nor the truth Christ left with us.

This is the truth according to a priest-monk living on a sizeable island on the other side of the world from me, who rejects all the truths that I hold dear.

I will follow Christ's truth.

When some Orthodox get tired of playing at being personally infallible...then we'll be able to have a real dialogue.



Dear Mary,

Your odd hominems are getting odder.  Grin

I invite you to test what I say, perhaps with your anonymous band of Orthodox prelates with whom you wine and dine.  Enquire of them if, should the Churches unite, the Archbishop of Rome will be superior to Ecumenical Councils and be able to nullify them.

Ask them if they will accept the Vatican I teaching on the personal infallibility "non ex consensu ecclesiae" of the Archbishop of Rome.

I think you will find that they agree with the "priest-monk living on a sizeable island on the other side of the world."
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:29:02 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #102 on: January 07, 2011, 01:26:44 AM »

The Council in question was called by Pope Gregory XII and Antipope John XXIII, at which they both abdicated for the purpose of electing a new pope. The Avignon antipope Clement VIII later recognized that Pope Martin V (Constance's Pope) was the valid claimant. The Council was not "judging popes", it was called by them.
I am aware of the history surrounding Constance, and the later apologetic readings of it by ultramontane Roman Catholics, but as Bossuet pointed out, the whole of the council was held as binding in the West up to his own day, and the council itself explicitly affirmed that a pope is subject to an ecumenical council's judgment when the papacy itself is in dispute.  As he rightly points out, the council had to hold a position of authority above the primate in the case in question or it could not have elected a new pope.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:27:17 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #103 on: January 07, 2011, 01:27:29 AM »

Leo's amendment was not to the effect of withdrawing the anathema or denying that Honorius was a heretic, so of course not. He was further defining the anathema, not contradicting it.

Hows quickly that piffling little Council of Toledo XIV has faded from the discussion.  Cheesy
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #104 on: January 07, 2011, 01:28:58 AM »

Pope Pius II condemned the Conciliarist Heresy in no uncertain terms.
Again, I am aware of the unilateral actions of later popes.  That Pius II claimed absolute authority over a council is historically verifiable (see his bull Execrabilis), but claiming authority and actually possessing that authority are not the same thing.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:31:35 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #105 on: January 07, 2011, 01:31:08 AM »

Apotheoun:

Quote
I am aware of the history surrounding Constance, and the later apologetic readings of it by ultramontane Roman Catholics, but as Bossuet pointed out, the whole of the council was held as binding in the West up to his own day, and the council itself explicitly affirmed that a pope is subject to an ecumenical council's judgment when the papacy itself is in dispute.  As he rightly points out, the council had to hold a position of authority above the primate in the case in question or it could not have elected a new pope.

The whole of the council was binding. Haec Sancti was not issued by the Council of Constance. The Council of Constance was summoned by Pope Gregory XII and Antipope John XXIII. The earlier synod summoned by Antipope John XXIII and Emperor Sigismund was a illicit gathering.

There would have been no question for the council of constance in electing a pope of having an authority "superior to" popes, as there was no Pope at the time, Pope Gregory XII having abdicated, along with Antipope John XXIII.

Irish Hermit - what are you referring to by "Synod of Toledo XIV"? You mean the Synod of Toledo summoned by Pope Saint Leo II? What about it?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:34:07 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #106 on: January 07, 2011, 01:33:55 AM »

Apotheoun:

Quote
I am aware of the history surrounding Constance, and the later apologetic readings of it by ultramontane Roman Catholics, but as Bossuet pointed out, the whole of the council was held as binding in the West up to his own day, and the council itself explicitly affirmed that a pope is subject to an ecumenical council's judgment when the papacy itself is in dispute.  As he rightly points out, the council had to hold a position of authority above the primate in the case in question or it could not have elected a new pope.

The whole of the council was binding. Haec Sancti was not issued by the Council of Constance. The Council of Constance was summoned by Pope Gregory XII and Antipope John XXIII. The earlier synod summoned by Antipope John XXIII and Emperor Sigismund was a illicit gathering.

There would have been no question for the council of constance in electing a pope of having an authority "superior to" popes, as there was no Pope at the time, Pope Gregory XII having abdicated, along with Antipope John XXIII.

Irish Hermit - what are you referring to by "Synod of Toledo XIV"?
Again, I agree with Bossuet in holding that all the sessions of the council are binding on the Western Church.  Modern internet apologists come up with all sorts of ways to try and protect the 19th century view of papal supremacy, but I have no interest in doing that.

P.S. - As I said in another post, I have even run into people on the internet who try and defend Dictatus PapaeCheesy
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:39:55 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #107 on: January 07, 2011, 01:42:18 AM »

Well I certainly don't deny being an apologist, it doesn't change the fact that I'm right. Haec Sancti was never approved either by Gregory XII or by Martin V, so there is no case from canon law that it was legally binding. The council was able to enforce its practice for a while, in much the same way as some things were done "In the spirit of" Vatican II today, but in Catholic canon law the Pope must ratify the act of a council, and no Pope ratified Haec Sancti.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:52:21 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #108 on: January 07, 2011, 01:52:41 AM »

Oh come now, don't expect any intellectually serious person to believe that you chose your view based on an honest assessment and not because it fit your preconceived conclusion. I am a Catholic apologist, but unlike you I am honest with myself and others.
I have not questioned your sincerity and I would ask you to show the same respect.

As I said, I was a Roman Catholic for eighteen years before becoming Melkite Catholic in 2005, so I know the positions commonly taken by apologists for papal supremacy.  I know the Western take on the papacy, and used to believe it myself, but I gave it up after becoming Melkite Catholic and substituted in its place the views of my Melkite Catholic co-religionists, all of whom believe in papal primacy, while simultaneously rejecting the theories of papal absolutism promoted by Vatican I.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:53:50 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #109 on: January 07, 2011, 02:02:24 AM »

Apotheoun: Nobody is disputing that Honorius was a heretic. The question of Leo's amendment is to make clear that he did not teach heresy in his official capacity as Pope, as that is the question that has bearing on a dispute about the nature of the Papacy. Any Pope could be a heretic privately.


Quote from: ialmisry
LOL. It always amuses me how ultramontanists make such claims for Rome in utter oblivion of the rest of the Church, both in that these "unique papal prerogatives" aren't unique (Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria reached an understanding with Patriarch John of Antioch after the Council of Ephesus; cf. also the exagerated claims made for the signature of EP St. John on the Formula of Hormisdas with no mention that EP St. John ammended it first, further defining Constantinople as the equal of Old Rome), and often the case when Rome exercised them it was ignored (that Pope Leo contradicted the degree of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church at Constatninople I and Chalcedon made no impression on the Church).  Which such magical thinking, where results and reality count for nothing, they should seek employment in political campaigns (if I was more detailed, we would end up in politics).

Rome didn't "reach an understanding" with anyone.


Exactly. The verdict was accepted and incorporated into the papal oath. But since that doesn't deal with the question of Pope St. Cyril effecting the Council of Ephesus with Patriarch John after the Council had closed and issued its Definition of Faith, what is your answer to Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria exercizing those supposed "unique papal perrogaives"?

The Third Council of Constantinople reached its conclusions, and closed.
And Pope Honorius and the rest of the heretics were anathematize.

Pope Saint Leo II then unilaterally amended its rulings
The proofs had been closed and the verdict rendered.

after the fact before accepting it.
You assert his right to do so, but have yet to prove it.

He didn't seek an understanding with the other patriarchs, he just wrote to the Emperor and told him.
So you have said, you a citation of said letter?
I notice no reply.

And I notice you say he told the Emperor, not the patriarchs.  See what I mean by selective condemnation of Caesaropapism.

Quote from: Ialmisry
there is no mention of any "amendment": the Council finished its business, issued the Definition of Faith, and adjurned before Pope Leo II was consecrated.
Yes, as I mentioned the first time I brought it up, the Council had already closed when Pope Saint Leo II amended its conclusions. That's what an amendment is.
Only if it is open to amendment.

To take secular examples, no bill not passed by the 111st US Congress can be amended, as that Congress has expired.  No bill that it passed and that has been signed can be amended, as it has become law.  The Articles of Confederation cannot be amended, as it has been replaced by the present Constitution and the ERA cannot amend the Constitution because the time for ratification has expired.

The Fathers had rendered their judgement, confessed our Faith, and set their seal on it:
Quote
So now that these points have been formulated by us with all precision in every respect and with all care, we definitely state that it is not allowable for anyone to produce another faith, that is, to write or to compose or to consider or to teach others; those who dare to compose another faith, or to support or to teach or to hand on another creed to those who wish to turn to knowledge of the truth, whether from Hellenism or Judaism or indeed from any heresy whatsoever, or to introduce novelty of speech, that is, invention of terms, so as to overturn what has now been defined by us, such persons, if they are bishops or clerics, are deprived of their episcopacy or clerical rank, and if they are monks or layfolk they are excommunicated.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM06.HTM
Quote
Further we declare that there are two wills and principles of action, in accordance with what is proper to each of the natures in Christ, in the way that the sixth synod, that at Constantinople [III], proclaimed, when it also publicly rejected Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, those uninterested in true holiness, and their like-minded followers.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM07.HTM#2

The Emperor issued a decree of the done deal of the Ecumenical Council
Quote
Immediately after the end of the Synod, the Emperor caused to be posted in the third atrium of the great church in the neighborhood of Dicymbalon the following edict:
“The heresy of Apollinaris, etc., has been renewed by Theodore of Pharan and confirmed by Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, who also contradicted himself.  Also Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter; more recently.  Macarius, Stephen, and Polychronius had diffused Monothelitism.  He, the Emperor, had therefore convoked this holy and Ecumenical Synod, and published the present edict with the confession of faith, in order to confirm and establish its decrees.  (There follows here an extended confession of faith, with proofs for the doctrine of two wills and operations.)  As he recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy (τὸν κατὰ πάντα τούτοις συναιρέτην καὶ σύνδρομον καὶ βεβαιωτὴν τῆς αἱρέσεως, further, Cyrus, etc., and ordained that no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and one energy.  In no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved.  Whoever did not obey the imperial edict should, if he were a bishop or cleric be deposed; if an official, punished with confiscation of property and loss of the girdle (ζώνη); if a private person, banished from the residence and all other cities.”
http://www.godrules.net/library/hefele/84hefele_e2.htm
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.xiv.html

One of the mss. of Pope John's letter gives the date of May 682, i.e. before his consecration. But then, the Pope's authority at the council was wielded by "George, an humble presbyter of the holy Roman Church, and holding the place of the most blessed Agatho, ecumenical Pope of the City of Rome" and "John, an humble deacon of the holy Roman Church and holding the place of the most blessed Agatho, and ecumenical Pope of the City of Rome"
Btw, the signature of the legate of the Pope of Alexandria to the Council is interesting: "Peter a presbyter and holding the place of the Apostolic See of the great city Alexandria."

When the Emperors son learned that the Acts of the Council had been removed, he ordered an investigation to make sure they had not been tampered with, and so informed the Pope at Rome.  No mention of any "amendment."
http://books.google.com/books?id=DWH3CDxSqpgC&pg=PA219&dq=Justinian+II+imperial+archives&hl=en&ei=bqQmTaPxINCjnQfV7YWQAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias A.D. 590-752 By Andrew J. Ekonomou

Quote from: Ialmisry
Maybe in his personal opinion, or are you claiming it was an "ex cathedra" statement?
No, it doesn't need to be ex cathedra, it's purely practical; ecumenical councils aren't ecumenical unless ratified by Rome;
So you claim. Following the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils (in particular Constantinople I and II), we know otherwise.

thus, a Roman Pontiff can amend their rulings in ratifying them.
assertion, assertion, assertion-can we get some facts?

Quote from: ialmisry
Pope Leo had no authority to override the Council, particularly since it was convened and closed  nearly a year before he was consecrated and nearly before he was elected.  (though he are free to contradict yourself on Pope Adrian V again).
Incomparable situations, Leo had not been consecrated because of ongoing negotiations with the Empire vis-a-vis the Byzantine Papacy. It was understood by all that Rome was merely waiting for the formality until the negotiations were complete. Had they not, the Emperor would have tried to extort a tax out of them, in accordance with the practices of the Byzantine Papacy.
Was he consecrated, or was he not, at the time?

Quote from: ialmisry
The Council of Constantinople does not depend on Toledo, birthplace of heresy.
Yes, it does, even by the Eastern Orthodox "reception" theory, the Council is only ecumenical because it was accepted by the whole Church,
Toledo had already accepted the filoque and thereby had already become a den of heretics.  Their reception or not, to be technical, was not the concern of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The West had already spoken with the rest of the Church:
Quote
To make an end of the Monothelite controversy, Emperor Constantine IV asked Pope Donus in 678 to send twelve bishops and four western Greek monastic superiors to represent the pope at an assembly of eastern and western theologians. Pope Agatho, who meanwhile had succeeded Donus, ordered consultation in the west on this important matter. Around Easter 680 a synod in Rome of 125 Italian bishops, with Pope Agatho presiding, assessed the replies of the regional synods of the west and composed a profession of faith in which Monothelitism was condemned. Legates of the pope took this profession to Constantinople, arriving at the beginning of September 680.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM06.HTM

and it was only accepted by the west predicate upon the amendment in question.
So you keep claiming, but have yet to start demonstrating.

Of course in reality, the "reception" theory is no theory at all, it's just a means for accepting things which are convenient to accept
Like the Truth.
and rejecting things that aren't.
Like the lies of heretics.

Quote from: Ialmisry
LOL. Not much on geography, eh? Toledo is in the West.
Not much on reading comprehension, eh? I said no issue was made in the east of the amendments in question.
Speaking of reading, care to present any evidence that the East ever read the letters to Spain, or the opinions of Toledo?

Quote from: Ialmisry
So you claim. Sort of like the British monarchs claiming to be the rulers of France.

Btw, do you have a copy of those letters to Spain, perhaps in the same file with the Donation of Constantine and Pope Isodore's decretals?
What "letters to Spain" are you talking about? Do you mean Pope Saint Leo II's letter to the Emperor? The Emperor was in Constantinople, you know.
Do you read what you post?
After Leo had notified the emperor that the decrees of the council had been confirmed by him, he proceeded to make them known to the nations of the West. The letters which he sent for this end to the king and to the bishops and nobles of Spain have come down to us. In them he explained what the council had effected, and he called upon the bishops to subscribe to its decrees. At the same time he was at pains to make it clear that in condemning his predecessor Honorius I, he did so, not because he taught heresy, but because he was not active enough in opposing it. In accordance with the papal mandate, a synod was held at Toledo (684) in which the Council of Constantinople was accepted
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #110 on: January 07, 2011, 02:03:33 AM »

Oh come now, don't expect any intellectually serious person to believe that you chose your view based on an honest assessment and not because it fit your preconceived conclusion. I am a Catholic apologist, but unlike you I am honest with myself and others.
I have not questioned your sincerity and I would ask you to show the same respect.

As I said, I was a Roman Catholic for eighteen years before becoming Melkite Catholic in 2005, so I know the positions commonly taken by apologists for papal supremacy.  I know the Western take on the papacy, and used to believe it myself, but I gave it up after becoming Melkite Catholic and substituted in its place the views of my Melkite Catholic co-religionists, all of whom believe in papal primacy, while simultaneously rejecting the theories of papal absolutism promoted by Vatican I.
So why do you remain "in communion" with Rome when you disagree with Rome and agree with the EO Church?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #111 on: January 07, 2011, 02:04:08 AM »

No, your understanding of papal infallibility is simply polemical is all. Nothing in Pope Honorius' letter to Sergius suggests he was speaking ex cathedra in his official capacity as Pope to define a belief to be held by all Christians. Indeed, we know quite the opposite to be the case, since he simply urged silence on the dispute.
Can you produce the letter in question, to "prove" your case?
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #112 on: January 07, 2011, 02:05:16 AM »

Uh the idea of Bishops speaking "from the chair" (any bishop can speak ex cathedra) was definitely established in the 7th century, even if we were to reject the idea of Papal infallibility. And there is nothing in Honorius' letter to suggest that he was speaking from the chair to make an official promulgation of doctrine to be held. Indeed, there is nothing to suggest he even thought anyone other than Patriarch Sergius was going to read the letter.
Can you show us in the text of the letter where this is so?
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #113 on: January 07, 2011, 02:06:26 AM »

Oh come now, don't expect any intellectually serious person to believe that you chose your view based on an honest assessment and not because it fit your preconceived conclusion. I am a Catholic apologist, but unlike you I am honest with myself and others.
I have not questioned your sincerity and I would ask you to show the same respect.

As I said, I was a Roman Catholic for eighteen years before becoming Melkite Catholic in 2005, so I know the positions commonly taken by apologists for papal supremacy.  I know the Western take on the papacy, and used to believe it myself, but I gave it up after becoming Melkite Catholic and substituted in its place the views of my Melkite Catholic co-religionists, all of whom believe in papal primacy, while simultaneously rejecting the theories of papal absolutism promoted by Vatican I.
So why do you remain "in communion" with Rome when you disagree with Rome and agree with the EO Church?
Why will the Vatican give me communion when I disagree with it and agree with the EO Church, i.e. the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #114 on: January 07, 2011, 02:08:06 AM »

Uh the idea of Bishops speaking "from the chair" (any bishop can speak ex cathedra) was definitely established in the 7th century, even if we were to reject the idea of Papal infallibility. And there is nothing in Honorius' letter to suggest that he was speaking from the chair to make an official promulgation of doctrine to be held. Indeed, there is nothing to suggest he even thought anyone other than Patriarch Sergius was going to read the letter.
Use the personal correspondence between Nestorius and Cyril to prove your case.  Poor Nestorius all he had to do was claim that his letters to Cyril were not official and he could have avoided being deposed from his see.

Worked for Ibas at Chalcedon.

Quote
Your attempts to apply theories espoused at Vatican I to the first millennium are doomed to failure.
Yeah, he won't do too well either with the Letter Attributed to Ibas.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #115 on: January 07, 2011, 02:12:50 AM »

Quote
On the other hand the chief advocates of papal infallibility, for instance, such great men as Melchior Canus in the sixteenth century, Thomassinus in the seventeenth, Pietro Ballerini in the eighteenth, Cardinal Perrone in the nineteenth, have been careful to point out that Honorius did not define anything ex cathedra. But they were not content with this amply sufficient defence. Some followed Baronius, but most, if not all, showed themselves anxious to prove that the letters of Honorius were entirely orthodox. There was indeed no difficulty in showing that Honorius was probably not a Monothelite. It would have been only just to extend the same kindly interpretation to the words of Sergius. The learned Jesuit Garnier saw clearly, however, that it was not as a Monothelite that Honorius was condemned. He was coupled with Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, the Ecthesis, and the Type. It is by no means clear that Sergius, Pyrrhus, and the Ecthesis are to be accounted as Monothelite, since they forbade the mention of "one operation"; it is quite certain that Paul and the Type were anti-Monothelite, for they prohibited "one Will" also. Garnier pointed out that the council condemned Honorius for approving Sergius and for "fomenting" the dogmas of Pyrrhus and Paul. This view was followed by many great writers, including Pagi.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

In his official capacity, Honorius was not encouraging monothelitism.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM06.HTM
Quote
But since from the first, the contriver of evil did not rest, finding an accomplice in the serpent and through him bringing upon human nature the poisoned dart of death, so too now he has found instruments suited to his own purpose—namely Theodore, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this imperial city, and further Honorius, who was pope of elder Rome, Cyrus, who held the see of Alexandria, and Macarius, who was recently bishop of Antioch, and his disciple Stephen — and has not been idle in raising through them obstacles of error against the full body of the church sowing with novel speech among the orthodox people the heresy of a single will and a single principle of action in the two natures of the one member of the holy Trinity Christ our true God, a heresy in harmony with the evil belief, ruinous to the mind
No "Nihil obstat" nor "Imprimatur" needed.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 02:15:22 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #116 on: January 07, 2011, 02:17:41 AM »

Honorius condemned the use of either "one operation" or "two operations". He attempted to prevent the dispute from occurring at all, not to promulgate the Monothelite side of it.

Quote from: Apotheoun
I know that as a Roman Catholic you have a vested interest in reading history through the lense of the First Vatican Council, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not share that same interest.

You have a vested interest in reading history through the lens of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, which is why you so often fail to mention facts of great relevance, as you have done just now in mentioning that Honorius condemned the use of "two operations" but failed to mention that he also condemned the use of "one operation".
So are all heretics to be praised becasue they condemn another heresy. Should we praise Nestorius because he damned Eutyches?
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #117 on: January 07, 2011, 02:18:52 AM »

Yes, he is a heretic, this is not being disputed. Your claim, that he officially taught monothelitism in his capacity as Pope, is plainly incorrect. This is what Leo clarified in his amendment. However no, he didn't "officially condemn" either view, nor did he officially promulgate either view. He just tried to get the two sides to stop arguing about it all.
So did the Patriarch Acacius, but you take a rather dim view of his attempt in the Henotikon.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #118 on: January 07, 2011, 02:23:27 AM »

He considers himself to be in communion with a body he considers to be heretical. It doesn't appear to trouble him.

Your ecclesiastical community communes with Nestorians, and it doesn't appear to trouble you.

Quote from: Apotheoun
I do not believe that the pope has the authority to amend a decree of a council.  So, that argument fails to convince me that your position is viable.

I believe you stated in the past that you hold to the reception theory, yes? Under that theory, you'd have to believe that he does, as we know that the council was "ecumenical" because it was received by the whole Church, and the only reason the West received it was predicate upon that amendment.
The West could accept the defintion of the Fathers (as it did, as is) and remain in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, or it can reject them and be cast out/leave.

The Orthodox can't get around the problem by saying they don't believe in Papal supremacy.
Since we do not fear making existential decisions, there is no problem to get around.
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
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #119 on: January 07, 2011, 02:29:06 AM »

Quote from: Ialmisry
Exactly. The verdict was accepted and incorporated into the papal oath. But since that doesn't deal with the question of Pope St. Cyril effecting the Council of Ephesus with Patriarch John after the Council had closed and issued its Definition of Faith, what is your answer to Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria exercizing those supposed "unique papal perrogaives"?

Perhaps he did, I don't know, it isn't directly relevant since whether one accepts the Catholic theory or the Orthodox reception theory, your general argument, that Leo could not amend the council, is wrong either way. Your argument is also wildly self-contradictory, since you hold here that Pope Saint Cyril of Alexandria was able to effect the Council of Ephesus after it had closed, but will later argue that this cannot be done.

Quote from: Ialmisry
I notice no reply.

And I notice you say he told the Emperor, not the patriarchs.  See what I mean by selective condemnation of Caesaropapism.

I don't recall having said anything about Caesaropapism in this thread. Either way, that isn't an example of Caesaropapism. He was informing the competent authority of a decision, not requesting permission.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Only if it is open to amendment.

To take secular examples, no bill not passed by the 111st US Congress can be amended, as that Congress has expired.  No bill that it passed and that has been signed can be amended, as it has become law.  The Articles of Confederation cannot be amended, as it has been replaced by the present Constitution and the ERA cannot amend the Constitution because the time for ratification has expired.

The Fathers had rendered their judgement, confessed our Faith, and set their seal on it:

Self-contradictory. Ephesus could be amended, but Constantinople III could not?

Quote from: Ialmisry
Toledo had already accepted the filoque and thereby had already become a den of heretics.  Their reception or not, to be technical, was not the concern of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The West had already spoken with the rest of the Church

The Orthodox hold that when you lose Orthodox faith, you lose apostolic succession.

Now, the whole of the east remained in communion with the west from AD 867 to AD 1054 despite the fact that the west used the filioque.

Ergo, in AD 864 the Church ceased to exist.

Congratulations, you've painted Christianity out of existence.

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate. I'd rather engage in real thought than debate obfuscatory rulings of ancient councils with withered, bitter old monks - in spirit if not in body.



« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 02:31:46 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #120 on: January 07, 2011, 02:32:27 AM »

He was a heretic, and he was anathematized, but his anathematization was subject to the amendment of Pope Saint Leo II. And saying you believe in Papal Primacy rather than Papal Supremacy doesn't get you out of that. It holds in the reception theory just as much as it does in the Catholic theory. And it would certainly hold in your application of Canon 34 that the Pope had aamendment power over the Council's decision, since they can't act without his consent.

They had Pope St. Agatho's, who had already gathered the West in Synod, formulated a defintion of Faith and sent it along with his legates with spoke as one with the others at the Sixth Council.  They did act without the consent of the Patriarch of Antioch, as they deposed him.  Had Pope Honorius lived, he would have been deposed and dealt with, as the Fifth Ecumenical Council dealt with Pope Vigilius.

Quote
His amendment was accepted by the Church, since no issue was made about it despite Leo being quite clear when writing to the Emperor and others what he was doing.
The Emperor and the Council had already published their decree, the decree of the Fathers of the Council, which the Fathers of the Seventh Council declared "in the way that the sixth synod, that at Constantinople [III], proclaimed, when it also publicly rejected...Honorius..uninterested in true holiness, and [his] like-minded followers."
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #121 on: January 07, 2011, 02:35:10 AM »

Quote from: Apotheoun
No, the canon clearly says that they must work together.  Pope Leo, for good or ill, accepted the decrees against Honorius, which was his right, but he has no right to amend the decrees enacted by the council of the papal representatives sent by Pope Agatho.

The Fathers do not appear to have agreed, as they went with it.
No, as the Fathers of Seventh Ecumenical Council make clear: Honorius is in no way or manner distinguished from the other anathematized heresiarchs who spread heresy amongst their followers.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #122 on: January 07, 2011, 02:38:34 AM »

You have nothing really useful to expend on this dialogue about papal primacy and infallibility at all.


May I contribute to this dialogue the most useful thing of all - the truth.

papal primacy:  in order to be united to the holy Church the Pope will need to accept that he becomes ONE bishop with ONE vote at all synods and councils, like every other bishop in the Church

infallibility:  in order to be united to the Church, the Pope must realise that the word and concept of infallibility does not exist within the Church.

Here on the Forum we enjoy writing back and forth and waffling on about these topics, playing in our surreal sandpit, but I have given you the bottom-line truth.  I hope it will be useful.

Neither my truth, nor the truth Christ left with us.

This is the truth according to a priest-monk living on a sizeable island on the other side of the world from me, who rejects all the truths that I hold dear.

I will follow Christ's truth.

When some Orthodox get tired of playing at being personally infallible...then we'll be able to have a real dialogue.
"Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? "

First your supreme pontiff should repent of playing at being personally infallible.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #123 on: January 07, 2011, 03:04:21 AM »

Leo's amendment was not to the effect of withdrawing the anathema or denying that Honorius was a heretic, so of course not. He was further defining the anathema, not contradicting it.

So you are arguing moot points why again?

Nobody raised any challenge to Leo's stated actions.

You didn't say he wrote to any hiearchs except his suffragans.  His peers would have to know about something objectionable to challenge it.

Pope St. Agatho had convened a synod, and the Fathers accepted his decision and incorporated it into the Definiton of Faith which Rome's legates signed.  According to you, Leo II couldn't amend as he wasn't consecrated yet.  As Pope elect he accepted the Faith of the Sixth Council. That Pope Leo allegedly tried to explain his acceptance would change the Sixth Council no more than the Act of Union between Pope St. Cyril and Pat. John of Antioch amended the Third Council, much less than the misconstruction you place on the former as the Letter Attributed to Ibas miscontrues the latter changes the boundary stones which the Fathers set up.

There was consent by allowance.
LOL. No one waited for Rome to catch up.

And once again, Orthodox reception theory would empower Leo to do this, since the whole Church must receive a council in order for it to be ecumenical,

Pope Vigilius learned otherwise the hard way.

and the west was receiving the council predicate upon the amendment in question to further define what Honorius' crime had been.

The West went into schism from the Patriarch of the West, i.e. the Pope of Rome, when Pope Vigilius finally caught up with the Fathers of Constantinople II. It didn't delay Constantinople II achieving Ecumenical status, it just made the West schismatics and heretics and delayed Orthodox.

Pope Agatho had sent his consent, achieved by synod, with his legates, who signed and swore acceptance of the Definition at Constantinople III.

Quote from: apotheoun
The Western Council of Constance had no problem judging the pope (or rather the three papal claimants) and choosing a new pope to replace them.

The Council in question was called by Pope Gregory XII and Antipope John XXIII, at which they both abdicated for the purpose of electing a new pope. The Avignon antipope Clement VIII later recognized that Pope Martin V (Constance's Pope) was the valid claimant. The Council was not "judging popes", it was called by them. There was the document Haec Sancti issued at the previous council called by Antipope John XXIII and Emperor Sigismund which attempted to place the authority of councils above that of Popes, but that was not part of the valid council (the one called by Gregory XII and John XXIII). Pope Pius II condemned the Conciliarist Heresy in no uncertain terms.
You make a distinction between the sessions of your council of Constance that it does not recognize. Since the pontiff Pius II authority derives from the Council, and not, as the council makes clear, the reverse, his condemnation would have the effect of voiding his own authority to make the condemnation.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 03:06:16 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #124 on: January 07, 2011, 03:11:58 AM »

Apotheoun:

Quote
I am aware of the history surrounding Constance, and the later apologetic readings of it by ultramontane Roman Catholics, but as Bossuet pointed out, the whole of the council was held as binding in the West up to his own day, and the council itself explicitly affirmed that a pope is subject to an ecumenical council's judgment when the papacy itself is in dispute.  As he rightly points out, the council had to hold a position of authority above the primate in the case in question or it could not have elected a new pope.

The whole of the council was binding. Haec Sancti was not issued by the Council of Constance. The Council of Constance was summoned by Pope Gregory XII and Antipope John XXIII. The earlier synod summoned by Antipope John XXIII and Emperor Sigismund was a illicit gathering.

Then "Pope" Gregory XII abdicated to an illicit gathering and Martin V is an antipope.

There would have been no question for the council of constance in electing a pope of having an authority "superior to" popes, as there was no Pope at the time, Pope Gregory XII having abdicated, along with Antipope John XXIII.
Both were ruling when the council of Counstance opened and asserted its authority and its mandate not to disband until it had elected a pope according to Haec Sancta.

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #125 on: January 07, 2011, 03:20:10 AM »

Well I certainly don't deny being an apologist, it doesn't change the fact that I'm right. Haec Sancti was never approved either by Gregory XII or by Martin V,

According to the council of Constance, it didn't need to be. And no council of Constance, no Pope Martin V. Pope Gregory XII abdicated to the council after it issued its manifesto of Haec Sancta, so his approval is moot, it coming in his abdication to the council.

so there is no case from canon law that it was legally binding.

Cite, don't assert.

The council was able to enforce its practice for a while,

Yes, Pope Martin V had to call the council of Siena, setting the template of this "teaching council" nonsense, of which Vatican II is an example.

n much the same way as some things were done "In the spirit of" Vatican II today, but in Catholic canon law the Pope must ratify the act of a council, and no Pope ratified Haec Sancti.
Then Pope Martin V and his successors are all antipopes, and therefore your "ecumenical councils" 16-21 robber councils.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #126 on: January 07, 2011, 04:05:47 AM »

Quote from: Ialmisry
Exactly. The verdict was accepted and incorporated into the papal oath. But since that doesn't deal with the question of Pope St. Cyril effecting the Council of Ephesus with Patriarch John after the Council had closed and issued its Definition of Faith, what is your answer to Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria exercizing those supposed "unique papal perrogaives"?

Perhaps he did, I don't know, it isn't directly relevant since whether one accepts the Catholic theory or the Orthodox reception theory, your general argument, that Leo could not amend the council, is wrong either way. Your argument is also wildly self-contradictory, since you hold here that Pope Saint Cyril of Alexandria was able to effect the Council of Ephesus after it had closed, but will later argue that this cannot be done.
No contradiction. Bottom line, Pat. John accepted the deposition of Nestorius and the anathematization of his views done at Ephesus. Bottom line, Pope St. Leo accepted the anathematization of Pope Honorius done at Constantinople III.

Quote from: Ialmisry
I notice no reply.

And I notice you say he told the Emperor, not the patriarchs.  See what I mean by selective condemnation of Caesaropapism.

I don't recall having said anything about Caesaropapism in this thread. Either way, that isn't an example of Caesaropapism. He was informing the competent authority of a decision, not requesting permission.
The Emperor does not decide these things, just gives his permission to bear his sword not in vain.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Only if it is open to amendment.

To take secular examples, no bill not passed by the 111st US Congress can be amended, as that Congress has expired.  No bill that it passed and that has been signed can be amended, as it has become law.  The Articles of Confederation cannot be amended, as it has been replaced by the present Constitution and the ERA cannot amend the Constitution because the time for ratification has expired.

The Fathers had rendered their judgement, confessed our Faith, and set their seal on it:

Self-contradictory. Ephesus could be amended, but Constantinople III could not?

Neither could except by Ecumenical Council. No contradiction at all.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Toledo had already accepted the filoque and thereby had already become a den of heretics.  Their reception or not, to be technical, was not the concern of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The West had already spoken with the rest of the Church

The Orthodox hold that when you lose Orthodox faith, you lose apostolic succession.

Now, the whole of the east remained in communion with the west from AD 867 to AD 1054 despite the fact that the west used the filioque.
When did you pry the silver tablets off of St. Peter's and St. Paul Outside the Walls put there by Pope Leo III for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith?

EP St. Photios excommunicated Pope Nicholas I over that in 867, and sent that sentence out to the other patriachs.  He never communed with Nicholas again.  The strong arming of the emperor for his own purposes could only must 103 apostate bishops in 869, which hardly emptied the Orthodox episcopate. In 879 the Church, including Rome, annulled the heretical actions of 869, adn confessed the Orthodox Faith with EP St. Photios and the rest of the Orthodox bishops who had never left it:
Quote
"Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the venerable and divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been established in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, as well as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment, and indeed, those Seven holy and ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and the same Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding with a most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions invulnerable and unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered. Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi (Rules, Boundaries) of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:

"I believe in One God, Father Almighty, ... and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord ... who proceeds from the Father... [the whole Creed is cited here]

Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people."
http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/synodoi/8th_Synod_Dragas.htm

So it remained until 1009, when the pontiff Sergius IV used it in his ascension letter to the EP, and the Germanic Kaiser ordered pontiff Sergius' successor to insert it in the rites of the church.  The EP struck the former pope of Rome from the diptychs, and he hasn't returned since.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/synodoi/8th_Synod_Dragas.htmErgo, in AD 864 the Church ceased to exist.[/quote]
No, the pillar of Orthodoxy, EP St. Photios saw to it that that didn't happen.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/synodoi/8th_Synod_Dragas.htmCongratulations, you've painted Christianity out of existence.[/quote]

No, just seperated the wheat from the chaff.

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate. I'd rather engage in real thought than debate obfuscatory rulings of ancient councils with withered, bitter old monks - in spirit if not in body.
That is the problem when you crush the Church into the singularity of a supreme pontiff: once the illusion is unmaksed, people get disillusioned.

Trod the Orthodox Way, which may be narrow, but it is straight and well supported by many pillars.
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
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #127 on: January 07, 2011, 05:47:23 AM »

Quote from: ialmisry
That is the problem when you crush the Church into the singularity of a supreme pontiff: once the illusion is unmaksed, people get disillusioned.

Trod the Orthodox Way, which may be narrow, but it is straight and well supported by many pillars.

You're very foolish if you believe this tired monkish bickering makes anyone want to become Orthodox, or Catholic. It's simply frustrating and exhausting, and I no longer have the patience for it. The ecclesiological history of the Christian Church, Catholic and Orthodox, is the history of puffed up self-important monks who never achieved anything of any particular importance outside of their own endless bickering, so it's not surprising that those who are so animated by it are themselves puffed up, self-important, and monkish. The idea that people are heretics because they say "And the Son" in the Nicene Creed? Please. How incredibly stupid. Why should I care what some council said about it?

Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 06:15:17 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #128 on: January 07, 2011, 06:08:03 AM »

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate. I'd rather engage in real thought than debate obfuscatory rulings of ancient councils with withered, bitter old monks - in spirit if not in body.

Thomist, please do not stop.  You are proving to be a wonderful catalyst for people who are reading these messages with an interest in the faith and thanks to you two Catholics are writing back and forth to me .
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #129 on: January 07, 2011, 06:25:29 AM »

It's stupid. We read the same gospel, we worship the same Christ, we attend the same mass and we take the same eucharist. Obscurantists on both sides try to tell us we can't be in communion with one another because one thousand years ago a bunch of unwashed barbarians and effeminate Greeks decided they didn't like each other and we've been beholden to them ever since. That is the nature of the schism, not whether we say "And the Son" in our creed or whether the Holy Spirit prevented Pius XII from error when he defined that Mary was assumed bodily in to heaven or if it was that the statement was just true.

In any event, the statement on papal infallibility, especially in light of Lumen Gentium, is so hazy that one could propose to accept or reject it and believe precisely the same thing either way. It's been built up to have been a major event in the history of the Church because it is politically charged, but in reality it means virtually nothing. Since I'm a westerner, I'll "accept" it and let the Vatican get back to me when they decide what it is. Precisely the same thing is true of the Orthodox "reception" theory, which has no precise definition at all and indeed rejects the very idea of precise definitions. Both doctrines, as well as controversies over whether the west believes in "created" grace, or whether the east's acceptance of "energeia" is polytheistic, are post-hoc justifications for millenia-old struggles that were always more political than religious, and I have no doubt it enrages Christ.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 06:39:24 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #130 on: January 07, 2011, 07:00:48 AM »

P.S: In reality what Papal infallibility has meant in practice, and what it's going to be massaged in to meaning in the future if ecumenicism progresses - is that once the whole Church has decided something, the Pope gets to be the one who stands up at the podium and says it.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #131 on: January 07, 2011, 09:13:59 AM »

P.S: In reality what Papal infallibility has meant in practice, and what it's going to be massaged in to meaning in the future if ecumenicism progresses - is that once the whole Church has decided something, the Pope gets to be the one who stands up at the podium and says it.

This would not only be contrary to the traditional way in which Councils have announced their decisions but it would also place a stranglehold on the principle of conciliarity (sobornost) in the episcopate.  If the bishops of the world formulate something against which the Pope has voted and with which he disagrees (such as the anathema against Honorius) will the Pope refuse to proclaim it?  Will the Church then be obliged to convene a Council to depose him?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #132 on: January 07, 2011, 09:44:55 AM »

Thomist,

I know that as a Roman Catholic you have a vested interest in reading history through the lense of the First Vatican Council, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not share that same interest.