www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox in Communion with Rome -- trying again

An excerpt from '1453: MAHOMET II IMPOSES THE ORTHODOX SCHISM'
by Lina Murr Nehm�

QUOTE �The disagreement between the Orthodox and the Catholics is not dogmatic... We are capable of uniting with Rome because we are stubbornly faithful to our roots.�

Thus spoke, in June 1983, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatios IV Hazim, in the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Paris.

Thus also spoke the Orthodox who, in 1439, had put an end to the Schism after interminable discussions with the Catholics at the Council of Florence.

At this Council, the scholarly George Scholarios had called upon them to embrace the Union of the Churches. A short time after his return to Constantinople, however, he retracted and claimed that the causes of the Schism were so grievous that Christ did not want the unity of the Christians, that is, the only thing that could save Constantinople from the Turkish invasion.
After the fall of Constantinople, Scholarios revealed his true motives by accepting the position of Patriarch offered him by the Turkish Sultan, his expensive gifts and a full exemption from the taxes he levied on the Christians. And he helped the Ottomans to impose on the Orthodox the myth of a legal Schism.

From the Orthodox point of view, a Moslem cannot convoke a synod to elect a Patriarch, nor choose that Patriarch, especially if there is a legitimate one. And the decree of such an �Antipatriarch� certainly cannot prevail against that of a Council which included the heads of the two Churches. The Council of Florence is therefore still valid from the Orthodox point of view.
People say that History repeats itself. It is all the more true, when it comes to the tragic story of the fall of Constantinople�
UNQUOTE


Mother Bear

Give me a break. I'm glad to see the Likoudis school of church history has some more pupils.

I've got to agree with AMM on this one. What was presented is an awfully simplified in order to support a completely incorrect point.

There was a small unionist camp, but the truth is short of a few people at Ferrara-Florence the rest of the Byzantine Church rejected that Council. The saintly Emperor allegedly even avoided Hagia Sophia until the very last day because of the unionist clergy.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Lord although I desired to blot out
With my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please thee through sincere repentance;
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
Against my soul with his cunning.
Oh Lord before I utterly perish do thou save me!

The Bolsheviki would be envious of such propoganda!

Pope Vigilius was not deposed, as much as he needed to recant his decision regarding the Three Chapters (from the Wikipedia article, which is basically from the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia, hardly an unbiased source regarding Papal Authority):


It was Pope Honorius who, to be fair joined along with the Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, and indicated that Christ had only one will. Fortunately the conciliar nature of the Church prevailed, and in 681 all Monothelytes were condemned, including this Pope and Patriarch Sergius.

Pope Liberius was the one who first supported Athanasius the Great, then changed his mind and produced an alternative to the Nicene Creed that was Arian in nature, and then recanted by adopting the Nicene Creed after Emperor Constantius II reposed.

I'm trying to think of a mnemonic to try to keep in order the Popes who are brought up when discussing this topic: "LVH". The order of consequences for their statements there are progressive (Liberius was in exile but recanted; Vigilius recanted but was in prison for 8 years; and Honorius was condemned as a heretic) so if their 'historical appearance' is memorized there would not be this confusion.

Thank you Father!

My bad.

Does the Latin Church actually say Pope Honorius was deposed, or simply that his lack of supporting the orthodox position was condemned but not his person?

He was dead at the time, so he wasn't technically deposed. His error was censured, however. The error in question was not that he held to monothelitism, as his letters indicate a relative lack of theological accumen in general, but that he passively condoned what the monothelites were teaching, saying that it was not a matter to be disputed over in either direction. His lack of discernment was scandalous, but does not amount to open advocacy of heresy, any more than the "cease and desist" orders pertaining to the theological debates between the Molinists and Thomists in the Latin Church indicate a positive support of either theological view.

Had the monothelite issue not become evident as a true Christological heresy, rather than a blurry theology, the whole affair likely wouldn't even be remembered. Since it WAS an issue of heresy, however, Pope Honorius seriously dropped the ball and was rightfully posthumously censured. So he's viewed as a scandalously bad Pope in terms of sheparding and protecting the Faithful, but not an outright heretic since the statements we do have of his do not indicate he held to what the Monothelites held, despite is tacit support of them (he apparently thought that they were refering to the unity of will in terms of the humanity of Christ, such that His flesh was not divided against His spirit, to use St. Paul's terminology).

Peace and God bless!

Dear Friends,

Actually, Pope Honorius' successors, until the 12th century, had to repeat an anathema against him until that practice was discontinued.

Rome displayed its displeasure at her less than totally courageous popes when, for example, it refused to number Pope Liberius among the Saints. Liberius is a full Saint in the Byzantine calendar and is therefore locally honoured in Italy as such in areas where the Italo-Greeks lived and live.

It was St Robert Cardinal Bellarmine who laid down some "rules" that involve deposing popes who are guilty of heresy et al. He said that Catholics have not only the right, but the obligation to oppose any pope who would have the audacity to try and destroy the Church etc. As to how that practically translates into how one goes about doing that - it is anyone's guess.

St Catherine of Siena had her method for deposing the three popes of her time - she travelled to see each of them and got them to resign.

The great Dominican Savonarola, living in that time of upheaval when popes and their authority were in question, had no problem disobeying Pope Alexander VI (a sorry excuse for a priest, let alone a pope). But for that reason all the Jesuits, from St Ignatius Loyola onwards, have opposed Savonarola's canonization and they still do.

When Patriarch Joseph Slipyj was told by Rome not to use the title "Patriarch" and to be quiet about the persecuted EC church, he wouldn't listen.

Such disobedience!

Alex

Uncharitable though it may be, I'm of the opinion that Jesuitical opposition is already grounds for instant canonisation.

Dear Pilgrim,

A number of good Dominican Fathers I consulted on this matter eagerly agree with you!

Alex

Haha! Just A Pilgrim, I have to agree! Anyone the Jesuits oppose is probably orthodox; at least, there's a good chance of it!

Logos - Alexis

Indeed! Among Dominicans the only thing worse than a Franciscan is a Jesuit, and that's a feat!

Sorry guys I love traditional Jesuits and Ignatian spirituality. St Ignatius of Loyala, St Xavier, and Cardinal Avery Dulles and even Mithc Pacwa on EWTN have great Jesuit insights. True there have been heretics in their midst since Vatican 2 but you can say that about some Franciscans and others as well its just that because the Jesuits dominate the thought of catholic universites their heretics are more known in a public manner.

And the Jesuits were key in stopping the Dominican madness of burning withces and the Inquisitions of Jews so yeah I can understand why the Dominicans would hold the exposure of the errors of the inquisition against them. We should pray for the Jesuits to return their glorious pass and not denounce the whole order. Watching the movie the Mission one comes to realize the love they had for their flock and the bravity of thier mission for winning the souls for Christ meanwhile always fighting for the social justice of their flock whose well being was ignorned by other religious. THe two greatest missionary orders have been the Franciscans and Jesuits thier openess to the value of other cultures was key in thier success even while that method was scandelous to other orders. Their is more than one spirituality in Catholcism and the Jesuits are just as good as any and dare I say better than most when done in the Orthodx manner of St Ignatius.

P.S. Reading Jesuit Father John Hardon pretty much converted me to the church, without a Jesuit I would still be protestant but shudder the thought of being influened by a Jesuit.