www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Primacy of Saint Peter

And I think there is enough evidence to show that the judgement against good Pope Homorius I at Constantinople III was incorrect, if not vindictive.

And you are pretty much alone on that one.

The Great (sixth) Ecumenical Council disagrees with you.

You can rebel against the judgment of the Holy Fathers if you wish.

That could be. I fear not being alone for what I believe to be true.






As far as rebelling against the fathers is concerned; I'm not sure they were all holy. In any case, I'm not rebelling against them. Just disagreeing with their judgement against Pope Honorius. So be it.

Oh my.

SOME TIME POPE OF OLD ROME indicates that he USED to be Pope, Pope no longer at the time of his condemnation.

So I disagree that a Pope of Rome was being condemned by an Ecum Council.

If such an event occurred while the Pope was still Pope, the procedure would have been for the Pope to be given a chance to explain himself. And I have no doubt that, if that happened, the Pope would have exonerated himself easily.

I admit the matter might be viewed very differently from a miaphysite such as myself. I believe Pope Honorius was a miathelite, not a monothelite, and it was due to misunderstanding of his words that he was condemned.

Granted -- he was rightly condemned for supporting the heresy, which Catholic sources (such as the old Catholic Encyclopedia) often readily admit. Whether he supported it because he was actually heretical or because of an ineffective exercise of his office is immaterial. His letter supported the heresy PERIOD and was thus condemned as a heretic.

Blessings,
Marduk

You are playing with words. He was the Pope of Rome when he supported the heresy. He was condemned as a heretic by the Council. Period.


Really? Easily? That is a "what if" scenario. The fact is: He was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Council.

I love Rome--"Not always right, but NEVER wrong".

Christ is in our midst!!

I think where we break down in these discussions is in the idea we have of an Ecumenical Council and how they were perceived until recently.

My understanding is that the Holy Spirit speaks in council by one of two means: the unanimous agreement of the assembled bishops and in the voice of the lone dissenter. Whether the Fathers are holy or knaves matters nothing since the decisions taken are under the Holy Spirit's guidance.

Bob

And there's a very succinct definition of infallibility.

Well said.

It most certainly is not immaterial. A man, who by all other accounts was a man of God and deep faith, was condemned as a heretic by an Ecumenical Council. At most, Pope Honorius was guilty of using imprecise language that Patriarch Sergius and others understood to support their heretical cause. The Lateran Council of 642 quickly corrected any imprecision coming from Rome. He did not teach heresy nor was he a heretic. Like I said in a previous post: the Council's action with regard to Pope Honorius was over-kill. A posthumous censure for indiscretion would have been a more appropriate response. But for Constantinople; they did a slam dunk!

Asserting that every decision of an Ecumenical Council is infused with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is fundamentalism of the worst kind. Pronouncements on the content of the faith, yes; but a a Canon affecting discipline, church order or the judgement on the guilt or innocence of a particular individual? No, I do not accept that.

You can march to your own drummer. I will abide by the Council.

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”
(The Sixteenth Session of the Council of Constantinople)

It would be far more useful to discuss the issues raised at this council than to hurl anathemas.

ISTM that if the council issued an anathema, it issued an anathema.

It is reasonable to explore the various statements considered by the council, to study the nuance and what later church fathers thought of the issues.

Have I hurled anathemas? We have a poster here saying that the Fathers were not holy and the Council was in error...and you accuse me of hurling anathemas?

I will bow out of this thread. Please forgive me if I have offended you.

It certainly appears as if you are hurling anathemas.

But both sides appear to be way off topic.

If anyone wishes to continue the discussion of the anathema, I suggest the following:

1. According to the documents posted here the anathema was issued. No one can say that it wasn't unless can appeal to the documents issued by that council.

2. It is fair to say that the person anathematized didn't really mean what he was accused of (i.e., hold that position). But it should be recognized that the council had a particular understanding and acted upon it. One can offer that the council didn't have all the facts and was wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that the council issued an anathema based upon the information before it.

It's also fair to state that council documents are best interpreted with the Church. That means look to how the whole Church received the decrees of a council.

3. Should one claim that the indeed the council misunderstood, it is appropriate to summarize why, collect and offer the supporting evidence, and add it to a queue for a future council to consider.

4. In the end, each side may have to politely agree to disagree.