OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 22, 2014, 07:22:20 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Urgent help needed; possible RC convert  (Read 3299 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #135 on: October 18, 2013, 05:15:05 PM »

And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The fact that the views of Pope Stephen I on the re-baptism of heretics (at what time I confess I do not remember, very soon or very much after the fact) came to be given much credence in the Church is really a red herring when it comes to my argument.  My point, one that you cannot deny, is that the entire African episcopate bitterly resented the pope's assumption that he had the right to unilaterally interfere in the affairs of the African Church.

The entire? Oh that's a bold claim
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #136 on: October 18, 2013, 05:19:12 PM »

...as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

But according to current Roman Catholic belief, which you say goes back to Christ and the Apostles, how could it be possible for Rome to fall into heresy? 

It may have been a "hypothetical" question posed to Maximus, but his "hypothetical" answer doesn't seem to have included any notion of "But that's impossible, Rome will never lose the faith". 

it being hypothetical is important because it assumed Rome HAD fallen into heresy against its own decree at the synod of Rome. So he knew monothelitism was wrong and anybody who accepted it was wrong.

However, in reality he viewed Rome this way:

Quote
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world".

But again, you're not addressing my point.  

If Maximus said all of the above and sincerely believed it (e.g., it wasn't simply a matter of him being influenced by the Second Sophistic), why on earth would he ever accept as a hypothetical that Rome could fall into heresy?  You claim the hypothetical question presumes that Rome did fall, but his answer is not that Rome is incapable of falling because of Christ's promise to Peter or any such Vatican I-esque teaching.  He doesn't respond back "What a stupid question!  As if Rome could ever fall from the faith!  Moron!!"  Why not?  

Is it so hard to presume that he played along with this. It would certainly help prove how convicted he was about his beliefs.

even I do this despite knowing that whatever is being said to me is an impossibility.
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #137 on: October 18, 2013, 05:27:42 PM »

Is it so hard to presume that he played along with this. It would certainly help prove how convicted he was about his beliefs.

even I do this despite knowing that whatever is being said to me is an impossibility.

I'm asking you, because you're the one claiming that Maximus believed in a Vatican I style papacy when it seems none of the EO see it as so self-evident.  It's your claim, and you ought to back it up with something more than "is it so hard to presume?"  It's not hard to presume a lot, as you know from your vast expertise. 

Maximus is not a saint of my Church, so I don't really have a stake in this matter as both EO and RC do. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,532



« Reply #138 on: October 18, 2013, 05:28:31 PM »

...as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

But according to current Roman Catholic belief, which you say goes back to Christ and the Apostles, how could it be possible for Rome to fall into heresy? 

It may have been a "hypothetical" question posed to Maximus, but his "hypothetical" answer doesn't seem to have included any notion of "But that's impossible, Rome will never lose the faith". 

it being hypothetical is important because it assumed Rome HAD fallen into heresy against its own decree at the synod of Rome. So he knew monothelitism was wrong and anybody who accepted it was wrong.

However, in reality he viewed Rome this way:

Quote
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world".

Is that so? And what holy canons and definitions from the time of St. Maximus the Confessor gave the Church of Rome supreme dominion over all the holy Churches of God? Name one.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #139 on: October 18, 2013, 05:30:38 PM »

And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The fact that the views of Pope Stephen I on the re-baptism of heretics (at what time I confess I do not remember, very soon or very much after the fact) came to be given much credence in the Church is really a red herring when it comes to my argument.  My point, one that you cannot deny, is that the entire African episcopate bitterly resented the pope's assumption that he had the right to unilaterally interfere in the affairs of the African Church.

The entire? Oh that's a bold claim


Pretty much the case.  You are splitting hairs.  The point is that your contention that no one in the early Western Church disputed Roman supremacy does not stand up under scrutiny.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #140 on: October 18, 2013, 05:36:00 PM »


lol!  Wink
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #141 on: October 18, 2013, 05:57:57 PM »

And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The fact that the views of Pope Stephen I on the re-baptism of heretics (at what time I confess I do not remember, very soon or very much after the fact) came to be given much credence in the Church is really a red herring when it comes to my argument.  My point, one that you cannot deny, is that the entire African episcopate bitterly resented the pope's assumption that he had the right to unilaterally interfere in the affairs of the African Church.

The entire? Oh that's a bold claim


Pretty much the case.  You are splitting hairs.  The point is that your contention that no one in the early Western Church disputed Roman supremacy does not stand up under scrutiny.

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him. Only the few who sided with Cyprian and attended the synods connected with him opposed Pope St.Stephen. This is what I've read hence I said that a bold claim

Secondly I said roman claims were virtually unquestioned, not completely unquestioned. This is true if the west. I noticed in the past that whenever some are in,communion with Rome, they praise Rome with all the claims she makes about herself but as soon as these same people accept a position in opposition to Rome, all of a sudden Rome has no authority and is nothing special. How convenient  Smiley
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 06:10:24 PM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #142 on: October 18, 2013, 06:03:58 PM »

...as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

But according to current Roman Catholic belief, which you say goes back to Christ and the Apostles, how could it be possible for Rome to fall into heresy? 

It may have been a "hypothetical" question posed to Maximus, but his "hypothetical" answer doesn't seem to have included any notion of "But that's impossible, Rome will never lose the faith". 

it being hypothetical is important because it assumed Rome HAD fallen into heresy against its own decree at the synod of Rome. So he knew monothelitism was wrong and anybody who accepted it was wrong.

However, in reality he viewed Rome this way:

Quote
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world".

Is that so? And what holy canons and definitions from the time of St. Maximus the Confessor gave the Church of Rome supreme dominion over all the holy Churches of God? Name one.

He claimed this not me. Secondly he says the source of Rome's authority is also form the Son of God  , himself. Thus confirming claims of previous popes and western saints of a divine origin of the primacy of Rome.
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #143 on: October 18, 2013, 06:05:05 PM »

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him.

How do you know that?
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #144 on: October 18, 2013, 06:06:08 PM »

Is it so hard to presume that he played along with this. It would certainly help prove how convicted he was about his beliefs.

even I do this despite knowing that whatever is being said to me is an impossibility.

I'm asking you, because you're the one claiming that Maximus believed in a Vatican I style papacy when it seems none of the EO see it as so self-evident.  It's your claim, and you ought to back it up with something more than "is it so hard to presume?"  It's not hard to presume a lot, as you know from your vast expertise. 

Maximus is not a saint of my Church, so I don't really have a stake in this matter as both EO and RC do. 

I'm letting you know that that is what happened. He played along as is evident in his answer as it served to prive how convicted he was in his opposition to monothelitism
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #145 on: October 18, 2013, 06:06:46 PM »

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him.

How do you know that?

as I said, from what I've read...
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #146 on: October 18, 2013, 06:09:05 PM »

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him.

How do you know that?

as I said, from what I've read...

Sounds vague. I'm still waiting on the source for St. Maximus' quote.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #147 on: October 18, 2013, 06:11:45 PM »

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him.

How do you know that?

as I said, from what I've read...

Sounds vague. I'm still waiting on the source for St. Maximus' quote.

well yea, I've read a lot of stuff

I gave you the source. That's as specific as I can be. All places I see the quote provide the same source and volume number.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 06:12:54 PM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #148 on: October 18, 2013, 06:13:41 PM »

I'm letting you know that that is what happened. He played along as is evident in his answer as it served to prive how convicted he was in his opposition to monothelitism

You'll forgive me if I don't believe you're ~1400 years old.  Since, then, you weren't present at this questioning, on what do you base your assertion that "he played along"?  ISTM you are reading that into the situation because you can't explain it any other way; otherwise, I'm sure PG and Ibid would've been cited.    
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #149 on: October 18, 2013, 06:18:13 PM »

I gave you the source. That's as specific as I can be. All places I see the quote provide the same source and volume number.

Don't you think that cherrypicking quotes from a pre-fabricated list, that have been pulled out of context by biased apologists, is a bad way of trying to understand the Fathers?
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,532



« Reply #150 on: October 18, 2013, 06:51:26 PM »

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him.

How do you know that?

as I said, from what I've read...

Sounds vague. I'm still waiting on the source for St. Maximus' quote.

well yea, I've read a lot of stuff

I gave you the source. That's as specific as I can be. All places I see the quote provide the same source and volume number.

No, you definitely did not, because the second prooftext you provide isn't from St. Maximus' Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Perhaps you should do your homework and figure out where the quotes are you using are taken from, and if they have been translated correctly.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 06:52:30 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #151 on: October 18, 2013, 08:07:14 PM »

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did. 

Absolute nonsense, on two counts.  First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute.  There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.
And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The Eastern Churches (both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian) think otherwise.

Quote
, no one of any significance in the East ever believed in the "supremacy" of the Bishop of Rome.
Tell that to others like Maximus the confessor.

He never believed in an infallible Pope with universal jurisdiction.

Quote
if you are going to throw a bunch of flowery superlative "proof" texts of the Fathers my way to counter this argument, please save yourself some time and read the link provided by Cyrillic about Asianism first.

Is this seriously orthodoxy's best argument? To dismiss all evidence as flowey language despite the consistency of the claims made by fathers who never even met each other. Fathers from both the east and the west?

Intellectual dishonesty

Many of the Fathers were influenced by a certain literary movement called the Second Sophistic. It promoted, among other things, over-the-top language in eulogies - i.e. Asianism.

The adherents of that movement composed, for example, speeches  praising nonsensical things in the most ridiculous superlatives. Some of them are even extant, such as the Praise of the Fruit Fly. If those influenced by the Second Sophistic eloquently praised fruit flies what makes you think that they couldn't exaggerate a little bit in praising a bishop here and there?
Oh, they did-but only when they talked about other bishops (and they did).  Not when they were talking about the super duper supreme pontiff.

LOL.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #152 on: October 18, 2013, 08:07:14 PM »

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

umm want another version? Is there something I'm missing?

I've never heard of a patristic work called Ibid....

That's the translation source. The quote is from St Cyprian on the unity of the Church. I provided the Latin and English version

Ibid implies that there was quote that preceded it, and that implies that the same boring old prooftext-lists have been plagiarized yet again.

"Has its source" is a bad translation of "Unde...exorta est." "From which unity shone" would be more faithful to the original.

"After all this, they yet in addition, having had a false bishop ordained for them by heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, and to the principal church, whence the unity of the priesthood [sacerdotal unity] took its rise [or has its source]. They fail to reflect that those Romans are the same as those whose faith was publicly praised by the apostle, to whom unbelief [or error, heresy, perversion of faith] cannot have access. "
(Epistle 59:14; Giles, page 60)
The Monothelites had access to Pope Honorius.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #153 on: October 18, 2013, 08:07:15 PM »

...as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

But according to current Roman Catholic belief, which you say goes back to Christ and the Apostles, how could it be possible for Rome to fall into heresy? 

It may have been a "hypothetical" question posed to Maximus, but his "hypothetical" answer doesn't seem to have included any notion of "But that's impossible, Rome will never lose the faith". 

it being hypothetical is important because it assumed Rome HAD fallen into heresy against its own decree at the synod of Rome. So he knew monothelitism was wrong and anybody who accepted it was wrong.

However, in reality he viewed Rome this way:

Quote
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world".
Is that so? And what holy canons and definitions from the time of St. Maximus the Confessor gave the Church of Rome supreme dominion over all the holy Churches of God? Name one.

He claimed this not me.
IOW, according to you, St. Maximos made unsubstantiated assertions.

You can't prove your case from evidence you trash.

Secondly he says the source of Rome's authority is also form the Son of God  , himself. Thus confirming claims of previous popes and western saints of a divine origin of the primacy of Rome.
"It should be admitted that the above passage only exists in a problematic Latin translation."
http://books.google.com/books?id=oeKOUb6OcG4C&pg=PA196&dq=%22It+should+be+admitted+that+the+above+passage+only+exists+in+a+problematic+Latin+translation.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LMhhUr6HPIPiyAGOmoC4Ag&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22It%20should%20be%20admitted%20that%20the%20above%20passage%20only%20exists%20in%20a%20problematic%20Latin%20translation.%22&f=false

As we know from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Old Rome wasn't above embellishing in Latin which the Greek speaking Romans didn't know.
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
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #154 on: October 19, 2013, 12:46:47 PM »

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him.

How do you know that?

as I said, from what I've read...

Sounds vague. I'm still waiting on the source for St. Maximus' quote.

well yea, I've read a lot of stuff

I gave you the source. That's as specific as I can be. All places I see the quote provide the same source and volume number.

No, you definitely did not, because the second prooftext you provide isn't from St. Maximus' Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Perhaps you should do your homework and figure out where the quotes are you using are taken from, and if they have been translated correctly.

Where is it from? The letter to Peter?
because whenevr i see the quote, the reference says its from his Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Look the quote says what it says. If it upsets you in any way, I'm sorry but until the quote can be disproven as authentic, it deserved the credibility applied to it.  ...
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #155 on: October 19, 2013, 12:49:16 PM »

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

umm want another version? Is there something I'm missing?

I've never heard of a patristic work called Ibid....

That's the translation source. The quote is from St Cyprian on the unity of the Church. I provided the Latin and English version

Ibid implies that there was quote that preceded it, and that implies that the same boring old prooftext-lists have been plagiarized yet again.

"Has its source" is a bad translation of "Unde...exorta est." "From which unity shone" would be more faithful to the original.

"After all this, they yet in addition, having had a false bishop ordained for them by heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, and to the principal church, whence the unity of the priesthood [sacerdotal unity] took its rise [or has its source]. They fail to reflect that those Romans are the same as those whose faith was publicly praised by the apostle, to whom unbelief [or error, heresy, perversion of faith] cannot have access. "
(Epistle 59:14; Giles, page 60)
The Monothelites had access to Pope Honorius.

debatable as even maximus the confessor defensed him too. Further the popes who succeeded Honorius said he was guilt of letting heresy spread, not of teaching it. Thirdly anathemas to persona are not infallible , only anathemas to doctrines.
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #156 on: October 19, 2013, 12:50:54 PM »

because whenevr i see the quote, the reference says its from his Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Look the quote says what it says. If it upsets you in any way, I'm sorry but until the quote can be disproven as authentic, it deserved the credibility applied to it.  ...

The original Greek text of the letter is gone. It doesn't exist anymore - or, what's more likely - never existed to begin with.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #157 on: October 19, 2013, 12:52:35 PM »

debatable as even maximus the confessor defensed him too. Further the popes who succeeded Honorius said he was guilt of letting heresy spread, not of teaching it. Thirdly anathemas to persona are not infallible , only anathemas to doctrines.

Pope Honorius' letter to Sergius is undeniably monothelite.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 12:52:49 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #158 on: October 19, 2013, 12:57:20 PM »

I gave you the source. That's as specific as I can be. All places I see the quote provide the same source and volume number.

Don't you think that cherrypicking quotes from a pre-fabricated list, that have been pulled out of context by biased apologists, is a bad way of trying to understand the Fathers?

Taking quotes in entirety are not a bad thing at all. It would be problematic If the only thing quoted was a few verses. But full paragraphs give a good idea of what is being said. Of course knowledge of what the epistle, book or whatever manuscript is addressing is important as well as historical context. I can tell you for sure, the maximus quote are well within the context and mean what is written. But look, I've seen many people play down evidence even when blatantly against them, in order to uphold beliefs.

I just find it shocking that orthodox Christians have a hard time admitting certain writings are in favor of Rome. Where as a lot of Catholics from what I've seen on CAF are ready to admit when a quote or writing is against Catholic claims. Intellectual honesty is needed when discussing the fathers.

but like I said earlier, faith should not be built on a quote.
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #159 on: October 19, 2013, 12:59:57 PM »

debatable as even maximus the confessor defensed him too. Further the popes who succeeded Honorius said he was guilt of letting heresy spread, not of teaching it. Thirdly anathemas to persona are not infallible , only anathemas to doctrines.

Pope Honorius' letter to Sergius is undeniably monothelite.

That's what was said about Leos tome. It Ws apparently Nestorian.

Alas just like the Tome of Leo, the letter to sergius can be read in an orthodox light. Maximus highlights this. Further who would know better what was meant than the author himself? Yet in his life honorius neve r claimed to accept the monothelitism as this was against roman tradition.

I guess its how you read the documents
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #160 on: October 19, 2013, 01:01:30 PM »

Alas just like the Tome of Leo, the letter to sergius can be read in an orthodox light. [...] I guess its how you read the documents

The letter abused St. Sophronius for fighting monothelitism. I don't know how one could possibly read something like that in an orthodox light.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #161 on: October 19, 2013, 01:01:53 PM »

And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The fact that the views of Pope Stephen I on the re-baptism of heretics (at what time I confess I do not remember, very soon or very much after the fact) came to be given much credence in the Church is really a red herring when it comes to my argument.  My point, one that you cannot deny, is that the entire African episcopate bitterly resented the pope's assumption that he had the right to unilaterally interfere in the affairs of the African Church.

The entire? Oh that's a bold claim


Pretty much the case.  You are splitting hairs.  The point is that your contention that no one in the early Western Church disputed Roman supremacy does not stand up under scrutiny.

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him. Only the few who sided with Cyprian and attended the synods connected with him opposed Pope St.Stephen. This is what I've read hence I said that a bold claim

Secondly I said roman claims were virtually unquestioned, not completely unquestioned. This is true if the west. I noticed in the past that whenever some are in,communion with Rome, they praise Rome with all the claims she makes about herself but as soon as these same people accept a position in opposition to Rome, all of a sudden Rome has no authority and is nothing special. How convenient  Smiley

First of all, to assert that something is "virtually" unquestioned is tantamount to saying that something is "almost not questioned at all," which, I think, based on the resentment shown by the prestigious African Church in just this one case, should be enough to convince anyone that your assertions are not correct.  Secondly, "virtually" all serious scholars ( if you will forgive the use of the term), of whichever confessional bias, are united in either implicit or explicit agreement that the concept of papal supremacy was not fully developed or even agreed upon in the West for many centuries.  Your assertions that it went "virtually unchallenged" in the West in the "early Church" are grossly misleading and erroneous simply based on this alone.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 02:12:46 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #162 on: October 19, 2013, 01:02:47 PM »

because whenevr i see the quote, the reference says its from his Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Look the quote says what it says. If it upsets you in any way, I'm sorry but until the quote can be disproven as authentic, it deserved the credibility applied to it.  ...

The original Greek text of the letter is gone. It doesn't exist anymore - or, what's more likely - never existed to begin with.

Alot of things from antiquity exist within a language not of the original. If this were the standard for authenticity, we would dismiss 90% of what we know of the ancient world. Even the bible itself as we don't have originals. Like the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. By your logic its more likely it never existed to begin with.
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #163 on: October 19, 2013, 01:04:55 PM »

Alas just like the Tome of Leo, the letter to sergius can be read in an orthodox light. [...] I guess its how you read the documents

The letter abused St. Sophronius for fighting monothelitism. I don't know how one could possibly read something like that in an orthodox light.

Hence subsequent popes said Honorius was guilty of letting heresy spread, NOT of embracing heresy.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 01:05:27 PM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #164 on: October 19, 2013, 01:12:06 PM »

because whenevr i see the quote, the reference says its from his Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Look the quote says what it says. If it upsets you in any way, I'm sorry but until the quote can be disproven as authentic, it deserved the credibility applied to it.  ...

The original Greek text of the letter is gone. It doesn't exist anymore - or, what's more likely - never existed to begin with.

Alot of things from antiquity exist within a language not of the original. If this were the standard for authenticity, we would dismiss 90% of what we know of the ancient world. Even the bible itself as we don't have originals. Like the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. By your logic its more likely it never existed to begin with.

If a text from the Greek Fathers confirming papal supremacy exists only in a Latin "translation" (or forgery) I get a little suspicious. And no, as a classicist I can say that your post about languages from antiquity makes no sense whatsoever.

Alas just like the Tome of Leo, the letter to sergius can be read in an orthodox light. [...] I guess its how you read the documents

The letter abused St. Sophronius for fighting monothelitism. I don't know how one could possibly read something like that in an orthodox light.

Hence subsequent popes said Honorius was guilty of letting heresy spread, NOT of embracing heresy.

Then they're wrong, because the letter is unmistakably heretical. Even the Roman Catholic Bellarmine said as much.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 01:13:14 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #165 on: October 19, 2013, 05:53:14 PM »

because whenevr i see the quote, the reference says its from his Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Look the quote says what it says. If it upsets you in any way, I'm sorry but until the quote can be disproven as authentic, it deserved the credibility applied to it.  ...

The original Greek text of the letter is gone. It doesn't exist anymore - or, what's more likely - never existed to begin with.

Alot of things from antiquity exist within a language not of the original. If this were the standard for authenticity, we would dismiss 90% of what we know of the ancient world. Even the bible itself as we don't have originals. Like the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. By your logic its more likely it never existed to begin with.

If a text from the Greek Fathers confirming papal supremacy exists only in a Latin "translation" (or forgery) I get a little suspicious. And no, as a classicist I can say that your post about languages from antiquity makes no sense whatsoever.

Alas just like the Tome of Leo, the letter to sergius can be read in an orthodox light. [...] I guess its how you read the documents

The letter abused St. Sophronius for fighting monothelitism. I don't know how one could possibly read something like that in an orthodox light.

Hence subsequent popes said Honorius was guilty of letting heresy spread, NOT of embracing heresy.

Then they're wrong, because the letter is unmistakably heretical. Even the Roman Catholic Bellarmine said as much.

The fathers knew  better. Those popes probably knew people who knew honorius and in Rome honroius was said to be orthodox. even Pope Agatho said all popes of Rome have been orthodox, this included honorius

I haven't got time but here is a link. Read through it

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #166 on: October 19, 2013, 05:55:55 PM »

Perhaps they wanted to defend one of their own. That doesn't suddenly make the infamous letter to Patr. Sergius disappear.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #167 on: October 19, 2013, 05:58:25 PM »

The post about languages makes perfect sense.

if a thing is untrustworthy, probably a forgery or didn't exist at all,  simply because its extent in another language other than the original... Then with such logic, the gospel of Matthew , which was written in Hebrew according to tradition... Probably is a forgery and untrustworthy or probably was never written by Matthew to begin with all because what exists today is a Greek "copy" of the gospel of Matthew, not even in the original tongue.
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #168 on: October 19, 2013, 05:59:38 PM »

Perhaps they wanted to defend one of their own. That doesn't suddenly make the infamous letter to Patr. Sergius disappear.


the ecumenical council that condemned Honorius agreed with all that Pope Agatho claimed. Read the link, its explained there. I have to run now Smiley
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #169 on: October 19, 2013, 06:02:45 PM »

then with such logic, the gospel of Matthew , which was written in Hebrew according to tradition... Probably is a forgery and untrustworthy or probably was never written by Matthew to begin with all because what exists today is a Greek "copy" of the gospel of Matthew, not even in the original tongue.

It's hardly part of big-t Tradition.

In either case, it is very suspicious that such an important passage isn't extant in the original language and isn't quoted in other Greek authors. That alone should be a big, red flag. Works have been branded spurious for less.


Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #170 on: October 19, 2013, 06:04:23 PM »

Perhaps they wanted to defend one of their own. That doesn't suddenly make the infamous letter to Patr. Sergius disappear.
the ecumenical council that condemned Honorius agreed with all that Pope Agatho claimed. Read the link, its explained there. I have to run now Smiley

"To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"

-Session XVI of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 06:05:17 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,532



« Reply #171 on: October 19, 2013, 08:02:39 PM »

because whenevr i see the quote, the reference says its from his Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Look the quote says what it says. If it upsets you in any way, I'm sorry but until the quote can be disproven as authentic, it deserved the credibility applied to it.  ...

The original Greek text of the letter is gone. It doesn't exist anymore - or, what's more likely - never existed to begin with.

Alot of things from antiquity exist within a language not of the original. If this were the standard for authenticity, we would dismiss 90% of what we know of the ancient world. Even the bible itself as we don't have originals. Like the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. By your logic its more likely it never existed to begin with.

If a text from the Greek Fathers confirming papal supremacy exists only in a Latin "translation" (or forgery) I get a little suspicious. And no, as a classicist I can say that your post about languages from antiquity makes no sense whatsoever.

Alas just like the Tome of Leo, the letter to sergius can be read in an orthodox light. [...] I guess its how you read the documents

The letter abused St. Sophronius for fighting monothelitism. I don't know how one could possibly read something like that in an orthodox light.

Hence subsequent popes said Honorius was guilty of letting heresy spread, NOT of embracing heresy.

Then they're wrong, because the letter is unmistakably heretical. Even the Roman Catholic Bellarmine said as much.

The fathers knew  better. Those popes probably knew people who knew honorius and in Rome honroius was said to be orthodox. even Pope Agatho said all popes of Rome have been orthodox, this included honorius

I haven't got time but here is a link. Read through it

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301

Indeed, the fathers did know better than these amateurs, and this is why an Ecumenical Council, composed of around 150 fathers condemned Pope Honorius as an heretic, a condemnation which Pope Leo II confirmed, writing that Honorius attempted to overthrow the right faith, and also writing to the Spanish bishops that Pope Honorius is destined to be damned eternally. This condemnation was also repeated at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, as well as in Pope Hadrian II's letter to the Council of Constantinople of 869, and at the very same Council of Constantinople. Honorius' name was also included in a list of monothelite heretics as part of one of the lessons of the second nocturn for the feast day of Pope Leo II. Frankly, Latin apologists do great harm to their faith when they waver on the condemnation of Honorius, for they show firstly that they are so heretical and formless in their faith that they cannot even recognize what parts of Honorius' teachings were monothelite in nature (namely, his docetic exegesis of the Agony in the Garden), secondly that they are willing to engage in what basically amounts to cafateria Christianity and revise what once was the consensus patrem (so much so that the condemnation of Honorius as a monothelite even made its way into a liturgical service of the Roman rite), and finally they show through the use of mutually exclusive arguments (that is, some claim that the council condemned Honorius as a private heretic, others that the Council condemned him in error, others still that his condemnation was not for heresy but for negligence, and yet others who claim that his inclusion in the list of monothelites condemned at the council is the result of forgery) that they are literally grasping at straws to defend Papal Infallibility from the case of Honorius, the monothelite heretic. You may pick and choose what you wish to believe, but I myself prefer to hold fast to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and of numerous popes and saints all of which showed clearly that Honorius was a monothelite.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 08:04:05 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #172 on: October 20, 2013, 12:17:34 AM »

Perhaps they wanted to defend one of their own. That doesn't suddenly make the infamous letter to Patr. Sergius disappear.
the ecumenical council that condemned Honorius agreed with all that Pope Agatho claimed. Read the link, its explained there. I have to run now Smiley

"To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"

-Session XVI of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Again he is not pronounced a s such not in the capacity of a teacher of heresy but as one who ket heresy spread.
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #173 on: October 20, 2013, 12:24:07 AM »

Again he is not pronounced a s such not in the capacity of a teacher of heresy but as one who ket heresy spread.

Does South Africa have an Olympic Gymnastics team? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #174 on: October 20, 2013, 12:52:26 AM »

because whenevr i see the quote, the reference says its from his Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Look the quote says what it says. If it upsets you in any way, I'm sorry but until the quote can be disproven as authentic, it deserved the credibility applied to it.  ...

The original Greek text of the letter is gone. It doesn't exist anymore - or, what's more likely - never existed to begin with.

Alot of things from antiquity exist within a language not of the original. If this were the standard for authenticity, we would dismiss 90% of what we know of the ancient world. Even the bible itself as we don't have originals. Like the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. By your logic its more likely it never existed to begin with.

If a text from the Greek Fathers confirming papal supremacy exists only in a Latin "translation" (or forgery) I get a little suspicious. And no, as a classicist I can say that your post about languages from antiquity makes no sense whatsoever.

Alas just like the Tome of Leo, the letter to sergius can be read in an orthodox light. [...] I guess its how you read the documents

The letter abused St. Sophronius for fighting monothelitism. I don't know how one could possibly read something like that in an orthodox light.

Hence subsequent popes said Honorius was guilty of letting heresy spread, NOT of embracing heresy.

Then they're wrong, because the letter is unmistakably heretical. Even the Roman Catholic Bellarmine said as much.

The fathers knew  better. Those popes probably knew people who knew honorius and in Rome honroius was said to be orthodox. even Pope Agatho said all popes of Rome have been orthodox, this included honorius

I haven't got time but here is a link. Read through it

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301

Indeed, the fathers did know better than these amateurs, and this is why an Ecumenical Council, composed of around 150 fathers condemned Pope Honorius as an heretic, a condemnation which Pope Leo II confirmed, writing that Honorius attempted to overthrow the right faith, and also writing to the Spanish bishops that Pope Honorius is destined to be damned eternally. This condemnation was also repeated at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, as well as in Pope Hadrian II's letter to the Council of Constantinople of 869, and at the very same Council of Constantinople. Honorius' name was also included in a list of monothelite heretics as part of one of the lessons of the second nocturn for the feast day of Pope Leo II. Frankly, Latin apologists do great harm to their faith when they waver on the condemnation of Honorius, for they show firstly that they are so heretical and formless in their faith that they cannot even recognize what parts of Honorius' teachings were monothelite in nature (namely, his docetic exegesis of the Agony in the Garden), secondly that they are willing to engage in what basically amounts to cafateria Christianity and revise what once was the consensus patrem (so much so that the condemnation of Honorius as a monothelite even made its way into a liturgical service of the Roman rite), and finally they show through the use of mutually exclusive arguments (that is, some claim that the council condemned Honorius as a private heretic, others that the Council condemned him in error, others still that his condemnation was not for heresy but for negligence, and yet others who claim that his inclusion in the list of monothelites condemned at the council is the result of forgery) that they are literally grasping at straws to defend Papal Infallibility from the case of Honorius, the monothelite heretic. You may pick and choose what you wish to believe, but I myself prefer to hold fast to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and of numerous popes and saints all of which showed clearly that Honorius was a monothelite.

This argument is flawed
The controversial passage  that Honorius wrote is this

Quote
We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our  nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall.

Honorius clearly does not say Christ possesses merely one will, which happens to be divine.  Rather, Honorius states that Christ has only one human will as opposed to two human wills.  Furthermore, notice how Honorius agrees with Sergius and "acknowledges one will of our Lord…" yet he goes on to discuss this one will in terms of Jesus' humanity only.  Why would Honorius speak against the existence of two human wills?  The answer lies with Sergius' inquiry.  He had deceptively suggested the orthodox view (i.e. one human will) in order to establish a false context where Honorius would confirm the heretical position of "one will" in total.  He could then use the Pope's concurrence to further the Monothelite heresy.

If there were two human wills in Christ there would be a conflict within Him, but we know that not to be the case since Trinitarian Christology demands that the Son assumed a human nature which was pure and undefiled by sin, as it was, for instance, before the Fall.  Furthermore, we know that the will is a function of the nature of the person.  Hence, as we have only one human nature, we only have one human will.  Our Lord, on the other hand, having a divine nature and a human nature has two wills corresponding to each.


His second successor, Pope John IV (642), confirmed Honorius' intention, stating that Honorius' purpose was to simply "deny contrary [human] wills of mind and flesh."  This was later confirmed by the Abbott John, who was a scribe and the secretary to Honorius: "We said that there is one will in the Lord, not of his divinity or humanity, but of his humanity solely." St. Maximus "the Hammer", Doctor of the Church and Martyr also insisted that Honorius maintained only one human will in Christ not one will in too.  He wrote that heretics "lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming that Honorius to be one with their cause."

Besides, therefore, eventually granting Sergius his request for silence in the Church, Honorius remarks are very interesting indeed since they are, in point of fact, entirely opposed to the Monothelite heresy.  Honorius wrote:

Quote
You must confess, with us, one Christ our Lord, operating in either nature, divine OR human actions [in uirisque naturis divina vel humana operantem

Morover, all of the subsequent Pontiffs (Pope Servinus (640), Pope John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653)) up to and including Pope Agattho tacitly defended Honorius' orthodox doctrinal position and condemned Monothelitism.  In fact, "in his letter to the Emperor that was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agattho (678-681) asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see and stated that he and ALL of his predecessors, thus inclusive of Honorius

Quote
'have never ceased to exhort and warn them (i.e. the Monothelites) with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma.'"


Fourthly, the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649 were dispersed widely throughout the East and West, and followed the same basic protocol as the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople and anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, but pope Honorius' name is curiously missing from the anathemas.   council even went on to assert that from the very beginnings of Monothelitism, no Roman Pontiff had departed from keeping the Catholic Faith.


Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed the Council's condemnation and stated:


Quote
[Honorius] did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.  


[Honorius did not] as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence."


…he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.

here Again, we see our thesis maintained.  The first citation indicates that the Pope "permitted" the pollution of profane teaching, but did not teach it himself, while the second selection indicts Honorius for fostering the heresy by "negligence" – again, hardly a challenge to the definition of papal infallibility or even Honorius' personal orthodoxy.

Because of his negligence, not formal teaching of heresy, the Sixth Ecumenical Council (and the third) at Constantinople (680-681) burned the letters of Honorius, called him a "heretic", and anathematized him.  Their actions were approved by Pope Leo II and their decisions confirmed again at the next two Ecumenical Councils.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 01:00:47 AM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #175 on: October 20, 2013, 01:48:11 AM »

Again he is not pronounced a s such not in the capacity of a teacher of heresy but as one who ket heresy spread.

Does South Africa have an Olympic Gymnastics team? 

I'm a soccer fan.. I wouldn't know Grin
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #176 on: October 20, 2013, 01:53:17 AM »

then with such logic, the gospel of Matthew , which was written in Hebrew according to tradition... Probably is a forgery and untrustworthy or probably was never written by Matthew to begin with all because what exists today is a Greek "copy" of the gospel of Matthew, not even in the original tongue.

It's hardly part of big-t Tradition.


It actually is. Its church history to be precise

Quote
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

Quote
The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. (Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6:25)

Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote,

Quote
"Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).

Quote
Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote" (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).

« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 01:59:30 AM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,532



« Reply #177 on: October 20, 2013, 03:54:49 AM »

This argument is flawed

I disagree. The patristic consensus of the Church was clearly that Honorius was a monothelite heretic, as can be seen by the fact that he was condemned by multiple ecumenical councils, and was even listed with the other monothelite heretics as part of the Nocturns in the Roman rite on the Feast day of Pope Leo II. It was not until the Ultramontanists began essentially revising history in the second half of the Second Millennium that Honorius' condemnation was cast into doubt

The controversial passage  that Honorius wrote is this

Quote
We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our  nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall.

Honorius clearly does not say Christ possesses merely one will, which happens to be divine.  Rather, Honorius states that Christ has only one human will as opposed to two human wills.  Furthermore, notice how Honorius agrees with Sergius and "acknowledges one will of our Lord…" yet he goes on to discuss this one will in terms of Jesus' humanity only.  Why would Honorius speak against the existence of two human wills?  The answer lies with Sergius' inquiry.  He had deceptively suggested the orthodox view (i.e. one human will) in order to establish a false context where Honorius would confirm the heretical position of "one will" in total.  He could then use the Pope's concurrence to further the Monothelite heresy.

A most ridiculous assertion. Sergius in his epistle to Honorius makes it clear that he confesses one will because he believed that the ensouled flesh of the Word never performed its natural motion on its own impulse (and therefore in opposition to the Word), but only as directed by the Word, and only insofar as the Word willed for it to perform its natural motion.

If there were two human wills in Christ there would be a conflict within Him, but we know that not to be the case since Trinitarian Christology demands that the Son assumed a human nature which was pure and undefiled by sin, as it was, for instance, before the Fall.

That is clearly not what Honorius was teaching, as can be seen in his docetic exegesis of Gethsemane. Christ according to Honorius, uttered those words at Gethsemane in order to teach us to prefer the will of God to our own, but not because he Himself willed his own self-preservation. He, like Sergius, could not admit that Christ willed for self-preservation at Gethsemane, because he associated willing for self-preservation as being in opposition to willing the will of the Father.

Furthermore, we know that the will is a function of the nature of the person.  Hence, as we have only one human nature, we only have one human will.  Our Lord, on the other hand, having a divine nature and a human nature has two wills corresponding to each.

You know that, yes, but you cannot assume that Honorius knew that.

His second successor, Pope John IV (642), confirmed Honorius' intention, stating that Honorius' purpose was to simply "deny contrary [human] wills of mind and flesh."  This was later confirmed by the Abbott John, who was a scribe and the secretary to Honorius: "We said that there is one will in the Lord, not of his divinity or humanity, but of his humanity solely."

That still would contradict St. Maximus the Confessor's interpretation of Gethsemane, because for St. Maximus the Confessor, will encompases both the "fleshy" vital and irrational desires of nature (self-preservation, sleep, hunger, etc.), as well as the rational capacity for self-determination. In short, this reading of Honorius does not exonerate him, because his interpretation of Gethsemane still winds up being docetic and Apollinarian in nature, because he denies that Christ desired self-preservation.

St. Maximus "the Hammer", Doctor of the Church and Martyr also insisted that Honorius maintained only one human will in Christ not one will in too.  He wrote that heretics "lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming that Honorius to be one with their cause."

St. Maximus the Confessor has not to this date been formally declared to be a doctor of your church as far as I know (But the Orthodox Catholic Church on the other hand has always held him in the highest regards). Anyway, St. Maximus the Confessor's defense of Honorius is rather unconvincing because he contradicts himself in his various interpretations of Honorius' Epistle, offering several mutually exclusive readings. In Opusc. 20, he claims that Honorius meant by one will the divine will of the Logos. Later in the same work, he claims that by writing one will, Honorius only meant to exclude a sinful will which is contrary to the Father, but not a human will. Later still in the same work, he claims that it could be deduced without ambiguity from Honorius' statement that Christ had a complete human will. Finally, in the same work again, he claims that the epistle was forged. Then in his Disputation with Pyrrhus, St. Maximus claims that the one will of Honorius refers to the human will (in direct contradiction to his assertion in Opusc. 20 that it refers to the divine will). Frankly, we could use the same inconsistent defenses St. Maximus used to defend Honorius to defend even the Ekthesis.

Besides, therefore, eventually granting Sergius his request for silence in the Church, Honorius remarks are very interesting indeed since they are, in point of fact, entirely opposed to the Monothelite heresy.  Honorius wrote:

Quote
You must confess, with us, one Christ our Lord, operating in either nature, divine OR human actions [in uirisque naturis divina vel humana operantem

Plainly heretical. The Lord is said to have two operations (energeiai), not to operate in either nature (a phrasing designed to sidestep the issue).

Morover, all of the subsequent Pontiffs (Pope Servinus (640), Pope John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653)) up to and including Pope Agattho tacitly defended Honorius' orthodox doctrinal position and condemned Monothelitism.  In fact, "in his letter to the Emperor that was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agattho (678-681) asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see and stated that he and ALL of his predecessors, thus inclusive of Honorius

Quote
'have never ceased to exhort and warn them (i.e. the Monothelites) with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma.'"

Pope Agatho does not mention Honorius by name in his Epistle. Furthermore, the Council obviously did not understand Pope Agatho's intent to be to exonerate Honorius, for the council not only condemned him, but wrote to Pope Agatho boldly telling him that they had anathematized Honorius along with Sergius and the other monothelites.


Fourthly, the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649 were dispersed widely throughout the East and West, and followed the same basic protocol as the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople and anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, but pope Honorius' name is curiously missing from the anathemas.  council even went on to assert that from the very beginnings of Monothelitism, no Roman Pontiff had departed from keeping the Catholic Faith.

This can easily be explained by the fact that the Roman See traditionally had qualms about anathematizing the dead (see the first Constitution of Pope Vigilius).


Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed the Council's condemnation and stated:


Quote
[Honorius] did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching. 


[Honorius did not] as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence."


…he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.

here Again, we see our thesis maintained.  The first citation indicates that the Pope "permitted" the pollution of profane teaching, but did not teach it himself, while the second selection indicts Honorius for fostering the heresy by "negligence" – again, hardly a challenge to the definition of papal infallibility or even Honorius' personal orthodoxy.

Because of his negligence, not formal teaching of heresy, the Sixth Ecumenical Council (and the third) at Constantinople (680-681) burned the letters of Honorius, called him a "heretic", and anathematized him.  Their actions were approved by Pope Leo II and their decisions confirmed again at the next two Ecumenical Councils.

The Latin version of Pope Leo II's letter disproves your thesis, for it plainly reads that Pope Honorius attempted to pollute the purity of the Roman See.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 03:55:31 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,016



« Reply #178 on: October 20, 2013, 07:30:58 AM »

I think the Nestorian Church is pretty unlikely. I mean, there are only 100,000 alive.

What's the official minimum number of members required for a Church to be considered "possibly the One True Church™"? 

144,000
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,016



« Reply #179 on: October 20, 2013, 07:32:45 AM »

What causes me pain Ialm is the confusion and the doubt. There seem to be some major points in favor of both sides, and I cannot help but be overwhelmed at times when I consider how limited I am. I've even come to the point of considering gnosticism because of all of this (a phenomenon which has manifested itself not only to me but to 3 other RC friends of mine who were/are investigating the EOC). The people of God were not meant to be put through this unnecessary struggle, and it further pains me that this is the state of Christendom. The thought of throwing even more of my friends and family into that same doubt and confusion should I discover the truth of Orthodoxy is yet another painful burden to bear. But our Lord said that "anyone who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." I have no other choice but to attempt perseverance with the help of our Lord. May He have mercy on me.

And thank you very much for the quotes and information you posted, I will look into them when I have more time on my hands.

God bless you.
The confusion and doubt troubles me as well. I was a lot more at peace when I thought there were essentially two choices: Protestantism and the Church (RCC), but the fact that it is actually Protestantism and the Churches that all claim to be the Church and trace their roots back to the Apostles (Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Assyrian Church of the East) is more complicated and makes the true path less clear. I envy the people who have chosen one of those Churches and are absolutely sure that their Church is THE Church. Frankly, I'm not sure I will ever have that confidence again.

Actually Protestantism isn't truly an option. The idea of Apostolic Succession and hierarchy as well as tradition along with the Bible was established Church doctrine when the Church was one. Protestantism is simply a rejection of those things.

I think the Nestorian Church is pretty unlikely. I mean, there are only 100,000 alive.

Interesting. Could you elaborate on truly an option vs. not truly an option?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags: papacy papal claims Primacy Universal jurisdiction Infallibility authority Petrine office 
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 0.212 seconds with 72 queries.