History of the Papacy

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The two biggest problems that the EO has with Papal Supremacy is Pope Honorius who supported monothelitism and was condemned as a heretic. The following is from Wikipedia

More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things".

Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, "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 [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines."​

The second is the filioque issue which has been discussed to death. If you need information on that I can point you in the right direction.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The two biggest problems that the EO has with Papal Supremacy is Pope Honorius who supported monothelitism and was condemned as a heretic.

That is a historically complex issue. The Emperor Heraclius had tried to bring about a reconciliation with the Egyptian and Syrian Churches that had been Monophysite since 451. He wanted their help to stem the Muslim invasions. This seemed like a good political goal; but ran into a lot of debate and people quickly formed sides with the Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius caught in the middle. So he asked Pope Honorius for a ruling on whether you could use the term one will, with the understanding that this did not mean one operation. Honorius' reply to Sergius is certainly condemnable as being less than clear and maybe heretical; but St. Maximus the Confessor, who was an aide to Heraclius wrote in defense of Honorius that his opposition to the idea of 'two wills' was based on the interpretation of 'two wills' as 'two contrary wills'.

So did Honorius support Heraclius' compromise because he saw the importance of a united front against the rise of Islam? It is hard to say, the reply to Sergius prompted him to get Emperor Heraclius to send out in 638 the Ecthesis that said that all of Heraclius' subjects had to admit that Christ had one will and called for them to not use the terms one operation or two operations to avoid conflict. Honorius had died and never saw the Ecthesis. The next Pope, Severinus and then shortly after John IV, refused to accept the Ecthesis and Heraclius disowned the Ecthesis. His successor, Emperor Constans, revoked it.

In all of this a Catholic apologist can say two things, first it shows Constantinople looking towards Rome throughout this period as the bulwark for orthodoxy. Second, even when a Pope showed less than ideal leadership, the Church (and here I mean in both East and West) showed a very quick response to condemn the less than orthodox. I am using words here that seem vague; because Sergius and Honorius did not have an opportunity to defend in depth what they were trying to do. My sense is that they were trying to bring about unity in the Church that had been missing for nearly 200 years. This is a good goal; but it required them to walk a line that probably should not have been walked without a formal council.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: patricius79
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The two biggest problems that the EO has with Papal Supremacy is Pope Honorius who supported monothelitism and was condemned as a heretic. The following is from Wikipedia

More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things".

Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, "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 [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines."​

The second is the filioque issue which has been discussed to death. If you need information on that I can point you in the right direction.


Thanks. Dave Armstrong lists more then 40 Patriarchs (of Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch) who were heretical between about 450 A.D. and about 700 A.D. Most of them were Monophysites, and many were Monothelites.

He thinks the East was especially heretical in the Robber Synod of Ephesus AD 449 I think) and in the Henoticon (in the 480s?)

So, if that's true--and even if Honorius was heretical, though not in a definitive way--wouldn't Rome still have a much better record than the East?

Basically it seems like only a few Popes are brought up as potential heretics: especially Liberius, Honorius, and Vigilius.

Not saying I know a lot about history... just asking questions.
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
That is a historically complex issue. ...... I am using words here that seem vague; because Sergius and Honorius did not have an opportunity to defend in depth what they were trying to do. My sense is that they were trying to bring about unity in the Church that had been missing for nearly 200 years. This is a good goal; but it required them to walk a line that probably should not have been walked without a formal council.

Agreed completely that the Monothelistic controversy was complex and that Honorius was stepping in a field of land mines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: patricius79
Upvote 0

JM

Coram Deo.
Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,337
3,604
Canada
✟738,796.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Yeah, I do. I have severe chronic fatigue and other infirmities. As to not trusting Catholic apologists, I doubt you would say that same if they were Orthodox.

I WOULD like to gradually read the Orthodox scholar and priest John Meyendorff's "the Primacy of Peter" which the only Orthodox priest in my area (30 minues from me) recommended to me years ago as the number one book I should read as to the Papacy. But alas my regional library hasn't found a copy for me.

By the way, the Orthodox say that Leo the Great was a Saint. But didn't he claim supremacy, like Gregory the Great, who is also--am I right?--regarded as a saint by the EO?

Also, do the Orthodox see Jerome as a saint, and/or Optatus, or Pope Innocent 1?

I ask because apparently all of these were clear about Papal Supremacy.
You miss quoted.
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Thanks. Dave Armstrong lists more then 40 Patriarchs (of Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch) who were heretical between about 450 A.D. and about 700 A.D. Most of them were Monophysites, and many were Monothelites.

He thinks the East was especially heretical in the Robber Synod of Ephesus AD 449 I think) and in the Henoticon (in the 480s?)

So, if that's true--and even if Honorius was heretical, though not in a definitive way--wouldn't Rome still have a much better record than the East?

Basically it seems like only a few Popes are brought up as potential heretics: especially Liberius, Honorius, and Vigilius.

Not saying I know a lot about history... just asking questions.


I think part of what kept the western church more orthodox than the east is the fall of the western Roman empire. The East, although threatened by the Sassanid Empire for the entirety of that period you mention, never lost the empire completely. That allowed Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople to be major schools of Christian thought. I would also add that Rome quite honestly, never "really" got directly involved with the Christological heresies since none of the Ecumenical Councils was held in the western empire. Rome mainly had to deal with Arian Goths running the west which was finally resolved by the Council of Toledo by adding the filioque clause to the creed.

As for fun history, look up two podcasts, the History of Rome (founding of Rome to fall of the west) and the History of Byzantium (still on going).
 
Upvote 0

laternonjuror

Active Member
May 20, 2015
136
6
91
✟15,306.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Thanks. Dave Armstrong lists more then 40 Patriarchs (of Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch) who were heretical between about 450 A.D. and about 700 A.D. Most of them were Monophysites, and many were Monothelites.

He thinks the East was especially heretical in the Robber Synod of Ephesus AD 449 I think) and in the Henoticon (in the 480s?)

So, if that's true--and even if Honorius was heretical, though not in a definitive way--wouldn't Rome still have a much better record than the East?

Basically it seems like only a few Popes are brought up as potential heretics: especially Liberius, Honorius, and Vigilius.

Not saying I know a lot about history... just asking questions.

What you are ignoring is the fact that Honorius at least was condemned by at least two Popes and the Roman Church for two hundred years? Why didn't the various popes say something, why was it left to carry on for two hundred years ,'An'Athema to Honorius the heretic'
 
Upvote 0

Alive_Again

Resident Alien
Sep 16, 2010
4,167
231
✟12,991.00
Faith
Word of Faith
I've been a student on this subject, and when and how the church moved out of the supernatural and into what it became.

If you look at the church in the scripture and Peter, it does not reflect any kind of "primacy". There is nothing relating to the authority the Popes have taken. Thankfully, it's not at all like that now. Peter was one of the "chief Apostles". He was one of the "inner circle" of Peter, James, and John. But there isn't anything in the Bible about "primacy".

We don't even know that he died in Rome, let alone become "Bishop of Rome". For generations there were "Bishops of Rome", but no Popes bearing primacy over all of the church. Certain Bishops at times have asserted varying levels of authority and that has grown into the "primacy" thing that split the church.

Throughout scripture, hearing and obeying the testimony of God has always been the prescription for the overcomer. Revelation from God (directly into your spirit), hearing and obeying that brings the victory that Hell cannot prevail over. That is what Jesus spoke of. Revelatory keys (not just for Peter), but for the entire church to bind and loose. It's flowing with the Holy Spirit (and the spirit realm) to bring the Kingdom of God. But instead of hearing and acting on revelation, it was turned into a "man" holding the keys. An individual now can determine (by way of Peter) who can get in and who is to be barred from entry.

When you look through the centuries at how this "binding and loosing" "authority" has been used (to threaten disbarment from the kingdom) it's clear that some abuse has occurred. This is always the case when man is at the helm. It eventually gets turned around.

The prophetic voice was lost to the church for a long time. Doesn't it seem odd to you that god readily spoke to people with a corrupt Adamic nature, and then not long as it became better that Jesus left (because of the Holy Spirit), the prophetic voice was seemingly lost to the church? In Corinthians, ALL could prophecy.

Anyway, the state entered into the picture and a lot of people were doubtlessly baptized (for advantage), but were not really converted. Jesus said FEW would hear and be saved, and yet almost EVERYBODY in the West for a long time belonged to the church. How many of those belonged to God, we cannot say.

It's a fascinating study to review how the "Papacy" came about in the way that it did. I'm not anti-Catholic. But there was a big difference between the foot washing Peter and the toe-kissing Popes who decided who would be king, who would be deposed, entire countries on "interdict" (no more sacraments until the Pope's will was acomplished). Some countries had no services for years. Hard to believe!

The state worked with the church leadership to either banish or kill those who believed differently than their "orthodox" positions. Don't get me wrong, orthodoxy is important, but heresy became that which was contrary to the church's teaching and that became a capital crime for a long time. I don't believe for a minute God ever condoned violence against those He died to save. The church brandished carnal weaponry and for a LONG time, used fear to keep people in check.

Although many Catholics are offended by the Reformation, it enabled people to walk according to their conscience and not be persecuted. It is true that many strange doctrines have been devised, but much of that won't keep you out of Heaven if you walk in love and seek God's will for your life.

I agree that many of these Popes were sincere in their methods, but many were wrong and its no surprise that various revivals didn't start taking place until after the Reformation. A knowledge of righteousness and redemption to help bring the church forward into it's great calling. A marvelous move of the Holy Spirit is taking place in many churches (even Catholic churches). We can be thankful to live in the day that we do and that we are free to choose where to fellowship.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What you are ignoring is the fact that Honorius at least was condemned by at least two Popes and the Roman Church for two hundred years?

Can you give an example? I'm ignorant and no historian, so I'm just trying to learn a little at a time.

Didn't St. Maximus the Confessor and Pope John IV (640-642)--both strong opponents of Monothelitism--testify to Honorius's orthodoxy?
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301

The article above says that at the 6th Ecumenical Council Pope Agatho said the Papacy is infallible and that he and all the previous popes had always warned the Monothelites that they should at least be silent about their heretical doctrine. The article says that the Council agreed and anathematized anyone who disagreed.

But even if Honorious was a heretic, what do you think that proves? It seems like the fact that non-Catholics focus mainly on just three cases--including that or Honorius--suggests the general stability of the Papacy as to doctrine?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I've been a student on this subject, and when and how the church moved out of the supernatural and into what it became.

If you look at the church in the scripture and Peter, it does not reflect any kind of "primacy". There is nothing relating to the authority the Popes have taken. Thankfully, it's not at all like that now. Peter was one of the "chief Apostles". He was one of the "inner circle" of Peter, James, and John. But there isn't anything in the Bible about "primacy".

Hi Alive Again,

As I understand it, most scholars acknowledge that Peter had a preeminent place among the Apostles. Certainly there is a lot of patristic evidence for it.

I know that the famous Protestant scholar DA Carson affirms that Christ built the Church on Rock (Peter), as the Church fathers testify.

And Dave Armstrong cites 50 N.T. evidences of Rock's (i.e. Peter's) primacy among the Apostles:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html

We don't even know that he died in Rome, let alone become "Bishop of Rome".

This claim seems similar to claiming that we don't know if the Apostles had any idea of a New Testament Canon.

According to the early historical sources--as well as 1 Pt 5:13-- Peter did go to Rome and he did leave a successor.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-roman-residency
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-successors
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,513
New York
✟212,454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Also is this quotation of Sts Cyril and Methodius accurate?:

Sts. Cyril & Methodius (c. 865):
"It is not true, as this Canon states, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ himself 'Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep'. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches" ([/QUOTE]



No, this quote is not authentic. Its a fraud invented by latin apologists sometime in the late 1800's. Or as the latin apologists claim, it was 'discovered'in the 1800's.

If this was even remotely authentic (as others elsewhere have pointed out)the Poles would be using it against the Russians. Such a quote would have political ramifications in the slavic world. Just more forgeries.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, this quote is not authentic. Its a fraud invented by latin apologists sometime in the late 1800's. Or as the latin apologists claim, it was 'discovered'in the 1800's.

If this was even remotely authentic (as others elsewhere have pointed out)the Poles would be using it against the Russians. Such a quote would have political ramifications in the slavic world. Just more forgeries.

Thanks, Buzoxi,

Are you saying that N. Brianchaninov forged it? Is he a Catholic source?

Maybe it is a forgery. But I just want to make sure it really is forged, and is not just being claimed as a forgery because people don't like what the quote says.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Paul was the first to reach Rome and preach to the Romans. He appointed Linus. When Paul arrived in Rome, Peter was still residing in Corinth.
Just read the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians and the fragments of Dionysios of Corinth from 170AD

Hi Buzuxi,

Could you elaborate?

This article by Mark Bonocore says that Peter founded the Roman Church, and that that the tradition of the Church--in both east and west--is that Peter founded Rome,and that Paul had not been there yet when he wrote his letter to the Romans, in which he indicates that the Roman Church had already been founded.
http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_bishop_of_rome_primacy.php
 
Upvote 0

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,513
New York
✟212,454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
All nonsense from Latin apologists. Read the epistle to the Romans, the Church of Rome was simply a prayer house it was not organised yet. No apostle had yet visted Rome even the book of Acts make clear that Jesus elected Paul to be the first to reach Rome.
Peter was in Corinth, this is why there are multiple references to him in the epistle to the Corinthians. This is verified by Dionysios of Corinth who wrote an epistle to the Romans in 170ad.
Pope Gregory I commenting on a passage from the epistle to the Romans clearly says that the romans were disciples of Paul not Peter.

And yes I GUARANTEE that Cyril Methodios quote is a fraud. In fact most roman catholics also know its a fraud and will admit to it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All nonsense from Latin apologists. Read the epistle to the Romans, the Church of Rome was simply a prayer house it was not organised yet. Even the book of Acts make clear that Jesus elected Paul to be the first to reach Rome.
Peter was in Corinth, this is why there are multiple references to him in the epistle to the Corinthians. This is verified by Dionysios of Corinth who wrote an epistle to the Romans in 170ad.
Pope Gregory I commenting on a passage from the epistle to the Romans clearly says that the romans were disciples of Paul.

And yes I GUARANTEE the Cyril Methodios quote is a fraud. In fact most roman catholics also know its a fraud and will admit it.

Hi Buzuxi,

I'm looking for specific evidence for the claims being made.

Assuming that Paul did reach Rome first--which I do not know--I don't see how that would affect Catholic doctrine.

Are you saying that N. Brianchaninov forged the letter from Cyril, which affirms Papal Supremacy?

Do you agree with the general patristic claim that the Church is built on Simon Rock?

Also, as to 1 Pt 5:13: would you say that Peter wrote this epistle, and that Peter was in Rome at that time this epistle was written?

I did find this quotation from St. Dionysius of Corinth, saying that Peter and Paul both taught at Corinth and that both taught also in Italy and were martyred there
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-roman-residency
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,513
New York
✟212,454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Patristic evidence does not claim the Rock is Cephas. Wherever any Father made that claim they later clarified that it was Peters confession of faith that is the bedrock elsewhere in their work.
This is clear in Matt 16 where the entire verse in the original greek is phrased in the feminine (ταυτη πετρα), the πετρα is clearly refered to as a 'she' in the feminine article. Both the article and the noun are feminine.

Whether it was Brianchininov or whether he borrowed it, it is indeed a forgery invented no more 150 years ago. And those are not the only forgeries.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, patristic evidence is not claiming the Rock is Cephas. Wherever any Father made that claim they later clarified that it was Peters confession of faith that is the bedrock. This is clear in Matt 16 where the entire verse in greek is phrased in the feminine (ταυτη πετρα), the πετρα is clearly refered to as a 'she' in the feminine article.

Whether it was Brianchininov or whether he borrowed it, it is indeed a forgery invented about150 years ago.

I don't know Greek. But I've heard that "petra" is a feminine word, yes. "Petros"--Simon's name-- is the masculine version. Why would that mean anything? Moreover, isn't the underlying Aramaic word "kepha", which also means "Rock"?

I mean, why did Christ give him the name "Rock" at all?

I've heard that all the fathers who said that Peter's confession is the rock (an idea which would also seem to support the Papal claims) also affirmed that Peter is the Rock.

I know that Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Ephrem, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil--for example-- said that the Church is built on Simon Rock:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

As to Brianchaninov: who was he? Was he even Catholic? And how do you know it was a forgery at all?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,513
New York
✟212,454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Do you agree with the general patristic claim that the Church is built on Simon Rock?


This is not the patristic claim its more papal apologist nonsense, throwing spahetti at the wall trying to see what sticks. In fact after 2000 years of christianity and literally millions of pages of writings and manuscripts all the latin apologists can come up with is 2 pages of out of context single sentence quotes with many of them being forgeries to boot!!!

Here is the universal patristic understanding of Matt 16:18 including commentary from Pope Leo himself (oh and if the following quotes are out of context i beg you to go to the original read it in full):

"And I say unto you upon this rock I will build my church, that is on the faith of the confession". (John Chrysostom homily 54)

"Upon this firmness he says he shall raise my temple, and it will rise on the steadfastness of this faith, and the loftiness of my church will mingle with the heaven. The gates of Hades shall not master this profession, nor the bonds of death bind it. For those words are the words of life and as they raise those that confess them to heaven, so they plunge those that deny them to hell"
(Pope Leo sermon 83)

St Bede the Venerable early 8th century doctor of the western church- "Thou art Peter and upon this rock from which thou did receive thy name, that is, upon Me Myself, I will build my church, and if anyone turns aside from the society of this confession, even though it may seem to him that he does great things, he will not belong to the building which is my church".(Venerable Bede Homily 1.16 After Epiphany)

As you can see not only does a pope agree it is Peter's confession of faith that is the rock, even the Venerable Bede a western saint and doctor of the Latin church in the 8th century says the same.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is not the patristic claim more papal apologist nonsense. Here is the universal patristic understanding of Matt 16:18 including commentary from Pope Leo himself:

"And I say unto you upon this rock I will build my church, that is on the faith of the confession". (John Chrysostom homily 54).

Okay.

According to the CatholicBridge.com: grammatically, in the sentence "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church", "this" would have to refer to the nearest pronoun, which is "Rock" (Peter).
http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_is_peter_the_rock.php

I just provided quotes from Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, etc, saying that the Church is built on Simon Rock.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

This doesn't preclude the claim that the Church is built on Simon Rock's confession of faith, does it? (And wouldn't that also support the claim's as to Simon Rock's primacy, and that of his successors?)

Likewise you cite Leo, but as I recall Leo--regarded as a saint by both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox--said the Church is built on Peter, and that the Bishop of Rome has supreme authority in the Church.

Are there any fathers which explicitly say that the Church is DEFINITELY NOT built on Simon Rock? If so, how many?

Also, why did Christ give Simon the name "Rock"?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0