OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 08:56:26 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Honorius and Pastor Aeternus  (Read 14914 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,610



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,610



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,610



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,610



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,610



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,610



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,610



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,610



« 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: 6,834


"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: 6,834


"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
Tags: Honorius ialmisry's b.s. 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.163 seconds with 73 queries.