The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Irenaeus23, Al Masihi, Seavila777, MZbor, Lisa Korovainytsia
5563 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (JimG, 1 invisible), 76 guests, and 376 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Portable Icon Screen
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,609
Posts411,057
Members5,563
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: StuartK] #356380
11/25/10 04:35 AM
11/25/10 04:35 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
New Zealand
Hieromonk Ambrose Offline
Member
Hieromonk Ambrose  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
New Zealand
Originally Posted by StuartK
I think we basically should return to the canons of Serdica, under which Rome was the ecclesiastical court of final appeal. As long as Rome limited itself to an appellate role, there was general accord among the Churches.


I think that some Orthodox would rather go with the Council of Carthage in 418 and Canon 17. :-)

http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_Council_Of_Carthage_May_1_418.html

What is interesting is that two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes ratified these canons of Carthage.

1. The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2. The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.

Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: Hieromonk Ambrose] #356384
11/25/10 09:28 AM
11/25/10 09:28 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
M
mardukm Offline
Member
mardukm  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
Dearest Father Ambrose,

You miss and confuse the obvious and the implied relevance of the circumstances of Sardica and the Canons of Carthage.
Sardican recognized the bishop of Rome's prerogative to be last court of appeal for bishops.
Carthage did not contradict Sardica. Carthage only forbade priests from appealing to Rome.
Further, the action of the Council of Carthage indicates that before that time, it was normative for any cleric (bishop or priest) to be able to appeal to the bishop of Rome as court of final appeal.

For the sake of good order, Carthage wanted to limit this natural, God-given prerogative of the bishop of Rome, so evident since the days of Pope St. Clement of Rome. And Carthage did not do this on its own. In accord with Apostolic Canon 34/35, it was the head and body acting together in agreement.

Humbly,
Marduk


Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
Originally Posted by StuartK
I think we basically should return to the canons of Serdica, under which Rome was the ecclesiastical court of final appeal. As long as Rome limited itself to an appellate role, there was general accord among the Churches.


I think that some Orthodox would rather go with the Council of Carthage in 418 and Canon 17. :-)

http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_Council_Of_Carthage_May_1_418.html

What is interesting is that two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes ratified these canons of Carthage.

1. The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2. The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.

Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: Luvr of East] #356392
11/25/10 10:51 AM
11/25/10 10:51 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Falls Church, VA
S
StuartK Offline
Member
StuartK  Offline
Member
S

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Falls Church, VA
Quote
Sardican recognized the bishop of Rome's prerogative to be last court of appeal for bishops.


That's not quite right. The Church of Rome was the ecclesiastical court of final appeal. Not just bishops, but any cleric had the right to appeal upward--the decision of the diocesan bishop could be appealed to the metropolitan synod; the decision of the metropolitan synod could be appealed to the patriarchal synod; and finally, the decision of the patriarchal synod could be appealed to the Bishop of Rome. And this was done, throughout the history of the undivided Church.

The purpose of canons of Carthage was to prevent presbyters from appealing directly to Rome as court of original jurisdiction; i.e., appeals had to go up the ladder, as they do in the civil appellate process tody.

Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: mardukm] #356397
11/25/10 02:35 PM
11/25/10 02:35 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
New Zealand
Hieromonk Ambrose Offline
Member
Hieromonk Ambrose  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
New Zealand
Originally Posted by mardukm
You miss and confuse the obvious and the implied relevance of the circumstances of Sardica and the Canons of Carthage.

Sardican recognized the bishop of Rome's prerogative to be last court of appeal for bishops.

Carthage did not contradict Sardica. Carthage only forbade priests from appealing to Rome.


You will find that Carthage 424 addresses the matter of bishops appealing to Rome (the case of Bishop Apiarius) and forbids it, as well as appeals from lesser clergy.

"For though this seems to be there forbidden in respect of the inferior clergy or the laity [they have in mind the 418 Council we have discussed which took place 6 years earlier], how much more did it will this to be observed in the case of bishops, lest those who had been suspended from communion in their own province might seem to be restored to communion hastily or unfitly by your Holiness."

Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 11/25/10 02:36 PM.
Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: StuartK] #356406
11/25/10 11:19 PM
11/25/10 11:19 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
M
mardukm Offline
Member
mardukm  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
Dear brother Stuart,

I'm not quite sure what you perceive is the difference between "last court of appeal for bishops" and "court of final appeal."

Blessings

Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
Sardican recognized the bishop of Rome's prerogative to be last court of appeal for bishops.


That's not quite right. The Church of Rome was the ecclesiastical court of final appeal. Not just bishops, but any cleric had the right to appeal upward--the decision of the diocesan bishop could be appealed to the metropolitan synod; the decision of the metropolitan synod could be appealed to the patriarchal synod; and finally, the decision of the patriarchal synod could be appealed to the Bishop of Rome. And this was done, throughout the history of the undivided Church.

The purpose of canons of Carthage was to prevent presbyters from appealing directly to Rome as court of original jurisdiction; i.e., appeals had to go up the ladder, as they do in the civil appellate process tody.

Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: Hieromonk Ambrose] #356408
11/25/10 11:32 PM
11/25/10 11:32 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
M
mardukm Offline
Member
mardukm  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
Dearest Father Ambrose,

You seem to have misinterpreted that quotation from Carthage 424. When it stated, "how much more did it will this to be observed," it's not talking about not permitting bishops to appeal to Rome. It's talking about the requirement for an appellant to the bishop of Rome to produce commendatory letters from the original court of jurisdiction. It's rather obvious from your excerpt that the "this" in the first and second clauses of your excerpt refer to the same thing, and that thing is not referring to a restriction on appeals to Rome, but points to some other topic beyond the immediate excerpt you provided. That topic is the requirement mentioned above. Without such commendatory letters, a bishops should not be able to go to Rome, and Rome should not agree to hear the cause of such bishops so easily or hastily.

Btw, Apiarius was not a bishop.

Humbly,
Marduk

Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
Originally Posted by mardukm
You miss and confuse the obvious and the implied relevance of the circumstances of Sardica and the Canons of Carthage.

Sardican recognized the bishop of Rome's prerogative to be last court of appeal for bishops.

Carthage did not contradict Sardica. Carthage only forbade priests from appealing to Rome.


You will find that Carthage 424 addresses the matter of bishops appealing to Rome (the case of Bishop Apiarius) and forbids it, as well as appeals from lesser clergy.

"For though this seems to be there forbidden in respect of the inferior clergy or the laity [they have in mind the 418 Council we have discussed which took place 6 years earlier], how much more did it will this to be observed in the case of bishops, lest those who had been suspended from communion in their own province might seem to be restored to communion hastily or unfitly by your Holiness."

Last edited by mardukm; 11/25/10 11:33 PM.
Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: Luvr of East] #356411
11/26/10 07:13 AM
11/26/10 07:13 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Falls Church, VA
S
StuartK Offline
Member
StuartK  Offline
Member
S

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Falls Church, VA
I note in passing that when Maximos the Confessor appealed to Rome, he was not a bishop. In fact, he wasn't even an ordained minister.

Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: StuartK] #356433
11/26/10 11:54 PM
11/26/10 11:54 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
New Zealand
Hieromonk Ambrose Offline
Member
Hieromonk Ambrose  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
New Zealand
Originally Posted by StuartK
I note in passing that when Maximos the Confessor appealed to Rome, he was not a bishop. In fact, he wasn't even an ordained minister.


Saint Maximus was a little naive in placing his trust in the Pope since the previous one, Honorius, was a heretic, a monothelite. Perhaps Saint Maximus was not aware of that at the time?

Saint Maximus was in a tight spot. Three Catholic Patriarchs of the East (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria) had fallen in with the monothelite heresy. Saint Maximus was so upset that he went and made his residence in Rome. He pinned all his hope on Rome upholding and restoring orthodoxy. But even the Pope of Rome, Pope Honorius, had succumbed to the monothelite heresy. So there was a time when four of the five Patriarchs (excluding Jerusalem) were heretical (Catholics shudder to hear that Honorius was a heretic but even the staunchly pro-papal Catholic Encyclopedia says,

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact..."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 11/26/10 11:57 PM.
Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: Hieromonk Ambrose] #356435
11/27/10 01:02 AM
11/27/10 01:02 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,924
MD
ajk Offline
Member
ajk  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,924
MD
Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
..., Honorius, was a heretic, a monothelite. ...Pope Honorius, had succumbed to the monothelite heresy. ...(Catholics shudder to hear that Honorius was a heretic but even the staunchly pro-papal Catholic Encyclopedia says,

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact..."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

But read on:

Quote
..and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions.


And prior to this:
Quote
The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.

And:
Quote
It is true that the words of Honorius are inconclusively though not necessarily, heretical.

And:
Quote
...showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban.

All of which contradict the assertion:

Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
..., Honorius, was a heretic, a monothelite. ...Pope Honorius, had succumbed to the monothelite heresy. ...


Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: Luvr of East] #356438
11/27/10 06:21 AM
11/27/10 06:21 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Falls Church, VA
S
StuartK Offline
Member
StuartK  Offline
Member
S

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Falls Church, VA
Oh, I think we can all acknowledge that Honorius I was a heretic, and that all attempts to defend him are special pleading in defense of Pastor aeternus. But whether or not he was a heretic is irrelevant to the privilege extended to the Church of Rome by the Council of Serdica, and acknowledged through the period of the undivided Church, to be the ecclesiastical court of final appeal.

Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: ajk] #356439
11/27/10 07:14 AM
11/27/10 07:14 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
New Zealand
Hieromonk Ambrose Offline
Member
Hieromonk Ambrose  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
New Zealand
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
..., Honorius, was a heretic, a monothelite. ...Pope Honorius, had succumbed to the monothelite heresy. ...(Catholics shudder to hear that Honorius was a heretic but even the staunchly pro-papal Catholic Encyclopedia says,

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact..."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

But read on:

Quote
...showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban.

All of which contradict the assertion:

Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
..., Honorius, was a heretic, a monothelite. ...Pope Honorius, had succumbed to the monothelite heresy. ...



In the 17th session of the 6th Ecumenical Council, the Council Fathers proclaimed:

........................"Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius,..."

........................The above clinches it, unless we want to argue that an Ecumenical Council and the Popes who ratified it may err but in that case the burden of proof is on the person who opposes the Council and the papal ratification.

There is actually quite a lot more evidence of both conciliar and papal condemnation but I don't want to present it here because it will be found offensive.


Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: Luvr of East] #356440
11/27/10 08:57 AM
11/27/10 08:57 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Falls Church, VA
S
StuartK Offline
Member
StuartK  Offline
Member
S

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Falls Church, VA
Father Ambrose has the right of this one. For centuries, the Synodikon read by the Bishops of Rome included the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, not as some naif who got snookered into publishing an ambiguous tract.

Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: Hieromonk Ambrose] #356443
11/27/10 10:04 AM
11/27/10 10:04 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,924
MD
ajk Offline
Member
ajk  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,924
MD
Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose

There is actually quite a lot more evidence of both conciliar and papal condemnation but I don't want to present it here because it will be found offensive.

The offense here is for you to give a source and quote it in a way that misinterprets, misrepresents and misleads. But that is your way. This is clearly shown in my previous post by simply reading in full the given source and the totality of what it is asserting.

Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: Luvr of East] #356449
11/27/10 12:04 PM
11/27/10 12:04 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Falls Church, VA
S
StuartK Offline
Member
StuartK  Offline
Member
S

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Falls Church, VA
Super extra special pleading. Face it, Popes occasionally promoted doctrinal error, and poor Honorius was not alone--there's Vigilius and Liberius, and probably a couple of others, if I looked around. Take comfort in the fact that, as compared to the other ancient Churches, Rome's track record was pretty good, overall.

Re: Orthodox Steps to Reunion [Re: ajk] #356451
11/27/10 02:57 PM
11/27/10 02:57 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
New Zealand
Hieromonk Ambrose Offline
Member
Hieromonk Ambrose  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
New Zealand
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose

There is actually quite a lot more evidence of both conciliar and papal condemnation but I don't want to present it here because it will be found offensive.

The offense here is for you to give a source and quote it in a way that misinterprets, misrepresents and misleads. But that is your way. This is clearly shown in my previous post by simply reading in full the given source and the totality of what it is asserting.


Those who desire to examine the Church's condemnation of Pope Honorius and begin to study it further could look at

Message 71

at
http://tinyurl.com/22kr6td

Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2018. All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.2
(Release build 20180918)
Page Time: 0.023s Queries: 15 (0.009s) Memory: 2.0790 MB (Peak: 2.3114 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-12-12 15:08:37 UTC