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

The East does not attribute supremacy to her Patriarchs because none of them, save for the Pope of Rome, ever spoke with the authority and voice of St Peter, as the movement of events at the Sixth Ec. Council demonstrates.

Pope St Agatho didn't offer his letter in which he pronounced the Orthodox doctrine to the Council for review, deliberation or discussion.

He offered it as a fait accomplit - and the Fathers of the Council were only too willing to accept it and extoll the Papacy.

That is all in the declarations of the Sixth Council.

Alex

The Patriarchs and bishops are the successors of all the apostles...which includes St Peter. There was never any such "supremacy" in the early Church. The declaration of Pope Honorius as a heretic is testament to that.

Read the Council again.

Since you are fond of quoting Fr. Meyendorff...I will also quote him because he has a nice explanation of this so that you may understand better.

This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries--protestants, Orthodox and anti-infallibilists at Vatican I in 1870--would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope's good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir's, 1989), p. 353).

In the case of Pope Honorius the Council Fathers were clearly wrong, IMHO. They simply misconstrued what he wrote, and I think I have no less an authority to testify to the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius than St. Maximos, Confessor. Of course, the Orthodox East would say, in that case, St. Maximos was wrong or, at least misconstrued.

The Council Fathers taught no error in this. It was simply bad judgement. Their dogmatic statement expressing the orthodox teaching on the two wills in Christ, the very essence of the Council, is, of course, from the Holy Spirit, and commands my assent as a believer.

Recluse,

I am not fond of quoting Fr. Meyendorff. I like to quote a broad range of scholars, although not necessarily here.

Fr. Meyendorff repeats the modern Orthodox stance on the papacy - as do you - which has no relation to the way the Orthodox East of the first millennium actually saw the Papacy and praised it, as the Sixth Council, to name but one example, did.

The idea, as brought forward here, that the Papacy is a "human" thing and not of divine backing, is totally quashed in the praises heaped upon Pope St Agatho in the Sixth Council and also elsewhere.

It was the Pope, in fact, and NOT the Council Fathers who crushed the Monothelite heresy which had infected the entire church at the time.

The sixth Council brought forward nothing new - it was the Pope who did and who acted as the sole Petrine authority at the time.

In fact, look at it another way. It was BECAUSE Pope Honorius failed to act as Pope and pronounce against Monothelitism on behalf of the entire Church that he was condemned. In other words, the Orthodox Catholic East at the time looked to the Pope to speak and when he did not, as in Honorius' case, it clamoured for his condemnation etc.

No, I will board the train of Orthodoxy, but will get off at the station that is named, "Papacy."

The Papacy is the Crown of Orthodoxy and without it the Church is not living according to the Will of Christ via the Petrine Primacy (and Meyendorff DOES affirm the Petrine Primacy of the Pope, for your information, sir).

When the Moscow Patriarchate gave its assessment of the role of the Papacy at the end of last year, it was simply expressing an error.

I understand that error now - in fact, you've helped me understand the error of an Orthodox Church without the Papacy. For that, I really do thank you, despite the feeling I have that you really don't like me.

I also understand now, after so many thousands of posts that I can no longer relate to the Forum as it is constituted.

At least I can respect the Orthodox, like yourself, who are firm in their convictions. That I really do respect, sir.

I've always wondered about those Eastern Catholics who affirm a kind of indifferentism about the imperatives of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy - thinking the two are just "silly" in not seeing they are one and the same. And they are not one and the same.

But tonight I've experienced something quite remarkable. I've come to a successful conclusion about who I am spiritually. Yanking chains with Slavipodvizhnik and others about politics is one thing and it is largely unproductive. It does show how religion and politics very often do blend.

Tonight, I know in the strongest possible sense who I am religiously. I accept what the See of Rome affirms and anathematize what that See anathematizes. There is only one true Church that has kept all that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ has willed for it.

And that Church is headed and taught by the Roman Pontiff, in the early Church, at the Sixth Council and today.

I've found my peace and go my way.

God bless you, Recluse. God bless all here.

Alex

Then you are saying that the Holy Spirit did not guide this Council. That is the first time I have ever heard a Catholic or Orthodox Christian say that the fathers of the sixth Oecumenical Council were wrong! With all due respect, I'll take the word of the fathers over your opinion.



You have misinterpreted St Maximos.


But you just said they were wrong.

On the contrary, I think Fr. John is spot on!


There are countless times that praises are heaped upon the Pope of Rome in the early Church. This does not prove some type of supremacy or infallibility.


The council declared that Honorius was a heretic and they anathematized him.


The Pope was part of the Council. The Council declared Honorius to be a heretic.

What did the Sixth Ecumenical Council say? Why did it condemn Pope Honorius? The Council condemned him in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian. They condemned him for advancing heretical teachings which it says were inspired by Satan. The Council condemns him by name, as a heretic.


You are free to get off at that station. I will board the train of Orthodoxy, but will get off at the station that is named, "Orthodoxy."


I happen to believe that Holy Orthodoxy is the living Church according to the Will of Christ via Apostolic succession, and provides the fullness of truth.



Well sir, Fr. John says:

"The doctrine of St Cyprian of Carthage on the “See of Peter” being present in every local Church, and not only in Rome, is well-known."


This is your opinion. I will abide by and agree with what the MP stated.


How could it be that I have assisted you in understanding an error that does not exist?


How could you possibly say that I do not like you? I do not know you....and you do not know me. We have briefly met on an internet discussion forum. There is not much that we agree about, but I certainly do not dislike you. We are called to love one another. You are my brother in Christ.


You continually say this....and then you return for more debate. Perhaps you should take a sabbatical?


Alex....if I did not believe what I know about Holy Orthodoxy...I would not be able to be in the Holy Orthodox Church. When I was a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic, I came to a point where I no longer accepted some of the doctrines that I was compelled to accept by being in Communion with Rome.....and so I had to leave.


No.


There are not too many people who can make that statement.


Indeed.


I will disagree with you.


Іди з Богом

I said that they were wrong in their condemnation of Pope Honorius, not in what they taught. You're misconstruing me.

As far as treachery is concerned; the history of the Church and her Councils and Synods are filled with such. The miracle is that the Holy Spirit has worked through it all to bring truth to those who truly believe. If you do not find this so, then I think we're living on different planets.

You seem to be wielding a big cudgel. May I humbly suggest you drop it.

I know what you are saying....and you are mistaken. The holy fathers of the Council say that he was a heretic. This was confirmed many times after. I will believe the fathers and the Council.


Most of the "company" does not say what you think they are saying.


I know what you said...and you are mistaken. The Council contradicts you...and I do not think that you know more than the holy fathers and the Council.


There is nothing "treacherous" about the Council's condemnation of Honorius.


Amen brother. That is why I believe the holy fathers of the Council when they say that he was a heretic.


You must have the wrong guy. I do not believe in wielding cudgels.

You tell me, then, what you think they are saying.

Here is a synopsis of the usual debate on the subject.
http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/maximos1.htm

Really? Pope Honorius was dead. He was still Pope at that time? That's news to me!

Blessings,
Marduk

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 Sixteenth Session adds: "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"

Perhaps they can add these two quotes, one from Pope St. Agatho's letter to the Council and the other from St. Maximos' dispute with Pyrrhus, to that web page:


Then again they might say they were inaccurate translations of the original Greek and/or Latin, or worse still, forgeries.

The best answer lies with the words of the Council....which were confirmed many times beyond the Council. Pope Honorius was declared to be a heretic. It is really quite clear.