Who Started the Great Schism?

[prodromos]

Forward to today.
As far as I know the EO does not have a unity among the 5 Churches. I don't seem to see a unit of one teaching.

They all teach the same faith, regardless of what you "seem to see".
Where is the unity in the Catholic Church with regards to marriage? In the Eastern rites the priest performs the sacrament while in the Latin rite it is the couple themselves who perform the sacrament, which has led to something akin to the heresy of Donatism with marriages being declared null due to some deficiency in one or both of the celebrants.

 

[WarriorAngel]

They all teach the same faith, regardless of what you "seem to see".
Where is the unity in the Catholic Church with regards to marriage? In the Eastern rites the priest performs the sacrament while in the Latin rite it is the couple themselves who perform the sacrament, which has led to something akin to the heresy of Donatism with marriages being declared null due to some deficiency in one or both of the celebrants.

You seem to oblige rumors.

Well the Church does NOT accept a marriage outside the priest/Bishop doing it.

Who performs the sacrament of marriage?

Marriage is different to most of the Sacraments which are conferred by a priest, or bishop. The man and woman confer the Sacrament of Marriage upon each other when they express their consent to marry before God and the Church. As a Sacrament Marriage is part of the Church's liturgy.

Remember, priests stand in for Christ conferring/confecting sacraments. Therefore they must have a priest [clergy of the priesthood] otherwise it is not before the Lord.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Scholars believe that it is debatable whether he was a heretic. They hold that he seems to have misunderstood the point at issue, noting that his language is partially vague.

the Liber Diurnus, which subsequent Popes affirmed, named Honorius as a heretic.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It appears many love to go back to Honorius who was not only vague, dying himself, and refused to expound any teachings, but Leo was most appalled at his lack of teachings.
His lack of explanation and why he said to use caution and when he was written to, had passed already.

Due to his lack of 'understanding' the council [yes council mind you] he agreed that you cannot divide Jesus therefore; He has one will.

IMHO I don't see this as a make or break deal. Because though the wording was not in keeping absolutes:

Pope Agatho explained it as His human will giving over and doing the One will of the Divine.
But if we should like to ruminate this for centuries as a cause for division, it flies in the face of what Jesus prayed.

Without giving it a name - it does in the end- suggest Jesus did have One Will. His Fathers will and He was far greater in His subjugation to the Father in all matters that though human will was present, He did not hesitate to do the One Will of the Father.


John 17:
Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.

To make this most efficient, minding human will and egos of those on earth, that neither is a council alone an authority, because it was always the Pope of Rome who signed off and taught on what the council's decided.
But in keeping with the desire of the Trinity, it is not the Apostles chairs to stand or teach apart and alone from Rome.

That said; the chair of Peter remains the teacher.

Although Leo decided Honorius was appallingly lax and left it to seem heretical, it was still Rome's chair of Peter via Leo - and moreover, Leo himself didn't expound on the teachings as of yet.

Much research and such had to be done. It was not done during Leo, and so how can we defame a dying Pope who could not do the same?

I think Agatho had the proper understanding in the time that was needed.

AND although humanity should like to proclaim simple faith, when tested they seem to let egos stand in the way.

Whether we know what causes these divisions, principalities in or outside the world, there is one truth.

BE ONE...

 

[WarriorAngel]

Final conclusion: Honorius was agreeing vaguely with a council.

So is a council an authority after all?

And why did everyone rise up and suggest heresy --- if they wrote back to him to explain what he meant but he had already died??

So what they were left holding was a vague reply that wasn't sufficient to understand and based on a council of previous years.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So is a council an authority after all?

if it is affirmed by the Church? yes. and Honorius’ condemnation was affirmed.

 

[ArmyMatt]

To make this most efficient, minding human will and egos of those on earth, that neither is a council alone an authority, because it was always the Pope of Rome who signed off and taught on what the council's decided.

not true. Ephesus was decided and finished before the Roman delegation got there. so no, they didn’t specifically need Rome in any unique way.

 

[prodromos]

You seem to oblige rumors.

How so? You go on to confirm exactly what I posted, so what 'rumors' am I obliging?

Well the Church does NOT accept a marriage outside the priest/Bishop doing it.

In the Latin rite the deacon, priest or bishop is merely the witness representing the Church. They do not perform the marriage, which you confirm in the following:

Who performs the sacrament of marriage?

Marriage is different to most of the Sacraments which are conferred by a priest, or bishop. The man and woman confer the Sacrament of Marriage upon each other when they express their consent to marry before God and the Church. As a Sacrament Marriage is part of the Church's liturgy.

Except you then contradict what you said above

Remember, priests stand in for Christ conferring/confecting sacraments. Therefore they must have a priest [clergy of the priesthood] otherwise it is not before the Lord.

So who confers the sacrament? The couple or the clergy?
Also, if it is the same sacrament whether performed in the Latin rite or the Eastern rite, why can a deacon witness a Latin rite marriage but cannot perform ans Eastern rite marriage?

 

[prodromos]

To make this most efficient, minding human will and egos of those on earth, that neither is a council alone an authority, because it was always the Pope of Rome who signed off and taught on what the council's decided.

Yes, the Pope of Rome was asked to sign off on the decisions of the councils, as was every other bishop who was not in attendance at the councils. It was a formality, not a power of veto.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, the Pope of Rome was asked to sign off on the decisions of the councils, as was every other bishop who was not in attendance at the councils. It was a formality, not a power of veto.

as evidenced by Ephesus.

 

[abacabb3]

Forward to today.
As far as I know the EO does not have a unity among the 5 Churches. I don't seem to see a unit of one teaching.

We have many more than five Patriarchates and local churches, as referred to above, and our unity is perfectly strong as Roman Catholics have their own divides. Look at the hyper-liberal synod in France recently.

As follows seems to be "stuff that shows the Pope was always Vatican-I in his powers" which actually does not address the question of this thread, schism. No one denies that a man, as father and husband, is the head of his household. Yet, if that man absconds and deserts the family, is the man in isolation with his new women and new children (metaphors for heretical doctrines and new bishops he is in communion with) the family though he went ahead and split from the original family? Any normal person would identify the family is intact under the original wife and kids, and the ex husband is wayward and in fact, in a real sense "out" of the family. He is an ex.

Historically, the above example, as shown in the video, appears to actually play out. So, whether the Pope has vatican-i powers or not (though we think he does not) is actually irrelevant to the question.

As far as Honorius goes.
Honorius replied by referring to the Council of Chalcedon’s confession of faith (451), which held that Christ’s natures were indivisible and which he interpreted as meaning a single will in Christ.

Which the sixth council denounced as heresy. Ironically, in the 8th RC ecumenical council (Orthodox recognize the legitimate council of Constantinople that occurred 10 years later), Pope Adrian II stated: "For even though Honorius was anathematized after death by the easterners, it should be known that he had been accused of heresy, which is the only offense that inferiors have the right to resist the initiatives of their superior or are free to reject their false opinions." Pope Adrian II not only accepts that Honorius was a heretic, but he recognizes that Popes *can* be heretics, and there is complete freedom in rejecting the opinions and machinations of these heretics.

So, while I'd be sympathetic to a reinterpretation of Honorius based on good grounds, I just see it as a no go for both of us. To re-evaluate Honorius requires the Orthodox (and you) to reject the conclusion of the sixth council. For you, it requires you to reject the ex cathedra statement of a Pope to one of your own ecumenical councils. Maybe, Protestant scholars can see this as an open question, but it should be settled for both of us.

A lot of your reply appears copy and pasted when I throw it into google by the way.

You ask:

SO why is that so upsetting to all Churches and why did they finally find comfort in Rome's Pope Agatho to make the final conclusion??

Pope Agatho's letter was near the beginning of the 6th council. Later sessions as well as the decree of the council and the Pope who received the council, and later Popes, and canon 1 of Trullo, and the Council of Nicea II, all condemned Honorius.

 

[abacabb3]

Yes, the Pope of Rome was asked to sign off on the decisions of the councils, as was every other bishop who was not in attendance at the councils. It was a formality, not a power of veto.

In a sense, councils had hundreds of potential vetos. The reception of each Patriarch and his *synod* was necessary.

 

[WarriorAngel]

We have many more than five Patriarchates and local churches, as referred to above, and our unity is perfectly strong as Roman Catholics have their own divides. Look at the hyper-liberal synod in France recently.

As follows seems to be "stuff that shows the Pope was always Vatican-I in his powers" which actually does not address the question of this thread, schism. No one denies that a man, as father and husband, is the head of his household. Yet, if that man absconds and deserts the family, is the man in isolation with his new women and new children (metaphors for heretical doctrines and new bishops he is in communion with) the family though he went ahead and split from the original family? Any normal person would identify the family is intact under the original wife and kids, and the ex husband is wayward and in fact, in a real sense "out" of the family. He is an ex.

Historically, the above example, as shown in the video, appears to actually play out. So, whether the Pope has vatican-i powers or not (though we think he does not) is actually irrelevant to the question.

Only the Roman Pope has/had the position and choice to excommunicate from the Church other Pontiffs.
Which is why historically you will find him being beseeched in the East when Patriarchs were being exiled, or such. The Roman Pope always had the authority over the others in such matters.

So legally via councils and teachings and spiritually, ya can't cut off your chief and say it's all good.

What is often not understood perhaps is the Roman Pontiff is not an Italian all the time. Popes came from the East. It's just the decided most qualified.
However many Patriarchs you may have today, it was 5 chairs who stood with a NON chair Bishoprick Constantinople.

Which the sixth council denounced as heresy. Ironically, in the 8th RC ecumenical council (Orthodox recognize the legitimate council of Constantinople that occurred 10 years later), Pope Adrian II stated: "For even though Honorius was anathematized after death by the easterners, it should be known that he had been accused of heresy, which is the only offense that inferiors have the right to resist the initiatives of their superior or are free to reject their false opinions." Pope Adrian II not only accepts that Honorius was a heretic, but he recognizes that Popes *can* be heretics, and there is complete freedom in rejecting the opinions and machinations of these heretics.

So, while I'd be sympathetic to a reinterpretation of Honorius based on good grounds, I just see it as a no go for both of us. To re-evaluate Honorius requires the Orthodox (and you) to reject the conclusion of the sixth council. For you, it requires you to reject the ex cathedra statement of a Pope to one of your own ecumenical councils. Maybe, Protestant scholars can see this as an open question, but it should be settled for both of us.

A lot of your reply appears copy and pasted when I throw it into google by the way.

You ask:


Pope Agatho's letter was near the beginning of the 6th council. Later sessions as well as the decree of the council and the Pope who received the council, and later Popes, and canon 1 of Trullo, and the Council of Nicea II, all condemned Honorius.

The Pope is infallible in the words of Jesus ... when teaching.
As the teacher.

However; Honorius left it open to interpret it heretically. He did not teach nor expound on the issue.
Was he already gravely ill and unable to perform. If we knew his medical history.
His cognitive failings.

Again, Leo was furious because he had not taught and left the sheep to scatter to interpret.

St. Leo goes on to speak of the heretics condemned at the synod:

“And in like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”


Essentially IN todays lingo - Honorius did not teach and allowed it remain without pronouncement or teaching.

 

[prodromos]

Only the Roman Pope has/had the position and choice to excommunicate from the Church other Pontiffs.
Which is why historically you will find him being beseeched in the East when Patriarchs were being exiled, or such. The Roman Pope always had the authority over the others in such matters.

So legally via councils and teachings and spiritually, ya can't cut off your chief and say it's all good.

What is often not understood perhaps is the Roman Pontiff is not an Italian all the time. Popes came from the East. It's just the decided most qualified.
However many Patriarchs you may have today, it was 5 chairs who stood with a NON chair Bishoprick Constantinople.


The Pope is infallible in the words of Jesus ... when teaching.
As the teacher.

However; Honorius left it open to interpret it heretically. He did not teach nor expound on the issue.
Was he already gravely ill and unable to perform. If we knew his medical history.
His cognitive failings.

Again, Leo was furious because he had not taught and left the sheep to scatter to interpret.

St. Leo goes on to speak of the heretics condemned at the synod:

“And in like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”


Essentially IN todays lingo - Honorius did not teach and allowed it remain without pronouncement or teaching.

Honestly, your posts read like a Catholic version of Alexander Hislop. You make a bunch of just so statements which are not in fact supported by the historical record. If you really want to debate this then you will have to back up your claims with evidence, and then we can demonstrate why the evidence does not in fact support your claims. I'm not going to waste time posting counter opinions.
You can also drop the condescending tone. Many of us are well read in Church history and probably know a lot more than most Catholic apologists who tend to repeat the same narrow band of talking points.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Only the Roman Pope has/had the position and choice to excommunicate from the Church other Pontiffs.
Which is why historically you will find him being beseeched in the East when Patriarchs were being exiled, or such. The Roman Pope always had the authority over the others in such matters.

again, not true. Roman Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the East for not accepting the 5th council, then was excommunicated by the West after he did accept the 5th Council.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Was Pope Vigilius a Heretic?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Was Pope Vigilius a Heretic?

no one ever said Pope Vigilius was a heretic…

plus, there are a lot of assertions and little actual evidence to back them up.

 

[Andrew.H]

So I'm still a newbie with all this, but doesn't this joint statement essentially concede to the Orthodox position (especially in article 19)? If it's something accepted by the Pope, would that not mean it must be accepted with docility by the laity? I don't see how statements like this can coexist with Vatican 1 personally.

synodality and primacy during the first millennium: towards a common understanding in service to the unity of the church – Ecumenical Patriarchate Permanent Delegation to the World Council of Churches

 

[ArmyMatt]

So I'm still a newbie with all this, but doesn't this joint statement essentially concede to the Orthodox position (especially in article 19)? If it's something accepted by the Pope, would that not mean it must be accepted with docility by the laity? I don't see how statements like this can coexist with Vatican 1 personally.

synodality and primacy during the first millennium: towards a common understanding in service to the unity of the church – Ecumenical Patriarchate Permanent Delegation to the World Council of Churches

Rome has a recent habit of assuming that whatever the current Pope says is what they have always said. and current Popes are very friendly to us.

 

[WarriorAngel]

In the Catholic Church, although Popes have opinions on certain things... global warming, ufo's or whatever they're asked about which does not mean we have to believe.

As far as I know ex cathedra was pronounced just a few times, and Mary Immaculate being one of them.

Rome has a recent habit of assuming that whatever the current Pope says is what they have always said. and current Popes are very friendly to us.

No idea what you mean.

Yeah well I know people praying for the reunification [including Myrna Nazzour.]