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.
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.
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:
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
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
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:http://www.godrules.net/library/hefele/84hefele_e2.htmhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.xiv.html
“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.”
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
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?
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?
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:
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.
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?
So you claim. Sort of like the British monarchs claiming to be the rulers of France.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.
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?
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