OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 23, 2014, 10:23:48 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic....  (Read 1349 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Aquensis
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 120


« Reply #45 on: July 26, 2014, 03:39:12 PM »

Can you Orthodox rebuttal this quote from a Catholic answers online tract please.

"I was running up against the rather obvious fact that Orthodoxy is, well, not exactly catholic. It lacks the cultural universality and openness, the capacity to provide a true and welcoming home for all the world’s tribes and nations, that is in fact one of the four marks of the true Church: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Every word of the liturgies I attended in Sydney—including the Scripture readings and preaching—was in Greek, of which I understood absolutely nothing. The thesis that Eastern Orthodoxy is the true religion was turning out to bear the practical corollary that, to share fully and fruitfully in the life of the Body of Christ, one would almost have to become a Greek. (Well, O.K., maybe a Russian, a Serb, a Syrian—but in any case the ethnic options would be very limited.) And this sort of very burdensome de facto addition to the Gospel was plainly foreign to the New Testament. On the contrary, its message stresses that in Christ there is no longer Jew, Gentile, Greek."

Here is the link to the original tract. Im sure the vast majority of you are familiar with this essay.

Thanks
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-i-didn%E2%80%99t-convert-to-eastern-orthodoxy

It really sounds to me like he is operating under the standard Anglo-Saxon delusion that their culture and language is the default language of humanity and everything else is a aberration and stumbling block that needs to disappear. He is not aware that English is an "ethnic option".
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 03:41:10 PM by Aquensis » Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #46 on: July 26, 2014, 03:40:57 PM »

so its safe to say that all the information I received from several different catholic apologists regarding uninterrupted orthodoxy from Rome, and countless amounts of heterodoxy from the "other" lungs is incorrect?
The triumphalist apologetic Escape Clause says Western heretics like Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius don't break "uninterrupted orthodoxy in the West" because (*waves Magic Wand*) "nothing came infallible from the Chair" Presto! Heresy never took hold of the West!

Even ignoring the historical anachronism involved in using criteria that no living person even knew about until centuries later discussed in detail earlier, why would the same Anachronistic Escape Clause not apply to the East? Since the East never "defined doctrines infallibly from a bishop's chair" either (especially because no bishop East or West had yet even conceived of hierarchical infallibility), presto! Heresy never took hold of the East either (by the same criterion). Or is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?

So (1) historical anachronism; (2) triumphalism; (3) special pleading.






« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 03:54:09 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #47 on: July 26, 2014, 04:53:53 PM »

so its safe to say that all the information I received from several different catholic apologists regarding uninterrupted orthodoxy from Rome, and countless amounts of heterodoxy from the "other" lungs is incorrect? How can there be so much certainty proposed from the Latin side when it appears that there is evidence to the contrary? Its even starting to make me question christianity in general, as everyone has a different opinion regarding the "truth" of history, and there is so much confusion and division.

Don't let any discussion on any online forum shake your faith in Christianity.  The monothelite controversy is actually a good demonstration that Christianity is in the hands of Christ Himself, not in the hands of individual bishops.  Though every patriarchate (well, not really, just the patriarchs themselves and some of the bishops) fell into some sort of monergism/monotheletism at some point during the controversy, yet God preserved Orthodoxy nonetheless, shining forth on the early side in Jerusalem and Cyprus, in on the latter side in Rome, and finally in Constantinople where the 6th Council was held to condemn it and affirm the orthodox position throughout the Church. 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #48 on: July 26, 2014, 04:58:56 PM »

Why then does it seem like the Orthodox were not as aggressive in their missionary efforts.It seems like the "great commission" was undertaken more seriously by the west. I have also been led to believe, as a Catholic, that the East was a bastion of heresy and strange doctrines from the early church til the schism, and Rome kept the faith unchanged. I have also read (in The Triumph by H. W. Crocker III) that the East constantly appealed to Rome to correct heretical teaching. are there any good resources online where I can read Orthodox affirming proof texts and arguments from an authoritative standpoint?

"It seems..."  Not really.  The East beat the West to the punch in Bulgaria (a disputed territory), in Rus (which chose the East specifically), and many other European territories.  Rus' was the largest lasting missionary expansion of the Church in history.  When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort.  

Well... no. Even though St. Sophronius championed orthodoxy in Jerusalem during the early stages of the mothelitism, even Jerusalem eventually fell to monothelitism. The Roman Synod explicitly rejected monothelitism as a heresy. It was the only one of the 5 patriarchates whose official position was orthodox.

You cannot say "well...no" and then give a non sequitur .  I made the statement that "When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort."  So, I was speaking about that particular time period.  You then say "no," and then defend your "no" by talking about subsequent time periods.  The Roman Synod id not explicitly reject monotheletism at the time of Honorius, and the deacon Gaios was sent by Honorius and the Roman Synod to Cyprus in 634 to defend the monotheletic position.  It would be like me saying "when the Apostles were alive they had a council in Jerusalem," and you replying "no, there was no council in the year 167 in Jerusalem."  The latter, even if true, is not a refutation of the former.  

But father, Rome never accepted monothelitism at any point and that's the point. Rome was never monothelite. The official position of the Roman Church had never been monothelite whereas all other patriarchates fell one by one to the heresy. Even Honorius himself was not a monothelite and his is the single strongest case (in reality, a weak case, once facts are examined) of Roman support of monothelitism. But his letter to sergius which portions exist contains doctrinal statements which undermine and sometimes outright refute monothelitism. Nevermind the defense of honorius by figures such as Pope John IV, Pope Agatho in his letter to the Coumcil which claimed no Pope had taught heresy as well as the testimony of Abbot John, scribe of Honorius . Who testified to the true meaning of what Honorius and himself meant when they wrote the letter and said Christ  had one will (One will in Christs humanity , which the context of the letter even reveals)

That may be your point, but that is not historical reality.  Your claims and argument have been sufficiently refuted on other threads of this forum. 
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #49 on: July 26, 2014, 05:57:34 PM »

Can you Orthodox rebuttal this quote from a Catholic answers online tract please.

"I was running up against the rather obvious fact that Orthodoxy is, well, not exactly catholic. It lacks the cultural universality and openness, the capacity to provide a true and welcoming home for all the world’s tribes and nations, that is in fact one of the four marks of the true Church: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Every word of the liturgies I attended in Sydney—including the Scripture readings and preaching—was in Greek, of which I understood absolutely nothing. The thesis that Eastern Orthodoxy is the true religion was turning out to bear the practical corollary that, to share fully and fruitfully in the life of the Body of Christ, one would almost have to become a Greek. (Well, O.K., maybe a Russian, a Serb, a Syrian—but in any case the ethnic options would be very limited.) And this sort of very burdensome de facto addition to the Gospel was plainly foreign to the New Testament. On the contrary, its message stresses that in Christ there is no longer Jew, Gentile, Greek."

Here is the link to the original tract. Im sure the vast majority of you are familiar with this essay.

Thanks
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-i-didn%E2%80%99t-convert-to-eastern-orthodoxy

As a Catholic, I am embarrassed that a member of my communion would make this argument. 
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 1,109


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #50 on: July 26, 2014, 08:08:16 PM »

Why then does it seem like the Orthodox were not as aggressive in their missionary efforts.It seems like the "great commission" was undertaken more seriously by the west. I have also been led to believe, as a Catholic, that the East was a bastion of heresy and strange doctrines from the early church til the schism, and Rome kept the faith unchanged. I have also read (in The Triumph by H. W. Crocker III) that the East constantly appealed to Rome to correct heretical teaching. are there any good resources online where I can read Orthodox affirming proof texts and arguments from an authoritative standpoint?

"It seems..."  Not really.  The East beat the West to the punch in Bulgaria (a disputed territory), in Rus (which chose the East specifically), and many other European territories.  Rus' was the largest lasting missionary expansion of the Church in history.  When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort.  

Well... no. Even though St. Sophronius championed orthodoxy in Jerusalem during the early stages of the mothelitism, even Jerusalem eventually fell to monothelitism. The Roman Synod explicitly rejected monothelitism as a heresy. It was the only one of the 5 patriarchates whose official position was orthodox.

You cannot say "well...no" and then give a non sequitur .  I made the statement that "When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort."  So, I was speaking about that particular time period.  You then say "no," and then defend your "no" by talking about subsequent time periods.  The Roman Synod id not explicitly reject monotheletism at the time of Honorius, and the deacon Gaios was sent by Honorius and the Roman Synod to Cyprus in 634 to defend the monotheletic position.  It would be like me saying "when the Apostles were alive they had a council in Jerusalem," and you replying "no, there was no council in the year 167 in Jerusalem."  The latter, even if true, is not a refutation of the former.  

But father, Rome never accepted monothelitism at any point and that's the point. Rome was never monothelite. The official position of the Roman Church had never been monothelite whereas all other patriarchates fell one by one to the heresy. Even Honorius himself was not a monothelite and his is the single strongest case (in reality, a weak case, once facts are examined) of Roman support of monothelitism. But his letter to sergius which portions exist contains doctrinal statements which undermine and sometimes outright refute monothelitism. Nevermind the defense of honorius by figures such as Pope John IV, Pope Agatho in his letter to the Coumcil which claimed no Pope had taught heresy as well as the testimony of Abbot John, scribe of Honorius . Who testified to the true meaning of what Honorius and himself meant when they wrote the letter and said Christ  had one will (One will in Christs humanity , which the context of the letter even reveals)

That may be your point, but that is not historical reality.  Your claims and argument have been sufficiently refuted on other threads of this forum. 

its perfectly historical and I have the proof to back up may case's historicity. On these forums many times history is ignored to propagate one's agendas. Many times the testimony of Abbot John is glossed over even though its importance is vital to the orthodoxy of Honorius. No respected historian or scholar even argues that Rome was monothelite either. It is a fact that Rome was the only see to remain orthodox during the whole ordeal while the east fell to the heresy. Plain historical fact.
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<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,783


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #51 on: July 26, 2014, 10:25:58 PM »

I've augmented my knowledge with some background reading here and I'm going to set out some facts as I know them, and then leave it to others more learned than I to augment or chastise them.

The monothelite heresy apparently began when, in the early 630s, Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria sought to bridge the gap between the Oriental Orthodox and the remainder of Christendom as to the natures of Christ by asserting that He performed actions by "one, sole, theanthropic operation."  Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem took exception to this, and referred the matter -- note here -- not to Rome, but to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople.  Patriarch Sergius determined to say nothing on the matter, and attempted to enlist the support of Pope Honorius.  (Here already we see not the 'universal primacy' that was a feature of the later papacy, but the collegiality among bishops which characterizes the Orthodox Church to this day.)  Pope Honorius responded via a letter, dictated to his scribe Abbot John, that he approved the plan of silence and that he would leave to grammarians the question of how best to express the number of wills.  He did, however, approve the use of "one will" in reference to this teaching.

Abbot John, the scribe, would later state that Pope Honorius was speaking not of one will for Christ, but rather that humans have two wills, one upright, and one contrary to the divine will, and that of these two human wills, Christ assumed only that one will which was upright.  It is hard to get why he would have this meaning from the sense of the discussion and the question that was put to him.  St. Maximus the Confessor and Pope John IV are said to have defended Pope Honorius posthumously by taking this view.

Nevertheless, when the entirety of the Church came to its senses, Pope Honorius was posthumously condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople, which was the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at its Thirteenth Session on March 28, 681.  See the following excerpt from the Acts of the Council, Session 13:

Quote
The holy council said:  After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.  But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, . . . And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.

The Council ordered the letters to be burned and also, at its Eighteenth Session, in September, 681, called Pope Honorius "a helping servant" of the "originator of evil," one who was used "to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ." 

When Pope Leo II wrote to the Emperor to confirm the decrees of the council, he wrote that he concurred in the anathema because Honorius, because he had "endeavored by profane treason" to subvert the faith of the Roman Church.

There has been some sophistry, in my view, concerning the meaning of what Pope Leo II said in his letter.  Some Catholic apologists seem to have stated that Pope Leo was, by his letter of confirmation, abrogating the text of the council's decree with respect to Pope Honorius, and substituting his own milder form of condemnation in its stead.  It is difficult, I think, to seriously adhere to the notion that a confirmatory letter sought to abrogate and rewrite the text of a council, particularly when Pope Leo wrote that he concurred in the very anathema at issue.  The Council in Trullo (692), the Second Council at Nicaea (the Seventh Ecumenical) (787), and the Fourth Council at Constantinople (869), all repeated this anathema, and each time it was consented by the Popes.  From the Liber Pontificalis, it is said, from the eighth through the eleventh centuries, that Popes at their investiture had to swear that the Council had anathematized Pope Honorius.   

And so, at the end, you are left with the situation in which a situation arose first in Alexandria, and it was referred by Jerusalem out of its concern, not to Rome, but rather to Constantinople.  Why would this occur if there were a universal primacy?  When Constantinople formed its own opinion, it wrote to Rome to gather support and ratification.  Pope Honorius said what he said, and he was at first defended for it; yet, ultimately, an Ecumenical Council condemned it as heresy and anathematized him; a subsequent Pope approved of this anathematization as did three major councils and a string of popes as part of their investiture.

Was Pope Honorius a heretic in what he said?  Or were Pope Leo II and a string of subsequent Popes wrong in anathematizing him?  From this you get a major problem in terms of trying to promulgate the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope, for if a canonization can be said by some to be infallible, what of an anathematization?  But even more seriously than this, the acts of the Third Council of Constantinople, the succeeding councils, nay, it seems, even the testimony of those supporting Pope Honorius ever relied upon the fact that he was the Supreme Pontiff in considering the propriety of what he had taught.  That this question did not seem to occur to any of them at the time, when such a doctrine would have been of immense aid in navigating this question, is very, very telling.

The doctrine of papal infallibility, as defined in 1870, presents a real problem for the Roman Catholic Church.  To uphold it, one is forced to do a string of mental and hermeneutical gymnastics to try and read it back into situations where it was never considered and is at best implausible, at worst impossible.  Pope Honorius is, perhaps, the most extreme example, but not the only one. 

The definition of Papal Infallibility as pronounced at the First Vatican Council states that infallibility attaches:

Quote
[When the] Roman pontiff . . . speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church . . . .

Pope Honorius would seem to meet each of these criteria in this instance.  He was addressing a supreme question of faith, which was put to him directly or indirectly by three of the major patriarchates (Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem) of the Church, and was seeking to define such a doctrine.  And, at the same time, Pope Leo would seem to meet each of them as well, writing as he was to ratify the decision of an Ecumenical Council which is binding on the whole Church.

This conclusion is so thorny, so unworkable, and so undesirable to the proponents of Vatican I-style Papal Infallibility, that they are forced to argue either that the Ecumenical Council(s), which were well acquainted with the situation, erred in their condemnation; that Pope Honorius ceased to become Pope when he promulgated such teachings; or that the teaching of Pope Honorius, even if heretical, was not pronouncing the doctrine of the wills of Christ ex cathedra, although the matter had been referred to him as Pope of Rome by the other Patriarchs of the Church for his adjudication.  This latter argument is perhaps the most dangerous for them, because, as has been shown repeatedly, they have no way of knowing whether any papal statement is defined ex cathedra, unless it expressly says so.  There could be two such pronouncements, or none, or as many as twenty or seventy; no one knows what has been defined and what has not been.  This is, of course, no reliable guide or arbiter to understand supreme questions of faith and morals, but it serves as a convenient means to maintain the fiction of Papal Infallibility while denying its fruits.

But even beyond infallibility, the fact that such a dispute occurred, that Pope Honorius's statement was immediately criticized as well as defended, and that several Councils and successive Popes condemned him, also gives the lie to the fiction of Papal Supremacy in the sense that modern Roman Catholics attempt to give it.  That a primacy existed, that it was more than mere words, is evident; but that it extended to a universal jurisdiction is simply not shown by anything that happened here.  Bishops and councils were free to take sides with or against Pope Honorius, despite the honor due him as Bishop of Old Rome (shown when he was consulted most solicitiously on this matter), and they ultimately did.

In the words of Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604):
Quote
I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others.
Logged
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #52 on: July 26, 2014, 10:30:25 PM »

Why then does it seem like the Orthodox were not as aggressive in their missionary efforts.It seems like the "great commission" was undertaken more seriously by the west. I have also been led to believe, as a Catholic, that the East was a bastion of heresy and strange doctrines from the early church til the schism, and Rome kept the faith unchanged. I have also read (in The Triumph by H. W. Crocker III) that the East constantly appealed to Rome to correct heretical teaching. are there any good resources online where I can read Orthodox affirming proof texts and arguments from an authoritative standpoint?

"It seems..."  Not really.  The East beat the West to the punch in Bulgaria (a disputed territory), in Rus (which chose the East specifically), and many other European territories.  Rus' was the largest lasting missionary expansion of the Church in history.  When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort.  

Well... no. Even though St. Sophronius championed orthodoxy in Jerusalem during the early stages of the mothelitism, even Jerusalem eventually fell to monothelitism. The Roman Synod explicitly rejected monothelitism as a heresy. It was the only one of the 5 patriarchates whose official position was orthodox.

You cannot say "well...no" and then give a non sequitur .  I made the statement that "When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort."  So, I was speaking about that particular time period.  You then say "no," and then defend your "no" by talking about subsequent time periods.  The Roman Synod id not explicitly reject monotheletism at the time of Honorius, and the deacon Gaios was sent by Honorius and the Roman Synod to Cyprus in 634 to defend the monotheletic position.  It would be like me saying "when the Apostles were alive they had a council in Jerusalem," and you replying "no, there was no council in the year 167 in Jerusalem."  The latter, even if true, is not a refutation of the former.  

But father, Rome never accepted monothelitism at any point and that's the point. Rome was never monothelite. The official position of the Roman Church had never been monothelite whereas all other patriarchates fell one by one to the heresy. Even Honorius himself was not a monothelite and his is the single strongest case (in reality, a weak case, once facts are examined) of Roman support of monothelitism. But his letter to sergius which portions exist contains doctrinal statements which undermine and sometimes outright refute monothelitism. Nevermind the defense of honorius by figures such as Pope John IV, Pope Agatho in his letter to the Coumcil which claimed no Pope had taught heresy as well as the testimony of Abbot John, scribe of Honorius . Who testified to the true meaning of what Honorius and himself meant when they wrote the letter and said Christ  had one will (One will in Christs humanity , which the context of the letter even reveals)

That may be your point, but that is not historical reality.  Your claims and argument have been sufficiently refuted on other threads of this forum. 

its perfectly historical and I have the proof to back up may case's historicity. On these forums many times history is ignored to propagate one's agendas. Many times the testimony of Abbot John is glossed over even though its importance is vital to the orthodoxy of Honorius. No respected historian or scholar even argues that Rome was monothelite either. It is a fact that Rome was the only see to remain orthodox during the whole ordeal while the east fell to the heresy. Plain historical fact.
I could quote Roman Catholic scholars who disaprove that plain historical fact...
Logged

Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,783


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #53 on: July 26, 2014, 10:39:36 PM »

Knowing that the bishops in Constantinople attributed the Ottoman subjugation, in part at least, to their sins (in 18th century writings), does anyone know whether the Christians at the time of the Monothelite heresy attributed the success of the Islamic conquests of the 7th century to many in the Church's embrace of this heresy?  I'm not asking whether or not this was the cause of the conquests, but I would be interested to know whether anyone at the time may have thought so.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 10:39:54 PM by Yurysprudentsiya » Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #54 on: July 27, 2014, 12:06:42 AM »

I've augmented my knowledge with some background reading here and I'm going to set out some facts as I know them, and then leave it to others more learned than I to augment or chastise them.

The monothelite heresy apparently began when, in the early 630s, Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria sought to bridge the gap between the Oriental Orthodox and the remainder of Christendom as to the natures of Christ by asserting that He performed actions by "one, sole, theanthropic operation."  Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem took exception to this, and referred the matter -- note here -- not to Rome, but to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople.  Patriarch Sergius determined to say nothing on the matter, and attempted to enlist the support of Pope Honorius.  (Here already we see not the 'universal primacy' that was a feature of the later papacy, but the collegiality among bishops which characterizes the Orthodox Church to this day.)  Pope Honorius responded via a letter, dictated to his scribe Abbot John, that he approved the plan of silence and that he would leave to grammarians the question of how best to express the number of wills.  He did, however, approve the use of "one will" in reference to this teaching.

Abbot John, the scribe, would later state that Pope Honorius was speaking not of one will for Christ, but rather that humans have two wills, one upright, and one contrary to the divine will, and that of these two human wills, Christ assumed only that one will which was upright.  It is hard to get why he would have this meaning from the sense of the discussion and the question that was put to him.  St. Maximus the Confessor and Pope John IV are said to have defended Pope Honorius posthumously by taking this view.

Nevertheless, when the entirety of the Church came to its senses, Pope Honorius was posthumously condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople, which was the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at its Thirteenth Session on March 28, 681.  See the following excerpt from the Acts of the Council, Session 13:

Quote
The holy council said:  After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.  But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, . . . And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.

The Council ordered the letters to be burned and also, at its Eighteenth Session, in September, 681, called Pope Honorius "a helping servant" of the "originator of evil," one who was used "to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ." 

When Pope Leo II wrote to the Emperor to confirm the decrees of the council, he wrote that he concurred in the anathema because Honorius, because he had "endeavored by profane treason" to subvert the faith of the Roman Church.

There has been some sophistry, in my view, concerning the meaning of what Pope Leo II said in his letter.  Some Catholic apologists seem to have stated that Pope Leo was, by his letter of confirmation, abrogating the text of the council's decree with respect to Pope Honorius, and substituting his own milder form of condemnation in its stead.  It is difficult, I think, to seriously adhere to the notion that a confirmatory letter sought to abrogate and rewrite the text of a council, particularly when Pope Leo wrote that he concurred in the very anathema at issue.  The Council in Trullo (692), the Second Council at Nicaea (the Seventh Ecumenical) (787), and the Fourth Council at Constantinople (869), all repeated this anathema, and each time it was consented by the Popes.  From the Liber Pontificalis, it is said, from the eighth through the eleventh centuries, that Popes at their investiture had to swear that the Council had anathematized Pope Honorius.   

And so, at the end, you are left with the situation in which a situation arose first in Alexandria, and it was referred by Jerusalem out of its concern, not to Rome, but rather to Constantinople.  Why would this occur if there were a universal primacy?  When Constantinople formed its own opinion, it wrote to Rome to gather support and ratification.  Pope Honorius said what he said, and he was at first defended for it; yet, ultimately, an Ecumenical Council condemned it as heresy and anathematized him; a subsequent Pope approved of this anathematization as did three major councils and a string of popes as part of their investiture.

Was Pope Honorius a heretic in what he said?  Or were Pope Leo II and a string of subsequent Popes wrong in anathematizing him?  From this you get a major problem in terms of trying to promulgate the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope, for if a canonization can be said by some to be infallible, what of an anathematization?  But even more seriously than this, the acts of the Third Council of Constantinople, the succeeding councils, nay, it seems, even the testimony of those supporting Pope Honorius ever relied upon the fact that he was the Supreme Pontiff in considering the propriety of what he had taught.  That this question did not seem to occur to any of them at the time, when such a doctrine would have been of immense aid in navigating this question, is very, very telling.

The doctrine of papal infallibility, as defined in 1870, presents a real problem for the Roman Catholic Church.  To uphold it, one is forced to do a string of mental and hermeneutical gymnastics to try and read it back into situations where it was never considered and is at best implausible, at worst impossible.  Pope Honorius is, perhaps, the most extreme example, but not the only one. 

The definition of Papal Infallibility as pronounced at the First Vatican Council states that infallibility attaches:

Quote
[When the] Roman pontiff . . . speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church . . . .

Pope Honorius would seem to meet each of these criteria in this instance.  He was addressing a supreme question of faith, which was put to him directly or indirectly by three of the major patriarchates (Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem) of the Church, and was seeking to define such a doctrine.  And, at the same time, Pope Leo would seem to meet each of them as well, writing as he was to ratify the decision of an Ecumenical Council which is binding on the whole Church.

This conclusion is so thorny, so unworkable, and so undesirable to the proponents of Vatican I-style Papal Infallibility, that they are forced to argue either that the Ecumenical Council(s), which were well acquainted with the situation, erred in their condemnation; that Pope Honorius ceased to become Pope when he promulgated such teachings; or that the teaching of Pope Honorius, even if heretical, was not pronouncing the doctrine of the wills of Christ ex cathedra, although the matter had been referred to him as Pope of Rome by the other Patriarchs of the Church for his adjudication.  This latter argument is perhaps the most dangerous for them, because, as has been shown repeatedly, they have no way of knowing whether any papal statement is defined ex cathedra, unless it expressly says so.  There could be two such pronouncements, or none, or as many as twenty or seventy; no one knows what has been defined and what has not been.  This is, of course, no reliable guide or arbiter to understand supreme questions of faith and morals, but it serves as a convenient means to maintain the fiction of Papal Infallibility while denying its fruits.

But even beyond infallibility, the fact that such a dispute occurred, that Pope Honorius's statement was immediately criticized as well as defended, and that several Councils and successive Popes condemned him, also gives the lie to the fiction of Papal Supremacy in the sense that modern Roman Catholics attempt to give it.  That a primacy existed, that it was more than mere words, is evident; but that it extended to a universal jurisdiction is simply not shown by anything that happened here.  Bishops and councils were free to take sides with or against Pope Honorius, despite the honor due him as Bishop of Old Rome (shown when he was consulted most solicitiously on this matter), and they ultimately did.

In the words of Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604):
Quote
I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

Excellent post!
Logged
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: 1,109


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #55 on: July 27, 2014, 06:36:49 AM »

Why then does it seem like the Orthodox were not as aggressive in their missionary efforts.It seems like the "great commission" was undertaken more seriously by the west. I have also been led to believe, as a Catholic, that the East was a bastion of heresy and strange doctrines from the early church til the schism, and Rome kept the faith unchanged. I have also read (in The Triumph by H. W. Crocker III) that the East constantly appealed to Rome to correct heretical teaching. are there any good resources online where I can read Orthodox affirming proof texts and arguments from an authoritative standpoint?

"It seems..."  Not really.  The East beat the West to the punch in Bulgaria (a disputed territory), in Rus (which chose the East specifically), and many other European territories.  Rus' was the largest lasting missionary expansion of the Church in history.  When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort.  

Well... no. Even though St. Sophronius championed orthodoxy in Jerusalem during the early stages of the mothelitism, even Jerusalem eventually fell to monothelitism. The Roman Synod explicitly rejected monothelitism as a heresy. It was the only one of the 5 patriarchates whose official position was orthodox.

You cannot say "well...no" and then give a non sequitur .  I made the statement that "When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort."  So, I was speaking about that particular time period.  You then say "no," and then defend your "no" by talking about subsequent time periods.  The Roman Synod id not explicitly reject monotheletism at the time of Honorius, and the deacon Gaios was sent by Honorius and the Roman Synod to Cyprus in 634 to defend the monotheletic position.  It would be like me saying "when the Apostles were alive they had a council in Jerusalem," and you replying "no, there was no council in the year 167 in Jerusalem."  The latter, even if true, is not a refutation of the former.  

But father, Rome never accepted monothelitism at any point and that's the point. Rome was never monothelite. The official position of the Roman Church had never been monothelite whereas all other patriarchates fell one by one to the heresy. Even Honorius himself was not a monothelite and his is the single strongest case (in reality, a weak case, once facts are examined) of Roman support of monothelitism. But his letter to sergius which portions exist contains doctrinal statements which undermine and sometimes outright refute monothelitism. Nevermind the defense of honorius by figures such as Pope John IV, Pope Agatho in his letter to the Coumcil which claimed no Pope had taught heresy as well as the testimony of Abbot John, scribe of Honorius . Who testified to the true meaning of what Honorius and himself meant when they wrote the letter and said Christ  had one will (One will in Christs humanity , which the context of the letter even reveals)

That may be your point, but that is not historical reality.  Your claims and argument have been sufficiently refuted on other threads of this forum. 

its perfectly historical and I have the proof to back up may case's historicity. On these forums many times history is ignored to propagate one's agendas. Many times the testimony of Abbot John is glossed over even though its importance is vital to the orthodoxy of Honorius. No respected historian or scholar even argues that Rome was monothelite either. It is a fact that Rome was the only see to remain orthodox during the whole ordeal while the east fell to the heresy. Plain historical fact.
I could quote Roman Catholic scholars who disaprove that plain historical fact...

I know that means nothing because the facts are th facts and most scholars only state rehashed positions without adequately questioning them. People like Robert bellarmine and maximus the confessor did and they reached the same conclusion. Honorius wasn't a heretic. Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.
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<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #56 on: July 27, 2014, 07:29:41 AM »

Quote
Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.
Roman legalism at its best.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
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: 1,109


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #57 on: July 27, 2014, 08:43:45 AM »

Quote
Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.
Roman legalism at its best.

PP

Its a fact. Even in orthodoxy an ecumenical councils pronouncements on persons are not infallible. Only pronouncements on doctrine.
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<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,221



« Reply #58 on: July 27, 2014, 12:08:15 PM »

Quote
Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.
Roman legalism at its best.

PP

Its a fact. Even in orthodoxy an ecumenical councils pronouncements on persons are not infallible. Only pronouncements on doctrine.

So... Nestorius wasn't a heretic?
Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
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: 1,109


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #59 on: July 27, 2014, 12:30:27 PM »

Quote
Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.
Roman legalism at its best.

PP

Its a fact. Even in orthodoxy an ecumenical councils pronouncements on persons are not infallible. Only pronouncements on doctrine.

So... Nestorius wasn't a heretic?

Straw man Roll Eyes I never said they can't get it right but rather that their decisions on the status of person is not infallible. Two different concepts. Nevermind that there is the theory amongst the Chaldeans and the church of the east that Nestorius wasn't Nestorian.  But I believe the council was right in pronouncing that he was a heretic.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 12:31:59 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<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #60 on: July 27, 2014, 12:51:19 PM »

Why then does it seem like the Orthodox were not as aggressive in their missionary efforts.It seems like the "great commission" was undertaken more seriously by the west. I have also been led to believe, as a Catholic, that the East was a bastion of heresy and strange doctrines from the early church til the schism, and Rome kept the faith unchanged. I have also read (in The Triumph by H. W. Crocker III) that the East constantly appealed to Rome to correct heretical teaching. are there any good resources online where I can read Orthodox affirming proof texts and arguments from an authoritative standpoint?

"It seems..."  Not really.  The East beat the West to the punch in Bulgaria (a disputed territory), in Rus (which chose the East specifically), and many other European territories.  Rus' was the largest lasting missionary expansion of the Church in history.  When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort.  

Well... no. Even though St. Sophronius championed orthodoxy in Jerusalem during the early stages of the mothelitism, even Jerusalem eventually fell to monothelitism. The Roman Synod explicitly rejected monothelitism as a heresy. It was the only one of the 5 patriarchates whose official position was orthodox.

You cannot say "well...no" and then give a non sequitur .  I made the statement that "When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort."  So, I was speaking about that particular time period.  You then say "no," and then defend your "no" by talking about subsequent time periods.  The Roman Synod id not explicitly reject monotheletism at the time of Honorius, and the deacon Gaios was sent by Honorius and the Roman Synod to Cyprus in 634 to defend the monotheletic position.  It would be like me saying "when the Apostles were alive they had a council in Jerusalem," and you replying "no, there was no council in the year 167 in Jerusalem."  The latter, even if true, is not a refutation of the former.  

But father, Rome never accepted monothelitism at any point and that's the point. Rome was never monothelite. The official position of the Roman Church had never been monothelite whereas all other patriarchates fell one by one to the heresy. Even Honorius himself was not a monothelite and his is the single strongest case (in reality, a weak case, once facts are examined) of Roman support of monothelitism. But his letter to sergius which portions exist contains doctrinal statements which undermine and sometimes outright refute monothelitism. Nevermind the defense of honorius by figures such as Pope John IV, Pope Agatho in his letter to the Coumcil which claimed no Pope had taught heresy as well as the testimony of Abbot John, scribe of Honorius . Who testified to the true meaning of what Honorius and himself meant when they wrote the letter and said Christ  had one will (One will in Christs humanity , which the context of the letter even reveals)

That may be your point, but that is not historical reality.  Your claims and argument have been sufficiently refuted on other threads of this forum. 

its perfectly historical and I have the proof to back up may case's historicity. On these forums many times history is ignored to propagate one's agendas. Many times the testimony of Abbot John is glossed over even though its importance is vital to the orthodoxy of Honorius. No respected historian or scholar even argues that Rome was monothelite either. It is a fact that Rome was the only see to remain orthodox during the whole ordeal while the east fell to the heresy. Plain historical fact.
I could quote Roman Catholic scholars who disaprove that plain historical fact...

I know that means nothing because the facts are th facts and most scholars only state rehashed positions without adequately questioning them. People like Robert bellarmine and maximus the confessor did and they reached the same conclusion. Honorius wasn't a heretic. Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.

You are just cherry picking opinions which agree with yours... Its not serious discussion.
Logged

Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #61 on: July 27, 2014, 12:53:55 PM »

Quote
Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.
Roman legalism at its best.

PP

Its a fact. Even in orthodoxy an ecumenical councils pronouncements on persons are not infallible. Only pronouncements on doctrine.

Says you... On other hand we Orthodox say they are infailable... What do you think, who has right understanding of Orthodox doctrine?
Logged

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: 1,109


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #62 on: July 27, 2014, 01:57:38 PM »

Quote
Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.
Roman legalism at its best.

PP

Its a fact. Even in orthodoxy an ecumenical councils pronouncements on persons are not infallible. Only pronouncements on doctrine.

Says you... On other hand we Orthodox say they are infailable... What do you think, who has right understanding of Orthodox doctrine?

So how do you explain ecumenical councils contradicting each other with regards to persons?
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<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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: 1,109


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #63 on: July 27, 2014, 02:02:11 PM »

Why then does it seem like the Orthodox were not as aggressive in their missionary efforts.It seems like the "great commission" was undertaken more seriously by the west. I have also been led to believe, as a Catholic, that the East was a bastion of heresy and strange doctrines from the early church til the schism, and Rome kept the faith unchanged. I have also read (in The Triumph by H. W. Crocker III) that the East constantly appealed to Rome to correct heretical teaching. are there any good resources online where I can read Orthodox affirming proof texts and arguments from an authoritative standpoint?

"It seems..."  Not really.  The East beat the West to the punch in Bulgaria (a disputed territory), in Rus (which chose the East specifically), and many other European territories.  Rus' was the largest lasting missionary expansion of the Church in history.  When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort.  

Well... no. Even though St. Sophronius championed orthodoxy in Jerusalem during the early stages of the mothelitism, even Jerusalem eventually fell to monothelitism. The Roman Synod explicitly rejected monothelitism as a heresy. It was the only one of the 5 patriarchates whose official position was orthodox.

You cannot say "well...no" and then give a non sequitur .  I made the statement that "When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort."  So, I was speaking about that particular time period.  You then say "no," and then defend your "no" by talking about subsequent time periods.  The Roman Synod id not explicitly reject monotheletism at the time of Honorius, and the deacon Gaios was sent by Honorius and the Roman Synod to Cyprus in 634 to defend the monotheletic position.  It would be like me saying "when the Apostles were alive they had a council in Jerusalem," and you replying "no, there was no council in the year 167 in Jerusalem."  The latter, even if true, is not a refutation of the former.  

But father, Rome never accepted monothelitism at any point and that's the point. Rome was never monothelite. The official position of the Roman Church had never been monothelite whereas all other patriarchates fell one by one to the heresy. Even Honorius himself was not a monothelite and his is the single strongest case (in reality, a weak case, once facts are examined) of Roman support of monothelitism. But his letter to sergius which portions exist contains doctrinal statements which undermine and sometimes outright refute monothelitism. Nevermind the defense of honorius by figures such as Pope John IV, Pope Agatho in his letter to the Coumcil which claimed no Pope had taught heresy as well as the testimony of Abbot John, scribe of Honorius . Who testified to the true meaning of what Honorius and himself meant when they wrote the letter and said Christ  had one will (One will in Christs humanity , which the context of the letter even reveals)

That may be your point, but that is not historical reality.  Your claims and argument have been sufficiently refuted on other threads of this forum.  

its perfectly historical and I have the proof to back up may case's historicity. On these forums many times history is ignored to propagate one's agendas. Many times the testimony of Abbot John is glossed over even though its importance is vital to the orthodoxy of Honorius. No respected historian or scholar even argues that Rome was monothelite either. It is a fact that Rome was the only see to remain orthodox during the whole ordeal while the east fell to the heresy. Plain historical fact.
I could quote Roman Catholic scholars who disaprove that plain historical fact...

I know that means nothing because the facts are th facts and most scholars only state rehashed positions without adequately questioning them. People like Robert bellarmine and maximus the confessor did and they reached the same conclusion. Honorius wasn't a heretic. Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.

You are just cherry picking opinions which agree with yours... Its not serious discussion.

No i read the facts. Have you read the letter of honorius to sergius? How do you explain the testimony of the co-author of the letter who explicitly stated that what they meant was orthodox and not monothelite?

oh yes you'll probably just go on and say that sixth council condemned him as a heretic. That's not good enough as there exists a primary source testimony of the author that contradicts the finding of the council. Latin was barely known in the east so is it so inconceivable that the council fathers had a faulty translation of the letter of Honorius or simply misunderstood the letter?

The problem with many "internet orthodox" is worship of ecumenical councils as perfect assemblies of holy fathers who's actions are all,holy and under the complete guidance of the Holy Ghost. However the truth is the opposite. We see forgery of documents and personal selfish agendas present at councils and various other unholy things happening at these councils. That's why even condemnations of persons are sometimes fueled by rivalry and politics rather than protection of the holy faith. You cannot honestly believe that forging documents and acts of such kind at the councils were guided by the Holy Spirit.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 02:16:09 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<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,783


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #64 on: July 27, 2014, 03:52:39 PM »

Why then does it seem like the Orthodox were not as aggressive in their missionary efforts.It seems like the "great commission" was undertaken more seriously by the west. I have also been led to believe, as a Catholic, that the East was a bastion of heresy and strange doctrines from the early church til the schism, and Rome kept the faith unchanged. I have also read (in The Triumph by H. W. Crocker III) that the East constantly appealed to Rome to correct heretical teaching. are there any good resources online where I can read Orthodox affirming proof texts and arguments from an authoritative standpoint?

"It seems..."  Not really.  The East beat the West to the punch in Bulgaria (a disputed territory), in Rus (which chose the East specifically), and many other European territories.  Rus' was the largest lasting missionary expansion of the Church in history.  When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort.  

Well... no. Even though St. Sophronius championed orthodoxy in Jerusalem during the early stages of the mothelitism, even Jerusalem eventually fell to monothelitism. The Roman Synod explicitly rejected monothelitism as a heresy. It was the only one of the 5 patriarchates whose official position was orthodox.

You cannot say "well...no" and then give a non sequitur .  I made the statement that "When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort."  So, I was speaking about that particular time period.  You then say "no," and then defend your "no" by talking about subsequent time periods.  The Roman Synod id not explicitly reject monotheletism at the time of Honorius, and the deacon Gaios was sent by Honorius and the Roman Synod to Cyprus in 634 to defend the monotheletic position.  It would be like me saying "when the Apostles were alive they had a council in Jerusalem," and you replying "no, there was no council in the year 167 in Jerusalem."  The latter, even if true, is not a refutation of the former.  

But father, Rome never accepted monothelitism at any point and that's the point. Rome was never monothelite. The official position of the Roman Church had never been monothelite whereas all other patriarchates fell one by one to the heresy. Even Honorius himself was not a monothelite and his is the single strongest case (in reality, a weak case, once facts are examined) of Roman support of monothelitism. But his letter to sergius which portions exist contains doctrinal statements which undermine and sometimes outright refute monothelitism. Nevermind the defense of honorius by figures such as Pope John IV, Pope Agatho in his letter to the Coumcil which claimed no Pope had taught heresy as well as the testimony of Abbot John, scribe of Honorius . Who testified to the true meaning of what Honorius and himself meant when they wrote the letter and said Christ  had one will (One will in Christs humanity , which the context of the letter even reveals)

That may be your point, but that is not historical reality.  Your claims and argument have been sufficiently refuted on other threads of this forum.  

its perfectly historical and I have the proof to back up may case's historicity. On these forums many times history is ignored to propagate one's agendas. Many times the testimony of Abbot John is glossed over even though its importance is vital to the orthodoxy of Honorius. No respected historian or scholar even argues that Rome was monothelite either. It is a fact that Rome was the only see to remain orthodox during the whole ordeal while the east fell to the heresy. Plain historical fact.
I could quote Roman Catholic scholars who disaprove that plain historical fact...

I know that means nothing because the facts are th facts and most scholars only state rehashed positions without adequately questioning them. People like Robert bellarmine and maximus the confessor did and they reached the same conclusion. Honorius wasn't a heretic. Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.

You are just cherry picking opinions which agree with yours... Its not serious discussion.

No i read the facts. Have you read the letter of honorius to sergius? How do you explain the testimony of the co-author of the letter who explicitly stated that what they meant was orthodox and not monothelite?

oh yes you'll probably just go on and say that sixth council condemned him as a heretic. That's not good enough as there exists a primary source testimony of the author that contradicts the finding of the council. Latin was barely known in the east so is it so inconceivable that the council fathers had a faulty translation of the letter of Honorius or simply misunderstood the letter?

The problem with many "internet orthodox" is worship of ecumenical councils as perfect assemblies of holy fathers who's actions are all,holy and under the complete guidance of the Holy Ghost. However the truth is the opposite. We see forgery of documents and personal selfish agendas present at councils and various other unholy things happening at these councils. That's why even condemnations of persons are sometimes fueled by rivalry and politics rather than protection of the holy faith. You cannot honestly believe that forging documents and acts of such kind at the councils were guided by the Holy Spirit.

Whereas papal supremacy is based on rock-solid documents such as the Donation of Constantine . . . .
Logged
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: 1,109


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #65 on: July 27, 2014, 04:56:37 PM »

Why then does it seem like the Orthodox were not as aggressive in their missionary efforts.It seems like the "great commission" was undertaken more seriously by the west. I have also been led to believe, as a Catholic, that the East was a bastion of heresy and strange doctrines from the early church til the schism, and Rome kept the faith unchanged. I have also read (in The Triumph by H. W. Crocker III) that the East constantly appealed to Rome to correct heretical teaching. are there any good resources online where I can read Orthodox affirming proof texts and arguments from an authoritative standpoint?

"It seems..."  Not really.  The East beat the West to the punch in Bulgaria (a disputed territory), in Rus (which chose the East specifically), and many other European territories.  Rus' was the largest lasting missionary expansion of the Church in history.  When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort.  

Well... no. Even though St. Sophronius championed orthodoxy in Jerusalem during the early stages of the mothelitism, even Jerusalem eventually fell to monothelitism. The Roman Synod explicitly rejected monothelitism as a heresy. It was the only one of the 5 patriarchates whose official position was orthodox.

You cannot say "well...no" and then give a non sequitur .  I made the statement that "When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort."  So, I was speaking about that particular time period.  You then say "no," and then defend your "no" by talking about subsequent time periods.  The Roman Synod id not explicitly reject monotheletism at the time of Honorius, and the deacon Gaios was sent by Honorius and the Roman Synod to Cyprus in 634 to defend the monotheletic position.  It would be like me saying "when the Apostles were alive they had a council in Jerusalem," and you replying "no, there was no council in the year 167 in Jerusalem."  The latter, even if true, is not a refutation of the former.  

But father, Rome never accepted monothelitism at any point and that's the point. Rome was never monothelite. The official position of the Roman Church had never been monothelite whereas all other patriarchates fell one by one to the heresy. Even Honorius himself was not a monothelite and his is the single strongest case (in reality, a weak case, once facts are examined) of Roman support of monothelitism. But his letter to sergius which portions exist contains doctrinal statements which undermine and sometimes outright refute monothelitism. Nevermind the defense of honorius by figures such as Pope John IV, Pope Agatho in his letter to the Coumcil which claimed no Pope had taught heresy as well as the testimony of Abbot John, scribe of Honorius . Who testified to the true meaning of what Honorius and himself meant when they wrote the letter and said Christ  had one will (One will in Christs humanity , which the context of the letter even reveals)

That may be your point, but that is not historical reality.  Your claims and argument have been sufficiently refuted on other threads of this forum.  

its perfectly historical and I have the proof to back up may case's historicity. On these forums many times history is ignored to propagate one's agendas. Many times the testimony of Abbot John is glossed over even though its importance is vital to the orthodoxy of Honorius. No respected historian or scholar even argues that Rome was monothelite either. It is a fact that Rome was the only see to remain orthodox during the whole ordeal while the east fell to the heresy. Plain historical fact.
I could quote Roman Catholic scholars who disaprove that plain historical fact...

I know that means nothing because the facts are th facts and most scholars only state rehashed positions without adequately questioning them. People like Robert bellarmine and maximus the confessor did and they reached the same conclusion. Honorius wasn't a heretic. Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.

You are just cherry picking opinions which agree with yours... Its not serious discussion.

No i read the facts. Have you read the letter of honorius to sergius? How do you explain the testimony of the co-author of the letter who explicitly stated that what they meant was orthodox and not monothelite?

oh yes you'll probably just go on and say that sixth council condemned him as a heretic. That's not good enough as there exists a primary source testimony of the author that contradicts the finding of the council. Latin was barely known in the east so is it so inconceivable that the council fathers had a faulty translation of the letter of Honorius or simply misunderstood the letter?

The problem with many "internet orthodox" is worship of ecumenical councils as perfect assemblies of holy fathers who's actions are all,holy and under the complete guidance of the Holy Ghost. However the truth is the opposite. We see forgery of documents and personal selfish agendas present at councils and various other unholy things happening at these councils. That's why even condemnations of persons are sometimes fueled by rivalry and politics rather than protection of the holy faith. You cannot honestly believe that forging documents and acts of such kind at the councils were guided by the Holy Spirit.

Whereas papal supremacy is based on rock-solid documents such as the Donation of Constantine . . . .

LOL don't change the topic now... Start a new thread for papal supremacy.
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<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ShayneSwenson
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: leaning East
Posts: 26


Bringo


WWW
« Reply #66 on: July 27, 2014, 05:53:03 PM »

Why then does it seem like the Orthodox were not as aggressive in their missionary efforts.It seems like the "great commission" was undertaken more seriously by the west. I have also been led to believe, as a Catholic, that the East was a bastion of heresy and strange doctrines from the early church til the schism, and Rome kept the faith unchanged. I have also read (in The Triumph by H. W. Crocker III) that the East constantly appealed to Rome to correct heretical teaching. are there any good resources online where I can read Orthodox affirming proof texts and arguments from an authoritative standpoint?

"It seems..."  Not really.  The East beat the West to the punch in Bulgaria (a disputed territory), in Rus (which chose the East specifically), and many other European territories.  Rus' was the largest lasting missionary expansion of the Church in history.  When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort.  

Well... no. Even though St. Sophronius championed orthodoxy in Jerusalem during the early stages of the mothelitism, even Jerusalem eventually fell to monothelitism. The Roman Synod explicitly rejected monothelitism as a heresy. It was the only one of the 5 patriarchates whose official position was orthodox.

You cannot say "well...no" and then give a non sequitur .  I made the statement that "When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort."  So, I was speaking about that particular time period.  You then say "no," and then defend your "no" by talking about subsequent time periods.  The Roman Synod id not explicitly reject monotheletism at the time of Honorius, and the deacon Gaios was sent by Honorius and the Roman Synod to Cyprus in 634 to defend the monotheletic position.  It would be like me saying "when the Apostles were alive they had a council in Jerusalem," and you replying "no, there was no council in the year 167 in Jerusalem."  The latter, even if true, is not a refutation of the former.  

But father, Rome never accepted monothelitism at any point and that's the point. Rome was never monothelite. The official position of the Roman Church had never been monothelite whereas all other patriarchates fell one by one to the heresy. Even Honorius himself was not a monothelite and his is the single strongest case (in reality, a weak case, once facts are examined) of Roman support of monothelitism. But his letter to sergius which portions exist contains doctrinal statements which undermine and sometimes outright refute monothelitism. Nevermind the defense of honorius by figures such as Pope John IV, Pope Agatho in his letter to the Coumcil which claimed no Pope had taught heresy as well as the testimony of Abbot John, scribe of Honorius . Who testified to the true meaning of what Honorius and himself meant when they wrote the letter and said Christ  had one will (One will in Christs humanity , which the context of the letter even reveals)

That may be your point, but that is not historical reality.  Your claims and argument have been sufficiently refuted on other threads of this forum.  

its perfectly historical and I have the proof to back up may case's historicity. On these forums many times history is ignored to propagate one's agendas. Many times the testimony of Abbot John is glossed over even though its importance is vital to the orthodoxy of Honorius. No respected historian or scholar even argues that Rome was monothelite either. It is a fact that Rome was the only see to remain orthodox during the whole ordeal while the east fell to the heresy. Plain historical fact.
I could quote Roman Catholic scholars who disaprove that plain historical fact...

I know that means nothing because the facts are th facts and most scholars only state rehashed positions without adequately questioning them. People like Robert bellarmine and maximus the confessor did and they reached the same conclusion. Honorius wasn't a heretic. Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.

You are just cherry picking opinions which agree with yours... Its not serious discussion.

No i read the facts. Have you read the letter of honorius to sergius? How do you explain the testimony of the co-author of the letter who explicitly stated that what they meant was orthodox and not monothelite?

oh yes you'll probably just go on and say that sixth council condemned him as a heretic. That's not good enough as there exists a primary source testimony of the author that contradicts the finding of the council. Latin was barely known in the east so is it so inconceivable that the council fathers had a faulty translation of the letter of Honorius or simply misunderstood the letter?

The problem with many "internet orthodox" is worship of ecumenical councils as perfect assemblies of holy fathers who's actions are all,holy and under the complete guidance of the Holy Ghost. However the truth is the opposite. We see forgery of documents and personal selfish agendas present at councils and various other unholy things happening at these councils. That's why even condemnations of persons are sometimes fueled by rivalry and politics rather than protection of the holy faith. You cannot honestly believe that forging documents and acts of such kind at the councils were guided by the Holy Spirit.

Whereas papal supremacy is based on rock-solid documents such as the Donation of Constantine . . . .

LOL don't change the topic now... Start a new thread for papal supremacy.
AAHHHHHH!!!! Polemics like this make me seriously question if ANYONE is correct. Can it be that it all boils down to mere opinion?
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #67 on: July 27, 2014, 10:29:42 PM »

"This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or inerrancy of the popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church" [including the West as represented by the papal legates] (J. von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61). [Roman Catholic historian]

======
From C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187:

"It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic! That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him:

At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says:

"After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine." Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.

Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus"

Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read: "The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ." After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things: "Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them." In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein: \'91We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.

In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes: "With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself. We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present ...we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."

It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council, in his letter to the Spanish bishops, and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig.

Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after.

Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: "We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning ...Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc." The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places.

To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius" (C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).

=====

"The following points are established by the best documentary evidence:
1. Honorius taught and favored in several official letters (to Sergius, Cyrus, and Sophronius), therefore ex cathedra, the one-will heresy. He fully agreed with Sergius, the Monotheletic patriarch of Constantinople. In answer to his first letter (634), he says: “Therefore we confess one will (qevlhma, voluntas) of our Lord Jesus Christ.”623 He viewed the will as an attribute of person, not of nature, and reasoned: One will, therefore only one will. In a second letter to Sergius, he rejects both the orthodox phrase: “two energies,” and the heterodox phrase: “one energy” (ejnevrgeia, operatio), and affirms that the Bible clearly teaches two natures, but that it is quite vain to ascribe to the Mediator between God and man one or two energies; for Christ by virtue of his one theandric will showed many modes of operation and activity.624 The first letter was decidedly heretical, the second was certainly not orthodox, and both occasioned and favored the imperial Ekthesis (638) and Type (648), in their vain attempt to reconcile the Monophysites by suppressing the Dyotheletic doctrine.625

...Various attempts have been made by controversialists to save the orthodoxy of Honorius in order to save the dogma of papal infallibility. Some pronounce his letters to be a later Greek forgery.626 Others admit their genuineness, but distort them into an orthodox sense by a nonnatural exegesis.627 Still others maintain, at the expense of his knowledge and logic, that Honorius was orthodox at heart, but heretical, or at least very unguarded in his expressions.628 But we have no means to judge of his real sentiment except his own language, which is unmistakably Monotheletic. And this is the verdict not only of Protestants,629 but also of Gallican and other liberal Catholic historians.630

2. Honorius was condemned by the sixth oecumenical Council as “the former pope of Old Rome,” who with the help of the old serpent had scattered deadly error.631 This anathema was repeated by the seventh oecumenical Council, 787, and by the eighth, 869.

...Here again ultramontane historians have resorted to the impossible denial either of the genuineness of the act of condemnation in the sixth oecumenical Council,632 or of the true meaning of that act.633 The only consistent way for papal infallibilists is to deny the infallibility of the oecumenical Council as regards the dogmatic fact.634 In this case it would involve at the same time a charge of gross injustice to Honorius.

3. But this last theory is refuted by the popes themselves, who condemned Honorius as a heretic, and thus bore testimony for papal fallibility. His first success or, Severinus, had a brief pontificate of only three months. His second successor, John IV., apologized for him by putting a forced construction on his language. Agatho prudently ignored him.635 But his successor, Leo II., who translated the acts of the sixth Council from Greek into Latin, saw that he could not save the honor of Honorius without contradicting the verdict of the council in which the papal delegates had taken part; and therefore he expressly condemned him in the strongest language, both in a letter to the Greek emperor and in a letter to the bishops of Spain, as a traitor to the Roman church for trying to subvert her immaculate fate. Not only so, but the condemnation of the unfortunate Honorius was inserted in the confession of faith which every newly-elected pope had to sign down to the eleventh century, and which is embodied in the Liber Diurnus, i.e. the official book of formulas of the Roman church for the use of the papal curia.636 In the editions of the Roman Breviary down to the sixteenth century his name appears, yet without title and without explanation, along with the rest who had been condemned by the sixth Council. But the precise facts were gradually forgotten, and the mediaeval chroniclers and lists of popes ignore them. After the middle of the sixteenth century the case of Honorius again attracted attention, and was urged as an irrefutable argument against the ultramontane theory. At first the letter of Leo II. was boldly, rejected as a forgery as well as those of Honorius;637 but this was made impossible when the Liber Diurnus came to light.

The verdict of history, after the most thorough investigation from all sides and by all parties remains unshaken. The whole church, East and West, as represented by the official acts of oecumenical Councils and Popes, for several hundred years believed that a Roman bishop may err ex cathedra in a question of faith, and that one of them at least had so erred in fact. The Vatican Council of 1870 decreed papal infallibility in the face of this fact, thus overruling history by dogmatic authority. The Protestant historian can in conscience only follow the opposite principle: If dogma contradicts facts, all the worse for the dogma" Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol IV: Mediaeval Christianity AD. 590-1073, § 113 "The Heresy of Honorius."


« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 11:03:26 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #68 on: July 28, 2014, 05:29:29 AM »

So how do you explain ecumenical councils contradicting each other with regards to persons?

There is no such instance. If you allude to Ibas of Edessa and Theodoret of Chyrrus...

Chalcedon cleared them (as persons), II Constantinople condemned writtings they wrote against St. Cyrril. Rather significant distinction.

Eastern Orthodox Church teach that Eccumenaica Councils were inerrant. There are two approaches in understanding this, one suggested by Aleksey Homiakov, developed by Father Georges Florovsky. Its receptionism, Church lead by Holy Spirit, recignised Ecumenical Councils, as genuine and infailable expostition of Orthodox Faith, and in approach suggested by Fr. John Romanides, innerancy of Ecumenical councils is independent of reception from the Church. Encyclic of Eastern Patriarcvhs from XIX century, is confessing receptionist approach.


No i read the facts. Have you read the letter of honorius to sergius? How do you explain the testimony of the co-author of the letter who explicitly stated that what they meant was orthodox and not monothelite?
How do you explain content of letter is monthelite? That is fact. Testemony of abbot John is not that relevant since he is for sure nt neutral in whole affair.


oh yes you'll probably just go on and say that sixth council condemned him as a heretic. That's not good enough as there exists a primary source testimony of the author that contradicts the finding of the council. Latin was barely known in the east so is it so inconceivable that the council fathers had a faulty translation of the letter of Honorius or simply misunderstood the letter?

Why not focus on letter itself?


The problem with many "internet orthodox" is worship of ecumenical councils as perfect assemblies of holy fathers who's actions are all,holy and under the complete guidance of the Holy Ghost. However the truth is the opposite. We see forgery of documents and personal selfish agendas present at councils and various other unholy things happening at these councils. That's why even condemnations of persons are sometimes fueled by rivalry and politics rather than protection of the holy faith. You cannot honestly believe that forging documents and acts of such kind at the councils were guided by the Holy Spirit.

We see? Who are we? You, average american Roman Catholic, who does not know Lating, Anceitne Greek, and never studied Theology, nor Church history, nor Canon Law.

Oh, by the way, you really can believe that Popes who indulged in every kind of fonification, drunkness, political murders were preserved by Holy Ghost from esuposing Heresy. Thats ridiculous.



By they way, logical puzzle, where Popes who anathemathized Honorius, quite a lot of them, in fact, were unfailable? Cheesy
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 05:41:29 AM by Ekdikos » Logged

JoeS2
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,125


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #69 on: July 28, 2014, 09:11:13 AM »

"..Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus" "

I don't know about you but this is pretty heavy artillery...
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,438


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #70 on: July 28, 2014, 10:18:19 AM »

so its safe to say that all the information I received from several different catholic apologists regarding uninterrupted orthodoxy from Rome, and countless amounts of heterodoxy from the "other" lungs is incorrect? How can there be so much certainty proposed from the Latin side when it appears that there is evidence to the contrary? Its even starting to make me question christianity in general, as everyone has a different opinion regarding the "truth" of history, and there is so much confusion and division.

Stop reading triumphalist Roman Catholic apologetics laced with polemic (there's plenty of those on Orthodoxy's "side" as well). I'd suggest you look up Dr. Adam DeVille, a professor of theology at St. Francis University in Fort Wayne for a more balanced and modern exegesis of the west/east divide from the Roman Catholic point of view. You might come away with a better  understanding of church history from his works, many of which are online.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 10:20:35 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
JoeS2
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,125


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #71 on: July 28, 2014, 03:50:50 PM »

Quote
Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.
Roman legalism at its best.

PP

Its a fact. Even in orthodoxy an ecumenical councils pronouncements on persons are not infallible. Only pronouncements on doctrine.

NO one is INFALLIBLE, not even your Pope.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #72 on: July 28, 2014, 06:44:15 PM »

Why then does it seem like the Orthodox were not as aggressive in their missionary efforts.It seems like the "great commission" was undertaken more seriously by the west. I have also been led to believe, as a Catholic, that the East was a bastion of heresy and strange doctrines from the early church til the schism, and Rome kept the faith unchanged. I have also read (in The Triumph by H. W. Crocker III) that the East constantly appealed to Rome to correct heretical teaching. are there any good resources online where I can read Orthodox affirming proof texts and arguments from an authoritative standpoint?

"It seems..."  Not really.  The East beat the West to the punch in Bulgaria (a disputed territory), in Rus (which chose the East specifically), and many other European territories.  Rus' was the largest lasting missionary expansion of the Church in history.  When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort.  

Well... no. Even though St. Sophronius championed orthodoxy in Jerusalem during the early stages of the mothelitism, even Jerusalem eventually fell to monothelitism. The Roman Synod explicitly rejected monothelitism as a heresy. It was the only one of the 5 patriarchates whose official position was orthodox.

You cannot say "well...no" and then give a non sequitur .  I made the statement that "When both Rome and Constantinople fell into Monotheletism, it was Orthodox Jerusalem that held the fort."  So, I was speaking about that particular time period.  You then say "no," and then defend your "no" by talking about subsequent time periods.  The Roman Synod id not explicitly reject monotheletism at the time of Honorius, and the deacon Gaios was sent by Honorius and the Roman Synod to Cyprus in 634 to defend the monotheletic position.  It would be like me saying "when the Apostles were alive they had a council in Jerusalem," and you replying "no, there was no council in the year 167 in Jerusalem."  The latter, even if true, is not a refutation of the former.  

But father, Rome never accepted monothelitism at any point and that's the point. Rome was never monothelite. The official position of the Roman Church had never been monothelite whereas all other patriarchates fell one by one to the heresy. Even Honorius himself was not a monothelite and his is the single strongest case (in reality, a weak case, once facts are examined) of Roman support of monothelitism. But his letter to sergius which portions exist contains doctrinal statements which undermine and sometimes outright refute monothelitism. Nevermind the defense of honorius by figures such as Pope John IV, Pope Agatho in his letter to the Coumcil which claimed no Pope had taught heresy as well as the testimony of Abbot John, scribe of Honorius . Who testified to the true meaning of what Honorius and himself meant when they wrote the letter and said Christ  had one will (One will in Christs humanity , which the context of the letter even reveals)

That may be your point, but that is not historical reality.  Your claims and argument have been sufficiently refuted on other threads of this forum.  

its perfectly historical and I have the proof to back up may case's historicity. On these forums many times history is ignored to propagate one's agendas. Many times the testimony of Abbot John is glossed over even though its importance is vital to the orthodoxy of Honorius. No respected historian or scholar even argues that Rome was monothelite either. It is a fact that Rome was the only see to remain orthodox during the whole ordeal while the east fell to the heresy. Plain historical fact.
I could quote Roman Catholic scholars who disaprove that plain historical fact...

I know that means nothing because the facts are th facts and most scholars only state rehashed positions without adequately questioning them. People like Robert bellarmine and maximus the confessor did and they reached the same conclusion. Honorius wasn't a heretic. Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.

You are just cherry picking opinions which agree with yours... Its not serious discussion.

No i read the facts. Have you read the letter of honorius to sergius? How do you explain the testimony of the co-author of the letter who explicitly stated that what they meant was orthodox and not monothelite?

oh yes you'll probably just go on and say that sixth council condemned him as a heretic. That's not good enough as there exists a primary source testimony of the author that contradicts the finding of the council. Latin was barely known in the east so is it so inconceivable that the council fathers had a faulty translation of the letter of Honorius or simply misunderstood the letter?

The problem with many "internet orthodox" is worship of ecumenical councils as perfect assemblies of holy fathers who's actions are all,holy and under the complete guidance of the Holy Ghost. However the truth is the opposite. We see forgery of documents and personal selfish agendas present at councils and various other unholy things happening at these councils. That's why even condemnations of persons are sometimes fueled by rivalry and politics rather than protection of the holy faith. You cannot honestly believe that forging documents and acts of such kind at the councils were guided by the Holy Spirit.

Whereas papal supremacy is based on rock-solid documents such as the Donation of Constantine . . . .

LOL don't change the topic now... Start a new thread for papal supremacy.
AAHHHHHH!!!! Polemics like this make me seriously question if ANYONE is correct. Can it be that it all boils down to mere opinion?

Not really.  Orthodoxy has been pretty consistent on the fact that any person can be "accidentally" or "incidentally" infallible at any one time (i.e., I say "Jesus is Lord," and in that 3 seconds, I made an infallible pronouncement), but that no one person can be infallible at any moment designed by themselves even by virtue of their office.  This is because it is "out of the mouth of two or three (apostles)" every word is to be established (the conciliar principle).  In other words, Christ Himself qualified Matt. 16 (whatsoever You-sing. bind on earth...) with Matt. 18 (whatsoever You-plur. bind on earth...).  So, we can tell that my incidentally infallible pronouncement "Jesus is Lord" is infallible because it is established by the apostolic conciliarity rule from Matt. 18--i.e., that I have simply repeated an Apostolically verified truth.  Now this statement can be fallibly interpreted.  For example, someone who holds that "Jesus" refers to a human person and "Christ" refers to a distinct divine person might say that "Jesus is Lord" refers to Him being something other than God (such as the Nestorians, the Oneness Pentecostals, etc.).  So we return to the consensus patrem, above all in council, for the clearing up of this matter, who have already pointed out that the statement "YOU are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" was directed toward the singular person who also was present bodily and speaking bodily, and thus Nestorianism and the rest must be wrong. 
Logged
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 301



« Reply #73 on: July 28, 2014, 06:54:32 PM »

It's also worth remembering that the letter to Sergius is not the only time Pope Honorius taught Monothelitism. He also taught it in his exegesis of the Agony in the Garden, the traditional passage for demonstrating Christ's separate human and divine wills. He argued, instead, that having a human desire to stay alive would constitute disobedience to the Father, and therefore Christ could not have been expressing a separate human will, but merely speaking to teach us to obey God.
Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,783


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #74 on: July 28, 2014, 06:56:15 PM »

It's also worth remembering that the letter to Sergius is not the only time Pope Honorius taught Monothelitism. He also taught it in his exegesis of the Agony in the Garden, the traditional passage for demonstrating Christ's separate human and divine wills. He argued, instead, that having a human desire to stay alive would constitute disobedience to the Father, and therefore Christ could not have been expressing a separate human will, but merely speaking to teach us to obey God.

Very interesting.  I'm almost certain I've heard that come up in the past in certain Reformed circles although I can't cite anything specific. 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #75 on: July 28, 2014, 07:01:38 PM »

Quote
Nevermind that ecumenical councils proclamations on the orthodoxy of heresy of a person is not infallible as ecumenical,councils have contradicted themselves before.
Roman legalism at its best.

PP

Its a fact. Even in orthodoxy an ecumenical councils pronouncements on persons are not infallible. Only pronouncements on doctrine.

NO one is INFALLIBLE, not even your Pope.

But this would be answered by the RCC that not even the Pope claims to be infallible.  He is just infallible ex cathedra.  But we can demonstrate that anyone can be infallible at any given moment.  Everyone who says "the Lord our God, the Lord is one" is infallible when the pronounce the statement.  While some have tried to argue that "infallible" and "inerrant" is distinct, the only reasonable distinction could be that "inerrant" simply means infallibility in a moment of time.  The Orthodox position (despite modern theological sophistry attempting to speak in the name of Orthodoxy) is that the Pope, Patriarch or any Bishop certainly can be infallible at the times where he pronounces truth in the name of the Church authoritatively in his office.  Those who try to say that "infallible" and "inerrant" are distinct are not being honest.  Infallible just means "without fault."  If someone is speaking the truth, they are without fault at that moment.  So, while we can say that no one is always infallible except for Christ (the only faultless and sinless One), we cannot say that others are not momentarily infallible (inerrant).  However, the argument is that no Bishop, not even the Pope of Rome, can be infallible or inerrant by a moment defined by themselves, even when exercising their office.  It is nonsense for the RCC to claim that most Popes were not exercising their office (ex cathedra) when making pronouncements of faith throughout history, simply nonsense.  It is precisely as Bishop that any Bishop makes doctrinal statements.  
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #76 on: July 28, 2014, 07:11:43 PM »

BTW, to claim that Honorius was not speaking ex cathedra is nonsense for many reasons.  As I pointed out in my last post, when a Bishop speaks of dogma, he is speaking ex cathedra, period.  He always speaks dogma in his office, which is why we pray that they rightly divide the word of truth.  But more to the point, he was condemned by two ecumenical councils as an heresiarch.  The only way that the Church can condemn a Bishop as a heresiarch is if he was speaking ex cathedra, which by the way, is always, since as a Bishop, he should know that when speaking on dogma, he is speaking ex cathedra, in his office. 
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #77 on: July 29, 2014, 03:52:03 AM »

One of the most significant impediments to EO/RC union is not just disagreement about infallibility, but the standing anathema of Vatican I upon all who "have the temerity to reject" the late dogma of papal infallibility:

Standing decree (with anathema) of Vatican I (proclaimed in 1870):
"9. ...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema"

"...reject this... let him be anathema."

Yet the whole Church rejected this for centuries.

Never mind for just a moment whether Honorius so erred. Does Vatican I not thus anathematize "the whole church, East and West, as represented by the official acts of oecumenical Councils and Popes, for several hundred years [who] believed that a Roman bishop may err ex cathedra in a question of faith, and that one of them at least had so erred in fact..." (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol IV, § 113 "The Heresy of Honorius")

"This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or inerrancy of the popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church" [including the West as represented by the papal legates] (J. von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61). [Roman Catholic historian].

Not only utterly unknown, but universally repudiated, East and West, in papal oaths for centuries and in Ecumenical Councils.

What then becomes of the earlier claim that RC never taught error if something proclaimed anathema to reject in 1870 was universally rejected by the whole of the Church for centuries?

« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 04:20:47 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.221 seconds with 60 queries.