Request for Clarification about Orthodox Teachings/History

I don't see how the idea that Rome's primacy was based on politics fits with Eucharistic ecclesiology, which holds that primacy is based on grace and truth.

I also don't see how the idea that we must agree with all the Canons of the Councils fits with Eucharistic ecclesiology, which holds that there is no power over the Bishop and his Church.

Moreover, as I understand it, the Council of Chalcedon was compelled by Leo and Marcian to define "in two natures", when they didn't want to. And Chalcedon also referred to Leo as their "Head" and to themselves as his "members", and his "children".

As far as Honorius, as I understand it, he was condemned for banning both the expression "two wills" and "one will". In other words, he didn't affirm the truth that Christ definitely has two wills.

But he didn't define anything heretical.

The Council that condemned him for this negligence--the 6th Ecumenical Council--also affirmed that the Papacy had never been heretical and said Pope Agatho spoke with the voice of "the Chiefest of the Apostles".

As I understand it, Popes can be fallible, except when they are dogmatizing for the whole Church.

Apparently Popes don't mess up like Honorius did very often, since everyone brings up the same two or three cases in the early Church (Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius)

As far as Orthodoxy, it sounds to me--an ignorant person, for what it's worth--that Rome certainly had a very good track record overall, and never defined any heresy.

I know that Honorius writes to Sergius--the Monothelite Patriarch of Contantinople:

"Hence we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ also, because surely our nature, not our guilt, was assumed by the Godhead"



Thank you,

Pat

ArmyMatt said:

you say: So what is the evidence that the Church--in the subsequent decades and centuries to the debate about rebaptism--rejected Stephen's teaching that heretics should not be re-baptized?

doesn't matter, the Church sided against the Pope that they could for St Cyprian

you say: Could you please be more specific? And do all the Orthodox Church have the same policies in regard to re-baptizing heretics?

well no, someone born outside of the faith is not a heretic. and the beliefs of the world outside of the Church are many varied, so I can't.

you say: Apparently Irenaeus both believed that all the churches should agree with the Roman Succession, and that Popes can make mistakes, especially in matters of discipline.

Honorius' anethema and Vigilius' excommunication were not matters of discipline.

you say: Sure, and St. Catherine of Sienna corrected the Pope too. There is nothing contrary to Catholic teaching about that, is there?

I dunno, I am not RC, and I don't know what she was correcting the Pope on.

you say: But if Eucharistic ecclesiology is based on grace and not the law, then Rome's role as the center of ecumenical agreement--acknowledged unanimously by the fathers and councils according to Schmemann-- had to be a matter of grace, and not because she was the capitol of a legal Empire. Right?

the Councils say because she was the capital of the Empire, and this supposes a Papacy that did not fall into heresy

Click to expand...

Hi ArmyMatt,

Thank you.

Please see most post previous to this. I accidentally messed it up, but there's some of my response left.

As far as Pope Stephen and Cyprian, I don't have any evidence that the Church has concluded that Stephen was wrong.

Nor do I know what is the position of the Orthodox in regard to re-baptism.

Also, as I mentioned and quoted, some of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils apparently affirmed Pope Stephen's position. (Please see post 187 below)

Thank you,

Pat

kit said:

I didn't see if there was an answer to the question about all churches being in Communion. Clearly Communion in the most common usage of the word. There are political conflicts that lead to churches not "relating" to one another but it wouldn't be accurate to say they aren't in communion. The Macedonian Orthodox Church is an apt example. Bulgarians and Serbs have issues about it's autonomy or autocephaly but I doubt precious few would deny access or refuse access when in the territory of each other.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Kit.

Would the Bulgarians, for example, concelebrate the Eucharist with the Macedonian Orthodox Church?

Also, do you know if the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) has good relations with the Russian Orthodox Church and the other Orthodox churches?

Thank you,

Pat

ArmyMatt,

As I mentioned, here is the 2nd Ecumenical Council's apparent confirmation of Pope Stephen's position, with a link to more evidence as well.

It says that various heretical groups need only renounce their heresy and be confirmed in the Church.

It says nothing about a need for re-baptism.

"Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians...and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Second Ecumenical Council Canon 5)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=971248

ArmyMatt said:

I know what you are posting patricius, you seem to be fishing for loopholes. Honorius was anathematized for heresy not only by the Councils, but by the Liber Diurnus as well. To say he did not define anything heretical is wrong.

Click to expand...

Hi ArmyMatt,

Thank you.

Where did Pope Honorius define something heretical? If possible, please quote exactly what was said and why you believe it is a definition of faith (a dogmatic statement binding on the faithful).

As I understand it, he rejected the idea of "one operation" (one will) because it sounded Eutychian (Monophysite).

So he did reject Monophysitism and Monothelitism.

As I understand it, his error was to reject the idea of "two operations", because he thought that this involved the idea of Christ having a sinful human nature, and because "two operations" sounded Nestorian (much as Chalcedon seemed to hesitate about defining "in two natures", until pushed hard to do so by Leo and Marcian).

But did he dogmatically define that Christ does not have two wills? If so, where?

I know he was condemned, but was it for defining something heretical, or was it because he had failed to define Catholic orthodoxy as Head of the Church?

As I understand it, Honorius had said that people should not refer to Christ as having one operation (one will), but should refer to him as one Operator (i.e. one person).

Obviously that contradicts Monothelitism (as well as Nestorianism).

In his letter/s to Sergius of Constantinople., Honorius said that Christ had two natures, and added:

"instead of one operation.... we should confess one operator"

That hardly is consistent with Monothelitism.

Also, St. Maximus the Confessor said that Honorius was not a heretic, but was saying that Christ did not have a "will of the flesh" (i.e. a sinful will).

That's my honest understanding, though I am not really qualified to be an apologist, given my great limitations, and that I may be mistaken in various ways.

As I understand it, the 6th Ecumenical Council affirmed Pope Agatho's letter, which said that the Papacy had never been heretical.

As far as the Liber Diurnus, I don't know anything about that.

Moreover, according to Dave Armstrong--who could be wrong--there were 10 Patriarchs of Constantinople in the early Church who were Monophysite or Monothelite.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html

And between 341 to 681 at least 2 of the three great Eastern Patriarchates were simultaneously heterodox for 112 years.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html

And essentially the whole Eastern clergy missed the mark at the Robber Council of Ephesus and by signing the Henoticon
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html

I'm not trying to bash the East here, or to suggest that Catholics are better than the Orthodox. I'm just trying to put the claims against Honorius in perspective.

I realize that many of the great theologians in the early Church were from the East, such as Athanasius (who submitted his case to Rome), Cyril (who submitted his case to Rome), Basil (who submitted his case to Rome), Gregory Nazienzen (who praised the faith of Rome), etc.

However, as I understand it, both Cyril of Alex. and Athanasius said Christ was "One Nature Incarnate", which does sound Monophysite or Miaphysite. But they were saints, however, and not heretics.

Thank you,

Pat

isshinwhat said:

Pope Honorius was not anathematized because of what he failed to do, he actually confirmed and followed heresy. He even sent a Deacon named Gaios to represent him and Rome in confirming heresy at the Synod of Cyprus in 634. He officially taught and confirmed heresy in his position as Bishop of Rome.

"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."​

Click to expand...

Hi Isshinwhat,

Thank you.

Would you please document Honorius where he supposedly defined Monothelitism as a doctrine binding on the Church?

As far as the condemnation by the 6th Council for what he wrote to Sergius: how does Honorius dogmatize for the whole Church in his letters to Sergius?

As far as the Synod of Cyprus, I don't know anything about that. Would you like to document what you are referring to?

It also seems like a lot in my last post was not addressed, such as Honorius's statement that we should not refer to one operation (one will) in Christ; and his affirmation of Christ's two nature's; and his understanding of the issue as being whether or not Christ had a sinful will (which he denied); and St. Maximus the Confessor's defense of Honorius; and the supposed record of heresy in the Eastern Church and the Eastern Patriarchates.

I mean to ask: would you agree that Rome had a much better record of Catholic Orthodoxy than the Eastern Church?

Perhaps both of us are going by secondary sources rather than a deep knowledge of primary sources.

Thank you,

Pat

ArmyMatt said:

you say: I know he was condemned, but was it for defining something heretical, or was it because he had failed to define Catholic orthodoxy as Head of the Church?

you don't get condemned for failing to defend Orthodoxy. you get condemned for being a heretic. the Councils name him as a monothelite, as does the Liber Duirnus in naming him a heretic.

you say: I realize that many of the great theologians in the early Church were from the East, such as Athanasius (who submitted his case to Rome), Cyril (who submitted his case to Rome), Basil (who submitted his case to Rome), Gregory Nazienzen (who praised the faith of Rome), etc.

and all of them were before Rome fell away. we would do the same for Constantinople unless they fall away.

you say: However, as I understand it, both Cyril of Alex. and Athanasius said Christ was "One Nature Incarnate", which does sound Monophysite or Miaphysite. But they were saints, however, and not heretics.

because their faith was clarified. Honorius was not. he is a heretic

please stop reminding us of your limitations

Click to expand...

Hi ArmyMatt,

Thank you.

Where did Pope Honorius define something heretical? If possible, please quote exactly what Honorius said and why you believe it is a definition of faith (a dogmatic statement binding on the faithful).

Also, did the 6th Ecumenical Council which condemned Honorius also affirm Pope Agatho's claim that the Apostolic See (Rome) had never taught heresy?

As far as Cyril and Athanasius, where did they clarify or renounce their idea that Christ is "One Nature Incarnate"?

Also, Dave Armstrong claims that the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church for 220 years between 343 and 843 because the East was following the heresies of Arianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, and Iconoclasm
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html

Do you know if that is accurate?


Thank you,

Pat

ArmyMatt said:

dude, stop trying to find a loophole. even if nothing was known that he wrote, the Church, to include Rome, said he is a heretic. that is all that we need to know. the Church would not have condemned him as one if he was not one. as for St Agatho's claim I dunno. but members of the Church can teach heresy, while the Church never will. since Rome was still in communion with the Church, at the time they did not teach heresy, even if a Pope did.

you say: As far as Cyril and Athanasius, where did they clarify or renounce their idea that Christ is "One Nature Incarnate"?

saying that he is One Nature Incarnate was clarified at whichever council tried to bring back the Monophysites, and restated I think at the Balamand agreement later in the 1990's

you say: Also, Dave Armstrong claims that the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church for 220 years between 343 and 843 because the East was following the heresies of Arianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, and Iconoclasm

so what? the councils and most of the Fathers that condemned those heresies were also in the East. East also had some of the greatest defenders againts heresy, so yeah, that is innaccurate.

please stop trying to find loopholes as to why someone is a saint or heretic. the Church affirms what is true. even if we knew nothing of Honorius, we would know enough because the Church condemned him. so please stop. this is getting annoying.

Click to expand...

Hi ArmyMatt,

Thank you.

Clearly we have different sources and have a lot of gaps in our knowledge of these matters.

It does appear that neither of us has evidence that Honorius--though he failed seriously--defined Monothelitism as binding on the Church.

If he had, I doubt that St. Maximus the Confessor would have defended him, or that same Ecumenical Council would have agreed with Pope Agatho's claim that the Roman See had always been orthodox.

The dogma of Papal Infallibility does not mean that Popes will always be good leaders, or that they will have all the answers, but only that they will never define an error in their role as the Successor of St. Rock.

Is that your understanding? Or do you have a different one?

As I understand it, the Catholic Church doesn't claim that Popes cannot ever be in error or heretical in some sense, but only that they cannot officially dogmatize error.

As far as Athanasius and Cyril, I don't know that they themselves ever recanted the "One Nature Incarnate" phrase. But given their deference to Rome, I'm sure they would have if they were asked to.

Yes, as I understand it, the early Ecumenical Councils were held in the East and many of the greatest defenders of the Catholic faith--like Athanasius and Cyril-- were from the East (and submissive to Rome).

I don't see how that refutes the claim that Rome had a stellar record of Catholic Orthodoxy compared to the Eastern Sees; or the related claim that 10 of the Patriarchs of Constantinople were Monophysite or Monothelite; or the related claim that between 341 to 681 at least 2 of the three great Eastern Patriarchates were simultaneously heterodox for 112 years; or the claim that the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church for 220 years between 343 and 843 because the East was following the heresies of Arianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, and Iconoclasm

So that seems to provide some context to the few hard cases that are brought up as to the See of Rock.

Peace,

Pat

isshinwhat said:

As far as I know they no longer exist. They were burned as a result of the Sixth Council.

Click to expand...

Didn't the 6th Council condemn Honorius for his letters to Sergius, which we still have?

Btw, did they say anything about the Honorius as to the synod of Tyre?

Honorius would never have spoken according to the new Roman definition of ex cathedra because no Pope in the first millennium would ever have claimed the right to speak for anything but the See of Rome according to the faith he inherited.

Click to expand...

Okay, so what I'm hearing is that you acknowledge that Honorius was not claiming to speak ex cathedra. That is, he was not dogmatizing for the whole Church.

If I remember right, the Papacy had long since explicitly claimed to have divine authority over the whole Church. For example, this was claimed by St. Damasus in the 380s (and as far as I know, nobody objected), who was a Pope that both Jerome and Basil appealed to as the East was profoundly disturbed.

So my question is: how do we know that Honorius claimed to speak definitively for the Church?

However, what we have from the historical account is his support of heresy at Cyprus through Gaios and via the words of the Sixth Council whose fathers condemned him as a heretic for teaching heresy. In the Imperial Decree which confirmed the Council, the Emperor wrote, "We anathemas all heresy from... Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."

Click to expand...

Could you document your claims about the Honorius and the Synod of Cyprus?

I'm not sure what the claims of the Emperor would prove. But as I understand it, Honorius was seriously in error, yes. But as you acknowledge, he did not speak ex cathedra on the issue.

I'll see if I can find the full text, but it is a matter of undisputed historical record.

Click to expand...

As I understand it, III Contantinople condemned Honorius for heresy, yes.

No offense, but the Fathers of the Sixth Council anathemized him as a heretic. It really doesn't matter what you or I want to discern in trying to not make him a heretic.

Click to expand...

I agree. But why did St. Maximus the Confessor defend him? And why did Honorius--in his letters to Sergius--reject the idea that Christ had one will?

As for the heresy of the Eastern Patriarchates, it's not a numerical competition, but if it were Rome has now been heterodox for almost 1000 years so it's a moot point.

Click to expand...

Obviously we would disagree as to the last 1000 years. But as to the early Church, supposedly the Eastern Church and Eastern Patriarchates had far more problems with heresy than Rome, which , as Pope St. Agatho and III Constantinople supposedly agreed, had never been heterodox.

Peace,

Pat