www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox Steps to Reunion

Dear brother Stuart,

I have my doubts about whether Pope Honorius was an actual heretic. My view is not informed by Catholic apologetics, but from my origins in the Oriental Tradition. I know full well the apparent misunderstandings that can and have existed among the Churches regarding the "mono" and "duo" issues. Judging from St. Maximos the Confessor's defense of Pope Honorius, Pope Honorius was really a miathelite, not a monothelite. Of course, no one seems to have known the difference in those days.

As far as Pope Liberius, Pope St. Athanasius himself defended that Pope. He was certainly no heretic and never in his heart supported the Arian heresy, his several years of suffering in exile being ample proof (at least in St. Athanasius' eyes, whose view I am most certainly more likely to accept). According to St. Athanasius, Pope Liberius signed under threat of death, but extolls his heroic virtues nonetheless. No historic records indicate the Church in Rome ever knew that Pope Liberius signed a heretical formula, since he returned to Rome from exile triumphantly and proceeded to oppose Arianism thenceforth (e.g., invalidating the acts of the Arian Council of Rimini). It seems Pope Liberius' "fall" was simply a matter of rhetoric among the Fathers, and did not affect the Faith of the laity.

As far as Pope Vigilius, one needn't go further than the acts of the Fifth Ecum to prove that none of the Fathers of that Council - at any time during that period - classed their "father and head" as a heretic. This was not a doctrinal matter. Pope Vigilius (and several Western sees) were not promoting Nestorianism, but were simply defending, in their eyes, the integrity of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hamilton Hess, in his book on the Serdican Council, explained the true nature of the canons issued at that local synod and holds that the interpretation often given to them by Roman Catholic apologists do not conform to the actual language of the canons themselves. The canons support the idea that the bishop of Rome was to be given the authority to determine if a re-trial of a case was necessary, but they do not give the pope the power to simply issue a judgment on his own authority that overturns the original synodal decision. The pope was also given the right to send representatives to the new synodal trial (see Hamiton Hess, The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica, pages 190-200).

Dear brother Todd,

I can't be positive that I've encountered any Catholic apologetics use Sardica in the sense that the final decision is a solitary decision of the bishop of Rome. I agree with you that the final decision is supposed to be collegial, not solitary.

I've always understood the saying "the judgment of the bishop of Rome" according to Canon IV of Sardica - "if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of neighboring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishops of Rome judge and render a decision as to this." Whatever the final outcome is, it has come about through the agency and impetus of the bishop of Rome. So the statement "the judgment of the bishop of Rome" simply means that the final judgment is in the name of the bishop of Rome. It is not a statement on the means by which that judgment comes about (i.e., whether collegially or solitary).

I grant that there are those of the Absolutist Petrine perspective that would see the statement to refer to a solitary decision by the bishop of Rome. I think Hess' book would prove useful to highlight the collegial nature of papal decisions (indeed, to this day, papal decisions are not handled in a solitary manner, but through the agency of a group of bishops appointed by the Pope - the Pope has a confirmatory role in the final decisions).

Blessings,
Marduk

Looking for something else, I came across this;

Did the Copts have any part in the Sixth Council?

The Fathers of the Sixth Council were sure of the sentence they passed,and the anathemasa they pronounced, which the Popes of Rome until the schism repeated, according to the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum.


The case of Pope Dioscoros at the Fourth Council was not the same as the case of Pope Honorius at the Sixth Counci.


Ordinarily, the word of Pope St. Athanasius would determine the matter. However, he held back from Pat. St. Meletios of Antioch. Rome accepted St. Meletios' canonization, although he feel asleep not in communion with Rome (nor had Pope St. Athanasius communed with him). Pope Liberius remains the earliest bishop of Rome whom Rome has not canonized.

Pope Vigilius submitted to the Definition of the Fifth Council. Others in the West did not, and a schism ensued.

None of the quotes attributed to me are mine. Please be more careful in the future.

Mod Note: The quotes in the immediately prior post have been edited to correct the misattribution which Staurt rightfully notes. His inclusion of the misattributed text in this post has been deleted to avoid further confusion or further misquoting.

In my opinion, (T)he website "orthodoxinfo.com" is run by old calendarists who are in schism from the Ecumenical Patriarch. In my opinion, (I)t does not represent the majority opinion of the Orthodox church and should be avoided.

I don't think I've ever seen a list of what the Orthodox need to do. I would very much like to see such a list.

One thing I can think of: they should allow Eastern Catholics to have a place at the discussion table.

I believe the man who runs Orthodox Christian Information Center (orthodoxinfo.com) is a sincere Orthodox Christian who presents the more Traditional views of many in the Orthodox Church. He does post articles from Old Calendarists but they tend to be from moderate sources (the Synod in Resistance who do not declare New Calendar Mysteries to be with out grace) and he,I believe, is a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger suggested that all the Orthodox need do is accept the legitimacy of doctrinal developments in the Latin Church during the second millennium. This does not mean that the Orthodox have to believe any of them, just that they should not denounce them as heterodox or heretical.

What is the Orthodox position (if one exists or is uniformly accepted) on doctrinal developments?