Topic: Kinks in the Chain:Weak Links in the Succession of Supreme Pontiffs

[ialmisry]

The Vatican prides itself on an unbroken succession of supreme pontiffs at Rome from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI.

Besides the problems that St. Peter did not found the See of Jerusalem (Tradition does tell us, though, that he consecrated its founder, St. James the Brother of God) and founded the See of Antioch, that the Papacy was at Avignon for perhaps a century, and the existence of the concept of an Antipope, there have been several succession crises which do not prove fatal for an Orthodox Patriarch-as the Orthodox episcopate stands as an ontological whole not dependent on any one member-but prove fatal to Ultramontanist claims predicating the whole of the Faith and Church on the "visible head." Some highlights:

the first century has some questions about the number of successors, with some indication that St. Linus predeceased St. Peter, and his successors were consecrated by St. Paul. There is also the problem that the early centuries speak of St. Paul as cofounder with St. Peter of the Church of Rome.

Pope Felix c. 530 tried to appoint Boniface as successor, something which was rejected an a Pope Damasus elected, who was anathematized by Pope Boniface II as an antipope. Pope Boniface followed suit by appoiting his successor Vigilius, but then burned it.  Vigilius succeeed Pope Boniface's successor, Pope Agapetus, who burned Pope Bonfiace's anathema of Pope Damasus as an Antipope.  Pope Vigilius was struck from the diptychs for opposing the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which was not implimented until his successor Pope Pelagius I, coloring the succession of infallible "supreme pontiff" 530-555.

The anathematization of Pope Honorius by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and in the papal oath taken by his successors until after the Schism.

There is the excommunication of Pope Nicholas I for heresy.

The bizarre events focused on the Cadaver Synod colors the succession 891-911, at least.

The Great Schism, which had serveral popes at one time, replaced by another pope set up by a council which, according to Ultramontanist claims, could not have the authority to do so.

Given that and more, I hardly know where to begin.

since the Vatican doesn't publish an official list (how convenient  ), we have to go with the most authoritative, the  Annuario Pontificio,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
and the one with the "Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York." of NewAdvent
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

[ialmisry]

^Since this brought this up:

Canon 23 of the Council of Antioch (340)
It shall not be lawful for a bishop, even at the close of life, to appoint another as successor to himself; and if any such thing should be done, the appointment shall be void. But the ecclesiastical law must be observed, that a bishop must not be appointed otherwise than by a synod and with the judgment of the bishops, who have the authority to promote the man who is worthy, after the falling asleep of him who has ceased from his labours.

Nothing could be more important than the provision of this canon. It is evidently intended to prevent nepotism in every form, and to leave the appointment to the vacant see absolutely to the free choice of the Metropolitan and his synod. The history of the Church, and its present practice, is a curious commentary upon the ancient legislation, and the appointment of coadjutor bishops cum jure successionis, so common in later days, seems to be a somewhat ingenious way of escaping the force of the canon. Van Espen, however, reminds his readers of the most interesting case of St. Augustine of Hippo (which he himself narrates in his Epistle CCXIII.) of how he was chosen by his predecessor as bishop of Hippo, both he and the then bishop being ignorant of the fact that it was prohibited by the canons. And how when in his old age the people wished him to have one chosen bishop to help him till his death and to succeed him afterwards, he declined saying: What was worthy of blame in my own case, shall not be a blot likewise upon my son. He did not hesitate to say who he thought most worthy to succeed him, but he added, he shall be a presbyter, as he is, and when God so wills he shall be a bishop. Van Espen adds; All this should be read carefully that thence may be learned how St. Augustine set an example to bishops and pastors of taking all the pains possible that after their deaths true pastors, and not thieves and wolves, should enter into their flocks, who in a short time would destroy all they had accomplished by so much labour in so long a time. (Cf. Eusebius. H. E., Lib. VI., cap. xj. and cap. xxxij.)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3805.htm

The Regional Council of Antioch.


Prolegomena.

The regional Council held in Antioch, Syria, was convened in A.D.341 in the reign of Constantius (a son of Constantine the Great), who was present in person in Antioch. It was attended, according to Socrates (Book II, ch. 8 of his Ecclesiastical History) by ninety Fathers, but, according to Theophanes, one hundred and twenty; the leader of whom was Eusebius, formerly bishop of Beyrut, later of Nicomedia, and after serving as bishop of Nicomedia having become bishop of Constantinople. The bishop of Antioch at that time was a man by the name of Placotus. But the bishop of Rome, Julius, was not present at this Council, either in person or by legates; but neither was Maximus, the bishop of Jerusalem. Thus this Council issued the present twenty-five Canons, which are indeed necessary to the good order and constitution of the Church, though for the most part they not only agree in import with the Apostolic Canons (see the Prolegomena to the Apostolic Canons), but even use the same words that those Canons contain. They are confirmed in addition indefinitely by c. I of the 4th (though the latter in its fourth Act cites the fourth and the fifth Canons of this Council verbatim, as we shall have occasion to assert) and by c. I of the 7th; and definitely by c. II of the 6th, and by virtue of the confirmation afforded by this latter Council, they have acquired a force which, in a way, is ecumenical.

23. No Bishop shall be permitted to appoint another as his successor in office, even though he be approaching the end of his life. But if any such thing should be done, the appointment shall be void and of no effect. The ecclesiastical law shall be kept which declares that only with a synod and the decision of bishops, and not otherwise, may a worthy one be promoted to take over the authority held by the one who has been laid to rest in sleep.

(Ap. c. LXXVI.)


Interpretation.

In agreement with Ap. c. LXXVI this Canon also decrees to the effect that no bishop shall have permission to ordain a successor to his own throne whomsoever he may wish and of his own accord, even though he be at the point of death. If, nevertheless, any bishop should do so, the ordination shall be invalid. The Canon of the Church providing for this contingency must be kept which decrees that in no other way may anyone become a successor than by judgment and vote of a synod or council of bishops, who have authority after the death of the predecessor to ordain one worthy to succeed him. See also said Ap. c. LXXVI

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm#_Toc72635082

Apostolic Canon 76. It is decreed that no Bishop shall be allowed to ordain whomsoever he wishes to the office of the Episcopate as a matter of concession to a brother, or to a son, or to a relative. For it is not right for heirs to the Episcopate to be created, by subjecting God’s things to human passion; for God’s Church ought not to be entrusted to heirs. If anyone shall do this, let the ordination remain invalid and void, and let the bishop himself be penanced with excommunication.

(c. XXIII of Antioch; c. XL of Carthage.).


Interpretation.

Prelatical authority is admittedly a grace and gift of the Holy Spirit. So how can anyone bestow it upon another as an inheritable right? Wherefore the present Apostolical Canon decrees that a bishop ought not to favor any of his brothers or sons or relatives by ordaining him as his successor to the office of the episcopate, because it is not right for one to create heirs to the episcopate and prelacy (as is done, that is to say, in the case of other affairs among seculars), and to bestow the gracious gifts of God upon another as a favor, such as the prelatical authority, on account of human passion, or, in other words, on account of considerations of relationship or of friendship. Nor ought anyone to subject the Church of God to inheritance, by so acting as to cause it to be called a patrimony. But if any one of the bishops should do this and ordain any relative of his as his successor to the episcopate, the ordination so performed shall be invalid and of no effect, while he himself who ordained that person shall be excommunicated; for bishops must be made by a synod. Accordingly if, as declared in c. XL of Carthage, bishops have no authority to leave to their relatives, or to anyone else they may choose, any property that they acquired after the episcopate, by way of legacy (except only whatever they have acquired by inheritance from relatives or any bestowed upon them by someone else in token of honor), how can they leave as a legacy to their relatives, or to anyone else they may wish, the episcopate itself?


Concord.

Wherefore consistently herewith c. XXIII of Antioch commands that no bishop shall have authority to appoint a successor to himself even though he be at the point of death on the contrary, the synod and the judgment of the bishops composing it shall have sole authority to appoint whomsoever they find to be worthy, after the decease of the defunct bishop. Hence it was that this very same thing was prohibited also in connection with ancient Israel. It was on this ground that they laid an accusation against Moses charging that he appointed his brother Aaron to the office of high priest, and the latter’s sons too. Accordingly, had not God Himself confirmed their appointment to holy orders by means of the sign of the rod which sprouted and blossomed, there is little doubt that they would have been deposed from office.

[Monk Vasyl]

 Its interesting to know that before Pope John XXIII (1958-63), there was an antipope John XXIII (1400-1415). 

[ialmisry]

 Its interesting to know that before Pope John XXIII (1958-63), there was an antipope John XXIII (1400-1415). 

LOL. "Antipope."

That depends on your viewpoint: Pope John XXIII opened the Council of Constance, which the Vatican claims as ecumenical, and claims that it elected the real Pope Martin V.

[elijahmaria]

 Its interesting to know that before Pope John XXIII (1958-63), there was an antipope John XXIII (1400-1415). 

When the latter-day John the Twenty-Third took that name, he was telling the world something about the false John XXIII.   Had the earlier claimant been legitimate then the later claimant would never have been able to rightfully take his name.

There are Orthodox who arrogate to themselves some particular talent in Catholic canon law, doctrine and ecclesial history and theology.

Fortunately for the Catholic Church they are few in number and only really broadcast on a very narrow band.  OrthoChicks if you will...

[Deacon Lance]

Pope Felix c. 530 tried to appoint Boniface as successor, something which was rejected an a Pope Damasus elected, who was anathematized by Pope Boniface II as an antipope. Pope Boniface followed suit by appoiting his successor Vigilius, but then burned it.  Vigilius succeeed Pope Boniface's successor, Pope Agapetus, who burned Pope Bonfiace's anathema of Pope Damasus as an Antipope.  Pope Vigilius was struck from the diptychs for opposing the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which was not implimented until his successor Pope Pelagius I, coloring the succession of infallible "supreme pontiff" 530-555.

Pope St Felix did appoint Pope Boniface II.  Roman presbyters responded by electing Dioscorus, who died 22 days later and Pope Boniface II remained.  Pope Boniface II attempted to appoint Vigilius as his succesor but opposition made him recant.  Popes John II, St. Agapetus I, and St. Silverius followed.  St. Justinian the Great deposed Pope St. Silverius and appointed Pope Vigilius in his place beginning the time of the Byzantine Papacy.

[ialmisry]

 Its interesting to know that before Pope John XXIII (1958-63), there was an antipope John XXIII (1400-1415). 

When the latter-day John the Twenty-Third took that name, he was telling the world something about the false John XXIII.   Had the earlier claimant been legitimate then the later claimant would never have been able to rightfully take his name.

LOL. And what do you say about Pope John XX of Rome?

And do correct Thomist on his counting of Pope Adrians.

-Adrian V: Even if your argument were correct (It isn't) your example would still fail. In order to become Pope, one must be invested with the Pallium. Adrian was not. He is generally listed as a courtesy:

There are Orthodox who arrogate to themselves some particular talent in Catholic canon law, doctrine and ecclesial history and theology.

Just exercising their God given intellect and reason in the service of the gift of Faith.

Fortunately for the Catholic Church they are few in number and only really broadcast on a very narrow band.  OrthoChicks if you will...

Enough to save the Catholic Church from the council of Ravenna.

[Deacon Lance]

LOL. And what do you say about Pope John XX of Rome?

You mean John XXI who should have been John XX?  What of Sergius III, John X, John XII, Benedict IX and Alexander VI?  All immoral men who are bigger kinks than anyone mentioned so far.

[ialmisry]

LOL. And what do you say about Pope John XX of Rome?

You mean John XXI who should have been John XX?  What of Sergius III, John X, John XII, Benedict IX and Alexander VI?  All immoral men who are bigger kinks than anyone mentioned so far.

"Patience is beautiful"-Arab proverb.

I haven't gotten even started. We have to start with St. Peter first, and that in Jerusalem, not Rome. Lord willing, we will get to all the pillars of the Vatican.  Btw Pope Sergius is in the Cadaver Synod Suit, mentioned above. Pope Alexander VI is a personal favorite.

Such was Alexander VI's unpopularity that the priests of St. Peter's Basilica refused to accept the body for burial until forced to do so by papal staff. Only four prelates attended the Requiem Mass. Alexander's successor on the Throne of St. Peter, Francesco Todeschini-Piccolomini, who assumed the name of Pope Pius III (1503), forbade the saying of a Mass for the repose of Alexander VI's soul, saying, "It is blasphemous to pray for the damned".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_VI#Death

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

[Deacon Lance]

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

[ialmisry]

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

That doesn't present a problem in the other sees, as they do not predicate the Church on the patriarch.

[Apotheoun]

My Church (i.e., the Melkite Catholic Church) claims that it is also an historic petrine Church.

[Deacon Lance]

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

That doesn't present a problem in the other sees, as they do not predicate the Church on the patriarch.

My Church is predicated on Christ first and foremost.  The Church doesn't cease when  a pope dies or when it takes years to elect a new one.

[Apotheoun]

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

That doesn't present a problem in the other sees, as they do not predicate the Church on the patriarch.

My Church is predicated on Christ first and foremost.  The Church doesn't cease when  a pope dies or when it takes years to elect a new one.

Fr. Deacon,

I agree with you.  Christ, not the pope, is the source of the Church's unity.

God bless.

[Papist]

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

That doesn't present a problem in the other sees, as they do not predicate the Church on the patriarch.

My Church is predicated on Christ first and foremost.  The Church doesn't cease when  a pope dies or when it takes years to elect a new one.

Fr. Deacon,

I agree with you.  Christ, not the pope, is the source of the Church's unity.

God bless.

Just as Christ, not the priest, is the source of the sacraments, and The Holy Spirit, not human writers, is the source of the Holy Scriptures. Yet, the priest is necessry, and so are the human authors. The Pope is necessary as well.

[Father H]

LOL. And what do you say about Pope John XX of Rome?

You mean John XXI who should have been John XX? 

This reminds me of the one lightbulb joke:

How many popes does it take to screw in a lightbulb:

One to screw it in, and 15 others to take his name in honor of the great deed

[Father H]

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

I would actually like to see an official ruling on this, though.  Besides, there are some problems with it:
1.  The bishop who is to become pope was not laid hands on by a successor of Peter by Vatican definition, and thus does not have petrine succession in the sense of ordination.  No problem, right, since there is election, except that... 
2.  The pope is not elected by anyone with petrine succession, and thus they cannot pass it on, and thus it is not "succession"
How then, does the pope have "Petrine succession"?   If the cardinals represent the "other apostles," since when did they have the authority to pass on petrine succession, since in order to pass it on, you have to have it?   

[Papist]

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

I would actually like to see an official ruling on this, though.  Besides, there are some problems with it:
1.  The bishop who is to become pope was not laid hands on by a successor of Peter by Vatican definition, and thus does not have petrine succession in the sense of ordination.  No problem, right, since there is election, except that... 
2.  The pope is not elected by anyone with petrine succession, and thus they cannot pass it on, and thus it is not "succession"
How then, does the pope have "Petrine succession"?   If the cardinals represent the "other apostles," since when did they have the authority to pass on petrine succession, since in order to pass it on, you have to have it?   

Ummmm, what? The Peterine succession, in this case, has to do with ruling of the Catholic Roman See. Not with which particular bishops select the Pope.

[Father H]

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

[Aindriú]

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

Even if this was about "passing the torch", all the bishops in the Roman See have been ordained by the Apostolic Succession of Peter, as have most of the other bishops in the Catholic Communion. Especially, since the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, where new bishops are ordained by the Pope.

[ialmisry]

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

That doesn't present a problem in the other sees, as they do not predicate the Church on the patriarch.

My Church is predicated on Christ first and foremost.  The Church doesn't cease when  a pope dies or when it takes years to elect a new one.

Fr. Deacon,

I agree with you.  Christ, not the pope, is the source of the Church's unity.

God bless.

Just as Christ, not the priest, is the source of the sacraments, and The Holy Spirit, not human writers, is the source of the Holy Scriptures. Yet, the priest is necessry, and so are the human authors. The Pope is necessary as well.

Then you have a problem every interregnum. How is a pontificate resurrected when it has died.  There is no "the Pope is dead, long live the Pope!"

[ialmisry]

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

I would actually like to see an official ruling on this, though.  Besides, there are some problems with it:
1.  The bishop who is to become pope was not laid hands on by a successor of Peter by Vatican definition, and thus does not have petrine succession in the sense of ordination.  No problem, right, since there is election, except that... 
2.  The pope is not elected by anyone with petrine succession, and thus they cannot pass it on, and thus it is not "succession"
How then, does the pope have "Petrine succession"?   If the cardinals represent the "other apostles," since when did they have the authority to pass on petrine succession, since in order to pass it on, you have to have it?   

You have nailed the OP right on the head, Father.

[ialmisry]

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

Even if this was about "passing the torch", all the bishops in the Roman See have been ordained by the Apostolic Succession of Peter, as have most of the other bishops in the Catholic Communion. Especially, since the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, where new bishops are ordained by the Pope.

Hmmm. Sounds dangerously close to the Orthodox dogma that all bishops succeed St. Peter. But then that raises those 'uniqueness' claims the Vatican makes.

[Irish Hermit]

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

There would seem to be no ceremony or moment when the powers of Peter are entrusted to a new Pope from the Almighty.   We may find that Ialmisry is right and the power resides in the chair itself.  So when God sees a man sitting in that special chair He knows that He must take care to prevent him speaking any error.  Could the chair itself be sentient, could it be one of the energies of God?  Rather like the power that existed in the Ark of the Covenant?

[ialmisry]

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

There would seem to be no ceremony or moment when the powers of Peter are entrusted to a new Pope from the Almighty.   We may find that Ialmisry is right and the power resides in the chair itself.  So when God sees a man sitting in that special chair He knows that He must take care to prevent him speaking any error.  Could the chair itself be sentient, could it be one of the energies of God?  Rather like the power that existed in the Ark of the Covenant?

Maybe it works like Blue's Thinking Chair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue%27s_Clues#Format

[Papist]

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

Whether or not Peter himself ever ordained a particular bishop has nothing to do with whether or not the See of Rome is a Petrine See or even the Peterine See. It's The Aposotlic See because that's where St. Peter ended his ministry, where he and St. Paul were martyred.

[Aindriú]

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

Even if this was about "passing the torch", all the bishops in the Roman See have been ordained by the Apostolic Succession of Peter, as have most of the other bishops in the Catholic Communion. Especially, since the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, where new bishops are ordained by the Pope.

Hmmm. Sounds dangerously close to the Orthodox dogma that all bishops succeed St. Peter. But then that raises those 'uniqueness' claims the Vatican makes.

In part, but not entirely.

For example, Pope Leo the Great said the Petrine Sees are special unto themselves, and not due to the Bishop.

Letter CVI
Pope Leo to Anatolius of Constantinople

The rights of provincial primates may not be overthrown nor metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges based on antiquity.  The See of Alexandria may not lose any of that dignity which it merited through S. Mark, the evangelist and disciple of the blessed Peter, nor may the splendour of so great a church be obscured by another’s clouds, Dioscorus having fallen through his persistence in impiety.  The church of Antioch too, in which first at the preaching of the blessed Apostle Peter the Christian name arose458, must continue in the position assigned it by the Fathers, and being set in the third place must never be lowered therefrom.  For the See is on a different footing to the holders of it; and each individual’s chief honour is his own integrity.  And since that does not lose its proper worth in any place, how much more glorious must it be when placed in the magnificence of the city of Constantinople, where many priests may find both a defence of the Fathers’ canons and an example of uprightness in observing you?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.ci.html

The two theories, despite the positions of the strongest polemics of both sides, aren't mutually exclusive. Where the Orthodox position understand's Peter's primacy as the unity of faith between Presbyters, where one has been recognized over the others (reference His Broken Body). The R Catholics understand it on a larger scale, where Peter's primacy represents the unity of primates, where one is senior.

[Papist]

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

Even if this was about "passing the torch", all the bishops in the Roman See have been ordained by the Apostolic Succession of Peter, as have most of the other bishops in the Catholic Communion. Especially, since the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, where new bishops are ordained by the Pope.

Hmmm. Sounds dangerously close to the Orthodox dogma that all bishops succeed St. Peter. But then that raises those 'uniqueness' claims the Vatican makes.

There is a sense in which Catholics could agree with you. All Bishops are the successors of all the Apostles. In fact, Rome is not the only see that can lay claim to being Peterine. But it is in Rome that St. Peter laid down his life, and ended his earthly ministry. As St. Iranaeus says,


"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). "

[Father H]

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:
Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

Even if this was about "passing the torch", all the bishops in the Roman See have been ordained by the Apostolic Succession of Peter, as have most of the other bishops in the Catholic Communion. Especially, since the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, where new bishops are ordained by the Pope.

Unfortunately this does not solve the problem that the pope, prior to the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, was not elected by those ordained by another pope, so still falls short of succession. 

[Aindriú]

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:
Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

Even if this was about "passing the torch", all the bishops in the Roman See have been ordained by the Apostolic Succession of Peter, as have most of the other bishops in the Catholic Communion. Especially, since the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, where new bishops are ordained by the Pope.

Unfortunately this does not solve the problem that the pope, prior to the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, was not elected by those ordained by another pope, so still falls short of succession. 

I think you skipped everything, but the last sentence. The last sentence was just "gee wiz" information.

I would be as bold to state as many as all the bishops and priest in the Roman church and many among the other churches within the communion are ordained from the line of Peter.

[Thomist]

Pope Honorius I was anathematized for his sympathy towards the monothelites. So what? Care to point to any dogmatic definitions he issued that you feel were heretical? Pope Boniface VIII was posthumously tried for heresy well after the Papal Supremacy had been established in the west. If anything, the anger incurred against Honorius was not for any vigorous advancement of the monothelite cause, but for his refusal to act as Pope to suppress them. It strengthens, not weakens, the case for the unique prerogatives of the papal office.

Your arguments on the Western Schism and Pope Adrian were dealt with in the other thread, and you offer no new opinions on them here that weren't corrected there.

As for the excommunication of Pope Saint Nicholas I, you leave out the tiny little problem that Pope Nicholas won that argument. Basil I the Macedonian expelled Photios, restored Ignatios, and the Churches returned to communion for 187 years. Photios' council had no right to excommunicate anyone, having been summoned by an illegal and illegitimate pretender to the Patriarchal throne.

And what about Dioscorus? He was an antipope. Yes, and?

Heaven knows why you feel the cadaver synod "Colored the succession". It may be a strange story, but it presents no legal challenges whatsoever to the papal succession.

[Irish Hermit]

Whether or not Peter himself ever ordained a particular bishop has nothing to do with whether or not the See of Rome is a Petrine See or even the Peterine See. It's The Aposotlic See because that's where St. Peter ended his ministry, where he and St. Paul were martyred.

The Pope Proclaims:  There are Three Petrine Sees, with Equal Authority and with the Keys

Pope Saint Gregory the Great believed that the Blessed Peter had established
three Petrine Sees of equal authority - Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.

This Triptarchy existed prior to the now familiar Pentarchy, and it is connected
with a belief in a Petrine foundation for each of these three major Sees.


Note well what the Pope says here in his letter to Eulogius of Alexandria:

1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing
the keys with Rome

2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and
Alexandria and Antioch

3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one
See of Peter over which the three bishops preside.

-oOo-

St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius
Patriarch of Alexandria.

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken
much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince
of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the
persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the
dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand.
But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to
me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. …And to him it is
said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And
when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once
more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi.
17).

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the
principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has
grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to
rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to
which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself
established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for
seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See,
over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever
good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”

 (Book VII, Epistle XL)

[Irish Hermit]

Pope Honorius I was anathematized for his sympathy towards the monothelites. So what?

Honorius, anathematized for being a Monothelite sympathizer !!?   Methinks you do not know the truth about it.  He was anathematized for being a heretic.

The Sad Tale of Pope Honorius

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ialmisry]

Is starting a new thread when you've lost the argument in another a standard practice of yours, Ialmisry?

I'd have to lose an argument to try it first, let alone adopt it as a standard practice.

Pope Honorius I was anathematized for his sympathy towards the monothelites. So what? Care to point to any dogmatic definitions he issued that you feel were heretical?

Read the anathematization of him by the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and the in the papal oath.

Pope Boniface VIII was posthumously tried for heresy well after the Papal Supremacy had been established in the west.

The Vatican claims to be judged by no one.

f anything, the anger incurred against Honorius was not for any vigorous advancement of the monothelite cause, but for his refusal to act as Pope to suppress them. It strengthens, not weakens, the case for the unique prerogatives of the papal office.

2+2=/=6

Your arguments on the Western Schism and Pope Adrian were dealt with in the other thread, and you offer no new opinions on them here that weren't corrected there.

You tried to spin them out of orbit from the Truth, but the facts remained firmly in place.

As for the excommunication of Pope Saint Nicholas I, you leave out the tiny little problem that Pope Nicholas won that argument. Basil I the Macedonian expelled Photios, restored Ignatios, and the Churches returned to communion for 187 years. Photios' council had no right to excommunicate anyone, having been summoned by an illegal and illegitimate pretender to the Patriarchal throne.

I haven't replied to your question on EP St. Photios yet, so I've left everthing out. But for a preview: Bulgaria became its own Orthodox Church, the filioque was condemned, the acts of 869 voided, the Balkans remained in the Patriarchate of Constantinople and were not returned to Rome as Pope Nicholas I demanded. Pope Nicholas ended up empty handed, like Pope Hormisdas and his son Pope Silverius.

And what about Dioscorus? He was an antipope. Yes, and?

According to the canons, no he was not. "Pope" Boniface II was.

Heaven knows why you feel the cadaver synod "Colored the succession". It may be a strange story, but it presents no legal challenges whatsoever to the papal succession.

Lord willing, when I get there we'll go into detail-though I've gone over most of them already here and elsewhere.  In brief, a succession of Popes alternately nullified the acts of their predecessors, including their ordinations.

[ialmisry]

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

Even if this was about "passing the torch", all the bishops in the Roman See have been ordained by the Apostolic Succession of Peter, as have most of the other bishops in the Catholic Communion. Especially, since the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, where new bishops are ordained by the Pope.

Hmmm. Sounds dangerously close to the Orthodox dogma that all bishops succeed St. Peter. But then that raises those 'uniqueness' claims the Vatican makes.

There is a sense in which Catholics could agree with you. All Bishops are the successors of all the Apostles. In fact, Rome is not the only see that can lay claim to being Peterine. But it is in Rome that St. Peter laid down his life, and ended his earthly ministry. As St. Iranaeus says,


"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). "

If you read it in his book, and not a quote mine, you will  see that he goes on to list other Churches.

Note "the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul,

[Thomist]

What does it clinch, Irish Hermit?

Honorius' crime was in ordering silence on the issue. Thus Saint Maximus the Confessor says that the heretics: "Lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming Honorius to be one with their cause." (Ad petrum illustrem)

Honorius may personally have been a monothelite. It isn't relevant. He issued no dogmatic definition in favor of monothelitism; rather he committed gross negligence by his failure to actively suppress it.

The Vatican claims to be judged by no one.

Vague and meaningless statement. The Vatican claims to be the Church's supreme court on matters of canon law and to be infallible in dogmatic definitions. Neither are applicable to the case of Honorius.

Read the anathematization of him by the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and the in the papal oath.

Inapplicable, it concerns no dogmatic definition.

2+2=/=6

See above.

You tried to spin them out of orbit from the Truth, but the facts remained firmly in place.

Then instead of going away to a new thread and repeating your arguments without reference to my counter-arguments, reply to them.

I haven't replied to your question on EP St. Photios yet, so I've left everthing out. But for a preview: Bulgaria became its own Orthodox Church, the filioque was condemned, the acts of 869 voided, the Balkans remained in the Patriarchate of Constantinople and were not returned to Rome as Pope Nicholas I demanded. Pope Nicholas ended up empty handed, like Pope Hormisdas and his son Pope Silverius.

I'm sorry, your argument was regards the excommunication of Pope Saint Nicholas I for heresy. Please stick to statements that are relevant to what is being discussed. Nicholas got involved in a conflict with Photios because of the illegal deposition of Ignatios, and was dead when those issues were settled.

According to the canons, no he was not. "Pope" Boniface II was.

Nope.

Lord willing, when I get there we'll go into detail-though I've gone over most of them already here and elsewhere.  In brief, a succession of Popes alternately nullified the acts of their predecessors, including their ordinations.

Lord willing, you can reply in one post in the future, as you've been asked to do in the past.

[Irish Hermit]

What does it clinch, Irish Hermit?

Honorius' crime was in ordering silence on the issue. Thus Saint Maximus the Confessor says that the heretics: "Lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming Honorius to be one with their cause." (Ad petrum illustrem)

Saint Maximus was in a tight spot. Three Catholic Patriarchs of the East (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria) had fallen in with the monothelite heresy. Saint Maximus was so upset that he went and made his residence in Rome. He pinned all his hope on Rome upholding and restoring orthodoxy. But even the Pope of Rome, Pope Honorius, succumbed to the monothelite heresy. So there was a time when four of the five Patriarchs (excluding Jerusalem) were heretical (Catholics shudder to hear that Honorius was a heretic but even the staunchly pro-papal Catholic Encyclopedia says, No Catholic may deny that Honorius was a heretic.)

From The Life of Our Holy Father St. Maximus the Confessor


The life of Saint Maximus is also instructive for us. Saint Maximus, though only a simple monk, resisted and cut off communion with every patriarch, metropolitan, archbishop and bishop in the East because of their having been infected with the heresy of Monothelitism. During the first imprisonment of the Saint, the messengers from the Ecumenical Patriarch asked him,

"To which church do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these churches, together with the provinces in subjection to them, are in unity. Therefore, if you also belong to the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us at once, lest fashioning for yourself some new and strange pathway, you fall into that which you do not even expect!"

To this the righteous man wisely replied, "Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession."

The confession which they were proposing to the Saint was not Orthodox, of course, and so he refused to comply with their coercions. Furthermore, they were lying about the See of Rome which, in fact, had remained Orthodox.

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome, one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops. During all those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong. (pp. 60-62)

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx

[Irish Hermit]

Lord willing, you can reply in one post in the future, as you've been asked to do in the past.

Please God, Iamisry will divide his posts a little.  I find his lengthy ones hard to follow and prefer shorter ones.

[Thomist]

I have not denied Honorius' heresy. The issue at hand is how that related to his actions in his official Papal capacity. In that dimension it only extended to his urging of silence on the issue, not any dogmatic definition of heretical beliefs, which is what would be relevant. This is why Maximus can say the heretics have lied against the Apostolic See in claiming Honorius to be "one with their cause".

[ialmisry]

What does it clinch, Irish Hermit?

Honorius' crime was in ordering silence on the issue. Thus Saint Maximus the Confessor says that the heretics: "Lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming Honorius to be one with their cause." (Ad petrum illustrem)

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

Honorius may personally have been a monothelite. It isn't relevant. He issued no dogmatic definition in favor of monothelitism; rather he committed gross negligence by his failure to actively suppress it.

Thereby demonstrating how vaccuous and  bankrupt the dogma of Pastor Aeternus. Utterly worthless.

The Vatican claims to be judged by no one.

Vague and meaningless statement.

Your supreme pontiffs repeat it often enough. Take it up with them.

The Vatican claims to be the Church's supreme court on matters of canon law and to be infallible in dogmatic definitions. Neither are applicable to the case of Honorius.

Honorius was judged and anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Read the anathematization of him by the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and the in the papal oath.

Inapplicable, it concerns no dogmatic definition.

Obviously you have not read it.

You tried to spin them out of orbit from the Truth, but the facts remained firmly in place.

Then instead of going away to a new thread and repeating your arguments without reference to my counter-arguments, reply to them.

This thread?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32425.225.html

I have. I haven't gotten to finishing the one on Pope Gelesius and Pope Nicholas, and I won't be on that thread but on another more appropriate (that thread seems to have wandered from its OP), and your posts there since then.  Sorry if it isn't my highest priority.

You will also note that I have replied to you on that thread since I opened this one, on which I have barely gotten started.

I haven't replied to your question on EP St. Photios yet, so I've left everthing out. But for a preview: Bulgaria became its own Orthodox Church, the filioque was condemned, the acts of 869 voided, the Balkans remained in the Patriarchate of Constantinople and were not returned to Rome as Pope Nicholas I demanded. Pope Nicholas ended up empty handed, like Pope Hormisdas and his son Pope Silverius.

I'm sorry, your argument was regards the excommunication of Pope Saint Nicholas I for heresy. Please stick to statements that are relevant to what is being discussed.

When I get to it. I haven't yet.

Nicholas got involved in a conflict with Photios because of the illegal deposition of Ignatios,

EP St. Ignatius' deposition was completely legal. The question was how canonical, and the councils of 859 and 861 found it canonical. Pope Nicholas' 863 council found otherwise, but it had no jurisdiction and was therefore void.  The council of 869 repeated the same mistake, and was vacated by the Council of Constantinople IV in 879.

and was dead when those issues were settled.

I know: his successor Pope John VIII was reperesented at Constantinople IV. EP St. Photios had condemned Pope Nicholas and deposed him for heresy before the latter died, never having seen EP St. Photios removed from his cathedra.

According to the canons, no he was not. "Pope" Boniface II was.

Nope.

Whoah! Take it easy on the Kool-Aid!  If you guzzle it down so fast you'll get sick.

Lord willing, when I get there we'll go into detail-though I've gone over most of them already here and elsewhere.  In brief, a succession of Popes alternately nullified the acts of their predecessors, including their ordinations.

Lord willing, you can reply in one post in the future, as you've been asked to do in the past.

Time and how my computer is working dictate that before requests.  Btw, others prefer they be broken down.

[Thomist]

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.

Thereby demonstrating how vaccuous and  bankrupt the dogma of Pastor Aeternus. Utterly worthless.

Nope.

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.

Obviously you have not read it.

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

I have. I haven't gotten to finishing the one on Pope Gelesius and Pope Nicholas, and I won't be on that thread but on another more appropriate (that thread seems to have wandered from its OP), and your posts there since then.  Sorry if it isn't my highest priority.

You will also note that I have replied to you on that thread since I opened this one, on which I have barely gotten started.

I don't have displayed any post from you responding to my most recent post. My most recent post in the thread is on Jan. 3rd 2011 at 5:52:46 AM, and the only post I have displayed that you have made since is on January 3rd, 2011 at 7:56:39pm, in which you only address elijahmaria.

EP St. Ignatius' deposition was completely legal. The question was how canonical, and the councils of 859 and 861 found it canonical. Pope Nicholas' 863 council found otherwise, but it had no jurisdiction and was therefore void.  The council of 869 repeated the same mistake, and was vacated by the Council of Constantinople IV in 879.

And yet the schism ended with Photios deposed, Ignatios reinstated, and his view that the filioque constituted a heresy ignored for nearly 200 years, when it again became fashionable after the Churches went in to schism once more, for a different reason. It appears your councils didn't do too well on that whole "reception" thing.

Whoah! Take it easy on the Kool-Aid!  If you guzzle it down so fast you'll get sick. Tongue

More vagueness.

[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"?).

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.

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.htmWe have LOTS of threads on Pastor Aeternus, Honorius, etc. Please do respond on one.

Please do respond on the linked thread. On this one I am focusing on the alleged transmission of the imagined pontificate, and will Lord willing deal with Pope Honorius from that perspective in due time, although I'll note that it is interesting that we have in Leo II another unconsecrated supreme pontiff elect who is exercising the powers of the office, here negotiating the transmission of the alleged pontificate.

I have. I haven't gotten to finishing the one on Pope Gelesius and Pope Nicholas, and I won't be on that thread but on another more appropriate (that thread seems to have wandered from its OP), and your posts there since then.  Sorry if it isn't my highest priority.

You will also note that I have replied to you on that thread since I opened this one, on which I have barely gotten started.

I don't have displayed any post from you responding to my most recent post. My most recent post in the thread is on Jan. 3rd 2011 at 5:52:46 AM, and the only post I have displayed that you have made since is on January 3rd, 2011 at 7:56:39pm, in which you only address elijahmaria.

Do note the boldface, please.

You appear to have diverted the discussion away from the Meletian, Acacian, and Photian schisms and the roles played in them by Saint Innocent I, Saint Gelasius I, and Nicholas I.

no. Fatherhood, sonship and Vespers called.  I do have priorities.

Care to give your thoughts on them?

Sure do, but I have to catch up on sleep now. Lord willing tommorrow.

[ialmisry]

EP St. Ignatius' deposition was completely legal. The question was how canonical, and the councils of 859 and 861 found it canonical. Pope Nicholas' 863 council found otherwise, but it had no jurisdiction and was therefore void.  The council of 869 repeated the same mistake, and was vacated by the Council of Constantinople IV in 879.

And yet the schism ended with Photios deposed, Ignatios reinstated, and his view that the filioque constituted a heresy ignored for nearly 200 years, when it again became fashionable after the Churches went in to schism once more, for a different reason. It appears your councils didn't do too well on that whole "reception" thing.

No, it ended with EP St. Photios reconciled with EP St. Ignatius, EP St. Photios vindicated in 879, the acts of 869 voided. And all Orthodox Churches receive the Council of Constantinople IV (879) as authorititative, if not ecumenical.

We have LOTS of threads on EP St. Photios. Please do reply on one of them.

Do reply on the linked thread.  Here, my interest on Pope Nicholas I is going to only be on any effect he had on his succession, compromised by his uncanonical behavior and heresy.

Whoah! Take it easy on the Kool-Aid!  If you guzzle it down so fast you'll get sick. Tongue

More vagueness.

No, the canon is very precise:

Canon 23 of the Council of Antioch (340)
It shall not be lawful for a bishop, even at the close of life, to appoint another as successor to himself; and if any such thing should be done, the appointment shall be void.

[Thomist]

Firstly we should note as an aside that your arguments regarding 'weak links' would prove nothing, even if they were all correct. If there is a long dispute about who the proper priest of a given parish is, this does not change the fact that a parish ought to have a priest. If there is a long dispute about who the proper bishop of a given diocese is, this does not change the fact that a diocese ought to have a bishop. And so on up the chain. There isn't some point at which this just arbitrarily ceases. Social organizations have laws, and laws require governors.

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"?).

Certainly doesn't lead me to the conclusion, as it must for you, that Saint Maximus didn't know what he was talking about.

However a thorough study was made on the subject by Church historian Klaus Schatz, which identifies the following as the exercises of Papal infallibility:

Pope Saint Leo I's Tome to Flavian
Pope Saint Agatho's letter to the Council of Chalcedon on the two wills of Christ
Pope Benedict XII's Benedictus Deus
Pope Innocent X's Cum Occasione
Pope Pius VI's Auctorem fidei
Pope Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus
Pope Pius XII's Municifentissimus Deus

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.

The confirmations of Leo II, and in the synod held at Toledo, at which the Sixth Ecumenical Council was accepted, made quite clear that Honorius was condemned for his failure to suppress heresy (profana proditione immaculatem fidem subverti permisit, in the letter to the Emperor). No objection was raised to this in the east. It was a matter of course that Leo had to confirm the council's rulings, and indeed Leo did amend and further define the rulings of the council, expressing more clearly that Honorius was being condemned for a failure to suppress. Leo's amendment of the council's ruling was accepted.

Please do respond on the linked thread. On this one I am focusing on the alleged transmission of the imagined pontificate, and will Lord willing deal with Pope Honorius from that perspective in due time, although I'll note that it is interesting that we have in Leo II another unconsecrated supreme pontiff elect who is exercising the powers of the office, here negotiating the transmission of the alleged pontificate.

He could not be consecrated due to the threat of violence from the Byzantine Empire. His case is unlike that of Adrian, as he was being prevented from receiving the normal consecration under duress.

Do reply on the linked thread.  Here, my interest on Pope Nicholas I is going to only be on any effect he had on his succession, compromised by his uncanonical behavior and heresy.

I will indeed be interested to hear your argument for why every eastern patriarch between Photios and Cerularius was a heretic for maintaining communion with the west, including many, like Patriarch Saint Ignatios, that the eastern orthodox regard as Saints! What I'll be especially interested to hear is how it was that Photios himself was a heretic for maintaining communion with the west after having himself been the one to first discover the heretical nature of the filioque. To think this heresy spread for almost 300 years before Photios was able to realize it was heretical, it certainly shakes one's confidence in the church. And then that Photios himself should plunge in to heresy by recognizing Nicholas' successors as valid Bishops of Rome, despite their continued adherence to the filioque? My, my.

Photios' position on the filioque was a political move that was backed by no serious religious belief. That is why after he was deposed, nobody was particularly worried about ignoring it for the next two centuries. Whereas he did refuse to retract his stance to Pope John VIII officially, in substance he did just that; whereas he had earlier, when it was politically convenient, argued that the filioque constituted a heresy which made communion impossible, he never raised the question of breaking communion again now that doing so was no longer politically opportune.

No, the canon is very precise:

Antioch wasn't ecumenical, and laws are subject to change. There is no single written constitution for the Church.

[Father H]

^Antioch is recognized by the 7th Ec. as universally binding