THE APOLOGY OF THE POPE TO THE ORTHODOX; THE 4th. CRUSADE OF 1204

hellenicnews.com ^ | Apr 23, 2004 | Rev. Dr. Miltiades B. Efthimiou

[Destro]

Apr 23, 2004

THE APOLOGY OF THE POPE TO THE ORTHODOX; THE 4th. CRUSADE OF 1204.

THE APOLOGY OF THE POPE TO THE ORTHODOX; THE 4th. CRUSADE OF 1204. ( On the 800th. Anniversary of this infamous event.)

By Rev. Dr. Miltiades B. Efthimiou
Protopresbyter of the Ecumanical Patriarchate

BACKGROUND.

Recently, the spiritual leader of Orthodoxy, Bartholomew, Ec. Patriarch of Constantinople,accepted an “Apology” from Pope John Paul II for the destruction of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, by Crusaders coming from the Latin West to the Greek East in 1204. It was accepted by the spiritual leader of world-wide Orthodoxy, ( as 1st. among equal spiritual leaders) on the 800th. Anniversary of the city’s sacking, an acknowledgement which conjures up “old wounds” between Greek East and Latin West, and which became the basis of much discussion relative to major and minor differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholics. What happened back then? Why this animosity between East and West when historically, Eastern doctrine, intact to the present day, was held by the overwhelming majority of Christians who lived throughout the Empire and who irrespective where they resided, were still part of the Community of Churches professing a common faith of the “ One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. (Creed, 1st. Ecumenical Council, 325 A.D.) To answer this and understand what led up to the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, which set up a Latin Empire for about 50 or 60 years, ( 1204 – 1261), we must look at : Ecclesiastical and political differences, between East and West.

ECCLESIASTICAL DIFFERENCES.

The Latin-Greek split or schism before, during, and after the Fourth Crusade led to the theory that the Roman Catholic Church has one bishop ( the Pope ), and all the other bishops are in essence his local representatives. ( This eventually led to the erroneous dogma of papal infallibility proclaimed in 1870).Even after the great Schism of 1054, the split was not perceived consciously and the two churches of East and West considered themselves in complete union. During the Frankish occupation of Greece and Cyprus, this relationship was readily demonstrated. But by the end of the twelfth century and well into the thirteenth economic and political clashes and a deeper exposure to one another’s beliefs engendered a deep and vehement hatred. ( For a good discussion on this, see: Runciman, A HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES, 3 Vols. Dvornik, BYZANTIUM AND THE ROMAN PRIMACY.) This became a pronounced reality in 1204 immediately following the sack of Constantinople, when the Pope approved the Venetian cleric Thomas Morisini as Patriarch of Constantinople.

One of the key areas of doctrine which separated Latin from Orthodox Christianity was the Latin innovation and addition of the phrase “filioque” to the Nicene – Constantinopolitan Creed of the 1st. and 2nd. Ecumenical Synods (325 and 381 A.D., respectively.) With this innovation the Latin creed reads; “…The Holy Spirit…which proceeds from the Father and the Son”. The Eastern Church rejected this addition both from an historical point of view, as well as a doctrinal one. The alteration of the original Creed occurred some time in the sixth or seventh century in Spain probably by mistake, for the Spanish Church had few men of learning in those early centuries. Most likely those who first introduced the “filioque” clause thought that they were using the original version and had no intention of challenging the authority of the Ecumenical Synods. This tradition spread North , and in the eighth century , it entered into the theological tradition of the Frankish Church. From Charlemagne on forward, theologians began interpreting the “filioque” in the strictest and most literal terms. Although a few popes ( Hadrian I and Leo III ) opposed it, by the ninth century the “filioque” had become a permanent tradition in the West. This tradition became the object of attack by Patriarch Photios, whose opposition to the Latins included a strong admonition to the hierarchy of the Western Church. In one of his homilies, Photios, probably for the first time, suggests that the “shepherds” of the West were heretics: “ Is the shepherd a heretic? Then he is a wolf, and it will be needful to flee and keep away from him….is the shepherd orthodox?…then submit to him, since he governs according to the standards of Christ”. ( Photios, “Homily on the Annunciation” ed.Laourdas.)

As the issues of the procession of the Holy Spirit became the object of heated debate in the next several centuries, the Orthodox began to reason like Patriarch Photios in their attitudes toward the Latins. The Latins in turn,in total ignorance of the history of the addition of the “filioque”, actually charged the Byzantines of Constantinople with the crime of having “ deleted “ the phrase from the Creed. By the fourth crusade in 1204, each side retreated from earlier more moderate positions, and took up extreme ones, and in the case of the Latins, used it as one of the main reasons for sacking Constantinople and defiling the great Church of Hagia Sophia, firmly believing that as crusaders, they were defending orthodoxy against heresy. Ergo, pillaging, raping, killing, in the name of the Church and Pope.

What were some of the other key ecclesiastical differences? Married clergy. In East and West there had always been married clergy as well as celibates. Until the sixth century bishops could be married, but from that century on, Church canons stated that bishops must be celibate. In the West, however, the Spanish Council of Elvira ( 300 A.D.) insisted that the clergy must renounce cohabitation with their wives. In the East a married man was eligible to be ordained bishop, but no clergyman already ordained was allowed to marry. Canon thirteen of the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod condemned the Latin practice of obligatory celibacy.

Although there were other religious theological differences with the Greeks of Byzantium, the throng of crusaders entering Constantinople in 1204 had a long list of religious indictments which they used to persecute their fellow Christians in the East. The most serious one was the use of leavened bread in the Holy Eucharist, or, in the case of the Latins, unleavened bread (azyma.) In the eleventh century Patriarch Michael Kerularios initiated a formal attack upon the western practice of the use of unleavened bread. He ordered Archbishop Leo of Ochrid to draw up a treatise attacking the Latin innovation as not consistent with how the Eucharist was used in the early Church when leavened bread – enzyma – was used. There were other innovations of doctrine ( i.e. purgatory, divorce, liturgical abuses, which would take a whole book to list,and which were defended by the crusaders and Latins to subjugate the Byzantines in 1204.)

POLITICAL DIFFERENCES.

Prior to 1204, the opposing views between East and West first came into serious collision with Patriarch Photios when he encouraged missionaries to propagate the Creed, without the ‘filioque” clause among the Slavic people in the North. Pope Nicholas I, (858-867) told the Byzantine emperors that they were not emperors of the Romans in the West. This was consistent with the Council of Frankfort in 794 which decided that the Frankish king, independent of both of Pope and Emperor had now replaced, by this alleged universal council, the Byzantine Basileus, and was now directing the entire Church. By the 10th. century, beginning with Otto I in 962, the Saxon emperors came to Rome to be crowned according to Frankish-Germanic liturgical practices which had permeated the West ( since the time of Charlemagne,) almost 2 centuries earlier. From the time of Henry II, and with the blessings of Benedict VIII, (1012-1024), the “filioque” clause was permanently added to the Creed in the Roman mass, and from this time, popes appointed by the Saxon emperors were not commemorated in the liturgies in the East, (a practice which continues to the present day.) In the days of the crusaders, the Byzantines considered the Western Church as heretical.

Following the tragic event of July 16,1054, when cardinal Humbert entered Hagia Sophia and immediately before the Divine Liturgy placed a bull of excommunication on the Altar, on behalf of the deceased pope Leo IX, things went from bad to worse when in 1071, the Normans conquered Bari (Italy), the last remaining Byzantine possession in Italy. By that time, the Byzantine Empire found itself unable to defend its land even closer than Italy. They were unable to cope with the double invasion that swept the empire – by the Patzinaks from across the Danube and by the Turks from the heart of Asia Minor. In 1071 they defeated and captured Emperor Romanos IV in the tragic battle of Manzikert. The loss of Bari and defeat at Manzikert in the same year indicated the condition of the Empire. In 1071 Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre also passed into Turkish hands for the 1st. time.

These desperate circumstances minimized the ecclesiastical differences between Byzantium and the West. Leaders in all parts of Europe, including Byzantium, considered the papacy as the only power able to restrain the Normans and the Patzinaks and Turks. After the fall of Manzikert, the new Emperor of Byzantium, Michael VII, opened negotiations with the Normans and with Gregory VII, the new Pope. Gregory opened a new page in the history of East – West relations. Church and Imperium assumed new dimensions which presaged the disastrous betrayal of the papacy which led to the tragic fourth Crusade of 1204. ( for a detailed discussion of this, see author’s work: M.B. Efthimiou, “Greeks and Latins on Cyprus” Hellenic College Press, 1987.) It includes an account of the reconciliatory policies of practically all Byzantine Emperors toward the Pope for mercenary troops, beginning with Pope Urban II, and the first Crusade in 1095, and ending with the Fourth Crusade in 1204, when Emperor Alexios enlisted sympathy and aid from the West in battling the Turks, with a pre-requisite that any negotiation with Pope Innocent III, must include acknowledging the primacy of Rome over all aspects of Byzantium, ( which was now a shell of what was once a great Empire.) In April, 1204, they sacked Constantinople, and Count Baldwin of Flanders and Hainaut became the Emperor of the newly-established Latin Empire. Contributing to the demise of the Byzantines and the establishment of a Latin Empire following the Fourth Crusade was the weakness of the Angeloi dynasty and the greed and hostility of Byzantium’s Latin enemies. The pattern in the West was very consistent. Innocent declared that Christians who did not adhere to the Latin West were “ worse than Saracen Turks” because they stood in the way of the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre.

CONCLUSION.

While Pope John Paul II gives an apology to Patriarch Bartholomew for the Fourth Crusade, there are several things that historically need to be always before us: Historians and Church leaders often emphasize political and military causes of the Crusades, but have glossed over,- even ignored – the religious, economic, social and intellectual causes. This oversight indicates that the study of Byzantium itself has been too long a neglected area of Western history. Now that the darkness is gradually lifting (see the various exhibitions of “Byzantine Iconography” at the Metropolitan Museum of New York since 1998 with lectures and 3 day symposia,) One sees that in the East, the history of the Empire was much more than a chronicle of palace intrigues, internal revolutions, theological controversies, conclaves and ritualistic ceremonies, which historians viewed as trivial.

The Fourth Crusade also gives us an opportunity to observe how people or rulers confronted the accidents and peculiarities of history and how,as a result, the course of human events were determined. These events involved not only the establishment of an empire in Constantinople, but also in other places. The history of Frankish Greece begins with the Fourth Crusade – an attempt to unite Europe and the East in the interest of temporal and ecclesiastical gain. Does the “apology” of Pope John Paul II include this? After an existence of half a century , the Latin Empire of Constantinople also failed, nevertheless, the East remained full of Latin settlements. Does the “apology” of Pope John Paul II include this? Venice retained the essential positions of her colonial empire in the Levant, Negrepont and Crete, and the strong citadels of Modon and Coron; her patrician families kept most of their signories in the Archipelago, as did the other Latin states in Greece which were products of the Crusade. Does the Pope’s “Apology” include these? The tragedy of the Fourth Crusade was that by the time of Michael Palaiologus’ Solemn entry into Constantinople on August 15th, 1261, marking the end of the Latin Empire, darkness befell a disillusioned Europe. Once and for all, the course of events, the ideology of a united Christendom between Latins and Greeks had diminished, and despite many “Apologies” by many church leaders through the ages, subsequent history after the Fourth Crusade was one of gradual decay.

Perhaps there is hope. But it will take more than an “Apology”. It means a return wholly to the Traditional Faith of the Church, which includes an ecclesiology before there was any such thing as a Byzantine Empire or a Papacy. Not an endorsement of an alien sectarian or modern concept of “church” but simply an Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Faith held in common by all those who lived during the first centuries of Christian history. An “Apology” coupled with this acknowledgement will go far to clean up the misnomers of 1204.

MILTIADES B. EFTHIMIOU (Rev. Dr.), having retired as a priest of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America after 45 years, has served parishes in New York, Michigan, Ohio and New Jersey. For 15 years, (1981-1996), he held leadership positions in the Archdiocese among them Director of the Department of Church and Society, Executive Director of Archons-Order of St. Andrew, and Ecumenical Officer of the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in America. He has represented the Orthodox Church throughout the world. He holds the highest honorific title for a priest: Protopresbyter of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and has published numerous articles and essays, as well as two books:”The History of the Greek Orthodox Church of America;” and “Greeks and Latins on Cyprus”. Dr. Efthimiou has two children and two grandchildren and resides in New York.

[Romulus]

So, Jesus sent the disciples, in some way or ways, as the Father sent Jesus, but not in every way. They weren't 11/12/13 little Jesuses. So, I don't see the theological proof that the way Jesus sent them included the authority to transfer the authority to forgive sin. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but this verse doesn't say.

No. You actually have to read two whole verses along to see where Jesus did this, as part of the very same discourse. Now FactQuest -- When you utter three successive sentences, would you like me to assume that the first and the third have nothing to do with each other? Shall I impute to you the same incoherence that you impute to our Lord?

[monkfan]

Since the Orthodox Church considers Papal infallibility to be a heresy, so of course THEY consider Popes who believe in in fallibility to be heretics. But you are using the accusation that Popes have been heretics to prove your case that the Pope is not infallible. In other words, your support for your assertion that popes are fallible is nothing more than your assertion that popes are fallible.

Let's start with the well documented fact that Pope Honorius was condemned for heresy by the 6th Ecumenical Council. This was affirmed by every subsequent Pope until the 11th century. Now Rome would like to pretend it wasn't so. No doubt it undermines the infallibility claim. Additionally, we have the issue of Pope John VIII's condemnation of the Filioque, also reversed in the 11th century. Begs the question: "will the real infallible pope please stand up?" Fact is, there aren't any. Worse yet, that the Filioque has been formally condemned in an Ecumenical Council means that every single pope since then who affirms it is a heretic.

And if you will pardon my observation, by your own logic, your support for your assertion that popes are infallible is nothing more than your assertion that popes are infallible.

>>"First off, the assertion is already "out there" and is not mine, per se."<<

You wrote it; it is now your assertion. If you cannot support it, do not assert it. At best, stating information that you have no reason to believe is true is gossip; at worst, slander.

Yes, it is my assertion by adoption, not per se. Point being, my assertion is not some off-the-cuff, born-in-a-vaccuum, i-need-a-new-reason-to-hate-Rome-so-i'll-make-one-up accusation. A good deal has been written on this subject.

>>"I do not, at this moment, have any documentation in my possession that I can utilize to expedite your request." <<

Ya know what? I don't need documentation. I just need to know why you believe that. An apparently, it's more a lousy reason (as mentionned above.)

Ya. see above.

>>"I'm sure it's all just a misunderstanding." <<

No, it's not. It's an ugly slander, and I'm scandalized by the fact that there is an apostle of Christ who has incorporated vicious slander such as that into a sacrament.

Good grief. Don't let the sarcasm hit you on the way out, Sherlock.

>>"What appears to be a lot of shifting and hem-hawing (don't bother with a dictionary), about what has been stated infallibly and what has not, is less than completely helpful." <<

Whatever a dictionary stated, when the Church proclaimed the doctrine of infallibility, it did so by defining what they meant by infallibility. (Or, you might say, under what conditions infallibility was present.) It's not the Catholic Church's fault that her enemies promote lies about what the Catholic Church said; her statements are clear.

"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable." - Vatican I

Is this the clear statement you refer to?

[monkfan]

What's your point? That the citations I linked are forgeries? Sorry, I don't believe they are, but feel free to present your evidence.

My point is that if the quotations listed in that link were some kind of proof, the Donation of Constantine would not have been necessary. All those quotes prove is First Among Equals, something we have never even contested. Papal Supremacy is an 11th century invention.

My point is that the "denunciation" of "errors" your priest gave you might well serve to denounce a number of Eastern saints and patriarchs.

If that is your way of saying that we've had a few heretics, then I'll give you that. We've had our fair share and then some. However, you are mixing apples and oranges. Difference being, we don't claim our Patriarchs to be infallible.

[dangus]

Councils did not condemn Pope Honorius for heresy, they condemned a doctrine he supposedly allowed to be taught as heresy. Huge difference. As for the slander about Pope Honorius, I refer you to the book "Pope Fiction," which explains what really happened. However, even if the slander against him were to be found true, I doubt anyone could seriously interpret this as being coveerd by the definition of infallible:

Even presuming the worst slander, Pope Honorius did not mandate that the false doctrine be held as true; he stated that it may be taught. This would have been done under severe duress, and with no intention of teaching the flock.

As for the condemnation of the Filioque, I believe you refer to a Pope who instructed that it not be said. This is quite a different thing than declaring that it is false; he did so in attempt to make peace with the schismatics who opposed it. Of course, the fact that those schismatics now use the olive branch to lash the papacy says much more about the schismatics than the papacy. Paul VI instructed that masses be ordinarily conducted in the vernacular; that doesn't mean that Latin masses were heretical.

And, um, yes, that is (part of) the definition of "infallible" to which I refer. Reads pretty clear to me that they did not mean "impeccable" or "inerrant." There's a little problemmatic fuzz as to how directly the Pope has to invoke infallibility. (i.e., is an encyclical automatically infallible, or does the Pope specifically need to say that the content of the encyclical states teachings which are obligatory for the faithful?)

[FactQuest]

John 20:21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Me: Where does it say that they had the authority to transfer the authority to forgive sin?

You: John 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.

Me: The Father sent Jesus as God made man on earth. Jesus sent the disciples, as men, filled with God's power. The Father sent Jesus to die, to pay the price for all sin, once and for all time. Jesus sent the disciples... to spread the word. So, Jesus sent the disciples, in some way or ways, as the Father sent Jesus, but not in every way. They weren't 11/12/13 little Jesuses. So, I don't see the theological proof that the way Jesus sent them included the authority to transfer the authority to forgive sin. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but this verse doesn't say.

You: No. You actually have to read two whole verses along to see where Jesus did this, as part of the very same discourse.

Right. Read that, but do not see that.

Now FactQuest -- When you utter three successive sentences, would you like me to assume that the first and the third have nothing to do with each other?

Of course not. Nor have I done that.

Shall I impute to you the same incoherence that you impute to our Lord?

Please. It is a simple logical construct. "As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.... If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven...." How big is the circle you draw around the phrase "as the Father has sent me? Well, what are the extremes? The narrowest interpretation is that it only applies to the context - it is limited to the 11/12 apostles having power to forgive sin. The widest interpretation is that the apostles were thereby elevated to being a part of God - no longer a triune God, but now a God in 15 persons. I think we both find that last extreme more than a little blasphemous.

Since expanding the circle too far ends in blasphemy, is there any reason to expand the interpretation beyond the narrowest? I see none. There may be, and that is why I ask. You claim that they also were given the authority to transfer that power to forgive sins. I ask "why?" If there is a scriptural reason, I'd love to hear it. If there are early church documents that show that they did this, please point me in their direction (something specific is preferred here, like the name of a manuscript).

For that matter, did they have the power to forgive all sin for all time? If so, why didn't they go ahead and just forgive everyone in the world, past, present and future, for every sin, and then we'd all go to heaven? Could it be, that there were also some implied limits on the sins they could forgive?

[conservonator]

I haven't seen much that says, one way or the other. Do we have a record of the unbroken chain - who was the 14th, the 15th, the 24th...

Yes, each bishop is "pedigreed", infact I believe each receives the laying on of hands by several bishops to ensure proper form.

were they all of apostolic character?.

Don't know what that is.

Gifted apostolically?

If by that you mean endowed with the powers given to the apostles by Christ, yes.

Who did they heal? How many demons did they cast out?

There has been thousands, I haven't been keeping track;)

Maybe I'm too skeptical for my own good, but I would assume we humble humans who never saw Jesus when he was alive would not be qualified. If I remember correctly, having seen Jesus in real life on Earth was a distinct requirement for being called an apostle. And for this reason, Paul always claimed his encounter on the road to Damascus. It seemed good enough for the rest of the apostles.

Bottom line is this, why would Christ only give the twelve the gifts only to have those gifts die with the apostles? It makes no sense.

[Romulus]

If there is a scriptural reason, I'd love to hear it.

You're not able to hear it. Or not willing, anyway. People have been telling you for a week.

Are you aware that the Greek word "apostolos" means one who is sent?

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things?

[monkfan]

Councils did not condemn Pope Honorius for heresy, they condemned a doctrine he supposedly allowed to be taught as heresy. Huge difference. As for the slander about Pope Honorius, I refer you to the book "Pope Fiction," which explains what really happened. However, even if the slander against him were to be found true, I doubt anyone could seriously interpret this as being coveerd by the definition of infallible:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04310a.htm

"There has been in the past, owing to Gallicanism and the opponents of papal infallibility, much controversy concerning the proper sense of this council's condemnation of Pope Honorius, the theory (Baronius, Damberger) of a falsification of the Acts being now quite abandoned (Hefele, III, 299-313). Some have maintained, with Pennacchi, that he was indeed condemned as a heretic, but that the Oriental bishops of the council misunderstood the thoroughly orthodox (and dogmatic) letter of Honorius; others, with Hefele, that the council condemned the heretically sounding expressions of the pope (though his doctrine was really orthodox); others finally, with Chapman (see below), that he was condemned..."

blah blah blah. You guys might want to figure out which lie is the best and then stick to it. It would do wonders for your credibility.

Even presuming the worst slander, Pope Honorius did not mandate that the false doctrine be held as true; he stated that it may be taught. This would have been done under severe duress, and with no intention of teaching the flock.

Not heresy, just accessory to heresy? Hokay!

As for the condemnation of the Filioque, I believe you refer to a Pope who instructed that it not be said. This is quite a different thing than declaring that it is false; he did so in attempt to make peace with the schismatics who opposed it.

Don't kid yourself. The condemnation of the Filioque went far beyond politics. The Filioque is logically absurd. St. Photios made this clear. Pope John VIII was no doubt aware of it. Now you want to talk like Rome was just throwing us a pacifier. That's mighty crass.

Of course, the fact that those schismatics now use the olive branch to lash the papacy says much more about the schismatics than the papacy. Paul VI instructed that masses be ordinarily conducted in the vernacular; that doesn't mean that Latin masses were heretical.

The only thing we are lashing you with is the truth. Something you have obviously lost your taste for.

And, um, yes, that is (part of) the definition of "infallible" to which I refer. Reads pretty clear to me that they did not mean "impeccable" or "inerrant." There's a little problemmatic fuzz...

as opposed to clarity. Thank you.

...as to how directly the Pope has to invoke infallibility. (i.e., is an encyclical automatically infallible, or does the Pope specifically need to say that the content of the encyclical states teachings which are obligatory for the faithful?)

And here we go. Shifting and hem-hawing, just as I anticipated. Thanks for not dissappointing me.

Drop me a note when your vision clears.

[dangus]

>>Not heresy, just accessory to heresy? Hokay!<<

OK, I'm going to say this in really small words so you can understand it. The Pope is not inerrant. Can you say "inerrant." I'm sure you can. In- Err - int. Good, I knew you could. A letter permitting the teaching of something is a very far cry from a proclamation insisting that something must be taught. excuse me: DUH!!! I'm sure you can understand that if you try. YOu apparently figured out how to push the buttons on your keyboard to make the words you want; you can't possibly be as thick-skulled as you come across.

[FactQuest]

Yes, each bishop is "pedigreed", infact I believe each receives the laying on of hands by several bishops to ensure proper form.

Very interesting. So, who were the 1st ten? Does the church have more than 12 at any given time?

Me: Who did they heal? How many demons did they cast out?
You: There has been thousands, I haven't been keeping track;)

Granted, but I meant, each. Has every bishop cast out demons and healed the sick? But, I see that having a group of bishops lay on hands covers for the possible bad apple - its a chain of many strands.

Bottom line is this, why would Christ only give the twelve the gifts only to have those gifts die with the apostles? It makes no sense.

I see your point. I also see throughout the old and new testatments where forgiveness is given by God, and not by men. Bit of a dilemmma, that (for me at least) is eased if I see the apostles' authority as limited to just the apostles.

Fascinating discussion - I know that Baptists lay on hand when ordaining their deacons - but I know they aren't thinking in terms of transferring apostolic authority, but more of just a blessing, and a commissioning. I wonder if many of them realize the correlation... probably not. They probably just see this as following the examples of the early church Christians.

[monkfan]

http://www.christiantruth.com/pope.html

An Ecumenical Council Officially Condemns a Pope for Heresy


Historical Facts Proving That the Bishops of Rome Are not Infallible and Were Never Considered So by the Early Church


By William Webster

The Roman Catholic Council of Vatican I in 1870 is renowned for its dogmatic teaching that the Bishops of Rome, when teaching ex cathedra, are infallible. This teaching was stated to be consistent with the belief and practice the Church from its inception and throughout its long history. In other words it taught that this doctrine was not a doctrine that developed over time. The Council declared this teaching to be a dogma necessary to be believed for salvation and it anathematizes all who dare to disagree with or who oppose these assertions. The official teaching of Vatican I is as follows:

Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Christian religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if anyone—which may God avert—presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema...This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation...The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper, 1877), Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, Chp. 4, pp. 266-71).

Though Vatican I appeals to history as a valdation for its claims, it is the very facts of history which prove them to be spurious. Historically, papal infallibility was never part of the teaching or practice of the early Church, nor was it ever part of the doctrinal content of saving faith as taught by it. This is well illustrated by the actions of the 6th Ecumenical Council (III Constantinople) held in 680-681 A.D. This Council is well known in Church history for its official condemnation of a number of leading Eastern Bishops as well as a Bishop of Rome for embracing and promoting heretical teachings. The particular Pope who was posthumously excommunicated from the Church and forever branded a heretic was Pope Honorius, who reigned as bishop of Rome from 625 to 638 A.D. In a number of letters written to Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople, and several other individuals, Honorius officially embraced the heresy of montheletism, which teaches that Christ had only one will, the divine. The orthodox position is that Christ, though one person, possesses two wills because he is divine and human. There is absolutely no doubt that he held to the teaching of one will in Christ. Jaroslav Pelikan makes these comments:

In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151).

There are many past and present Roman apologists who downplay the importance of Pope Honorius. It is typical in Roman Catholic writings to find the issue of Honorius dealt with in a very superficial way. For example the following comments by Karl Keating are representative:

Actually, Honorius elected to teach nothing at all. Ronald Knox, in a letter to Arnold Lunn reprinted in their book Difficulties, put the matter like this: And Honorius, so far from pronouncing an infallible opinion in the Monothelite controversy, was quite extraordinarily not (as Gore used to say) pronouncing a decision at all. To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an opportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the Pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 229).

In one paragraph Keating dismisses this whole issue as trivial and Protestant objections as nothing more than a misrepresentation of the true facts. But one thing Mr. Keating does not do is to give the judgment of the Council itself in its own words. He simply states that Honorius did not teach anything and is therefore not guilty of heresy. Is this how the Council understood the situation? Absolutely not! To allow the Council to speak for itself is enough to dispel Keating and Knox's assertions. The facts speak for themselves. Honorius was personally condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. This was ratified by two succeeding Ecumenical Councils. He was also condemned by name by Pope Leo II, and by every pope up through the eleventh century who took the oath of papal office. In his classic and authoritative series on the history of the Councils, Roman Catholic historian Charles Joseph Hefele affirms this verdict in relating the following irrefutable facts regarding Honorius and the Sixth Ecumenical Council:

It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic!...That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him:
At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says: "After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign...to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor...them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine."
Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.
Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus"
Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read: "The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ.
After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things: "Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them."
In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein: \'91We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.
In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes: "With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome...the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself...We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present...besides, we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."
It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius...in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council...in his letter to the Spanish bishops...and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig. Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by...the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after...Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: "We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning...Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc." The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places...To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath...according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius" (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).

These facts are highly significant. Von Dollinger was the leading Roman Catholic historian of the last century who taught Church history for 47 years. He makes these comments:

This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).

Roman Catholic apologists generally attempt to salvage the dogma of papal infallibility from the case with Honorius by saying that he was not giving an ex cathedra statement but merely his opinion as a private theologian. Therefore he was not condemned in his official capacity as the pope. According to the Roman Catholic Church there are certain conditions which must be met for the teaching of the pope to fall within the overall guidelines of that which is considered to be. He must be teaching in his official capacity as the pope and he must be defining doctrine for the entire Church. The claim is made that Honorius did not meet these conditions. However, a careful reading of the official acts of the Council prove that it thought otherwise. The reader can judge for himself from the Council's own statements how the situation with Honorius was viewed and whether it would have agreed with the assertions of Keating and Knox that Honorius did not actively teach anything. The Council makes the following statements:

Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. 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 Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
Session XVI: 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! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!...
Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).

The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:

The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his official capacity as pope and not as a private theologian.
He is condemned for following after and confirming the heresy of montheletism.
He is condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.

To suggest that the Sixth Ecumenical Council does not invalidate the teaching of papal infallibility because Honorius did not make an ex cathedra statement is historically absurd. This is to erect arbitrary conditions which were not existent at the time to save oneself the embarrassment of a historical fact which undermines one's position. The issue is not what do individual Roman Catholic apologists say, but what did the Sixth Ecumenical Council say. On what basis did it condemn Pope Honorius? By its own words it condemned him in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian, for advancing heretical teachings which it says were Satanically inspired and would affect the entire Church. It specifically states that Honorius advanced these teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them. And it condemns him by name as a heretic, anathematizing him as such. According to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology an Ecumenical Council is infallible so all the arguments which attempt to dismiss the judgment of this Council saying that it was mistaken or that it rushed to judgment or whatever, are simply erroneous and empty, on the basis of their own theology. So an infallible Ecumenical Council (from a Roman Catholic perspective) has condemned as a heretic a bishop of Rome for teaching heresy. It is quite obvious that these Eastern fathers did not view the bishops of Rome as infallible.John Meyendorff states that, contrary to the assertions of many Roman Catholics that Honorius did in fact teach the doctrine of monotheletism in a positive sense and helped confirm Sergius in the heresy. Meyendorff gives this summary:

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 ecumenmical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries. Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists 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).

Jaroslav Pelikan affirms the same thing in these comments:

In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)

Charles Hefele affirms the fact that Leo II also condemned Honorius as a heretic and confirmed the decrees of the Council:

It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius...in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council...in his letter to the Spanish bishops...and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).

The condemnation by Pope Leo II is significant. He affirmed the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, confirming by this that Honorius had actively undermined the orthodox faith. W.J. Sparrow Simpson summarizes Leo's viewpoint in these comments:

Leo accepted the decisions of Constantinople. He has carefully examined the Acts of the Council and found them in harmony with the declarations of faith of his predecessor, Agatho, and of the Synod of the Lateran. He anathematized all the heretics, including his predecessor, Honorius, who so far from aiding the Apostolic See with the doctrine of the Apostolic Tradition, attempted to subvert the faith by a profane betrayal (W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (London: John Murray, 1909), p. 35).

It is significant that the letter of Honorius to Sergius was used in the East by the proponents of the Monothelite heresy as justification for their position. As Sparrow Simpson observes: "This letter of Honorius was utilised in the East to justify the Monothelite heresy the existence of one will in Christ (W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (London: John Murray, 1909), p. 33). The definition of what the Roman Catholic Church refers to as ex cathedra teaching was not enunciated and defined until 1870. One needs to keep this in mind when applying this test to the case of Honorius and the judgment of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. In the mind of this "infallible" Council the pope was a heretic. In its official condemnation of him, he is judged on the basis of the criteria for ex cathedra statements which was defined some 1200 years later. One simply cannot avoid the historical facts. An "infallible" Ecumenical Council has condemned an "infallible" pope, in his official capacity, for heresy. No redefining of terms can erase the simple facts of history or the implications of those facts for the dogma of papal infallibility. This has direct bearing upon the issue of authority and jurisdiction. If an Ecumenical Council can excommunicate a bishop of Rome then the ultimate authority in the early Church was not the bishop of Rome but the Council. The fact of this condemnation clearly demonstrates that contrary to the claims of Vatican I, the early Church never viewed the bishops of Rome to be infallible. No Church father has ever taught such a doctrine and it is contradicted by the practice of the early Church fathers and Councils, III Constantinople being but one example.

[monkfan]

snipped from post 91...

It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius...in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council...in his letter to the Spanish bishops...and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig. Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by...the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after...Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: "We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning...Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc." The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places...To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath...according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius" (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).

These facts are highly significant. Von Dollinger was the leading Roman Catholic historian of the last century who taught Church history for 47 years. He makes these comments:

This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).

Roman Catholic apologists generally attempt to salvage the dogma of papal infallibility from the case with Honorius by saying that he was not giving an ex cathedra statement but merely his opinion as a private theologian. Therefore he was not condemned in his official capacity as the pope. According to the Roman Catholic Church there are certain conditions which must be met for the teaching of the pope to fall within the overall guidelines of that which is considered to be. He must be teaching in his official capacity as the pope and he must be defining doctrine for the entire Church. The claim is made that Honorius did not meet these conditions. However, a careful reading of the official acts of the Council prove that it thought otherwise. The reader can judge for himself from the Council's own statements how the situation with Honorius was viewed and whether it would have agreed with the assertions of Keating and Knox that Honorius did not actively teach anything. The Council makes the following statements:...

[dangus]

Talk to the hand.

[conservonator]

Refutation of William Webster's Fundamental Misunderstanding of Development of Doctrine

The Fathers know best Not Mr. Webster!

Mr. Webster's Errors on the Canon Refuted

Windsor Responds to Webster

Webster is a bush league polemicist hack. As an Orthodox, I would expect better from you.

[monkfan]

I'm already aware that Webster is Protestant. That the RC don't care for him was a no-brainer. As you are already aware, I'm Orthodox. So... do I need to point out that I'm not a fan of his? The point of the post was not to parade his analysis. I'm more interested in his quotations. Two in particular. One, from the Council and one from a RC historian. However, I did happen to notice that he made some comments that are spot on with what I've read elsewhere on this subject (Orthodox sources). I snipped out that chunk and underlined the relevant parts. I bolded a few things I thought were interesting. In an earlier post, I cited an online Catholic encyclopedia on this subject. Nobody seemed to like that much either. I could cite an Orthodox source if you like:

http://www.goholycross.org/studies/councils.html

Way down at the bottom...

"***Rome has always prided itself with having popes who only spoke the orthodox and catholic faith. The case of Honorius though, calls this to question. Horonius, in his letter written ex cathedra speaks of only the uncorrupted human nature of Christ without mentioning His "two natures." For this and for his negligence of duty in the face of heresy, in that he should have ascertained that Sergius was teaching one will in Christ, the divine will, Leo II condemned him. Roman maintains the view that the condemnation of Honorius was not truly pronounced because it represented an error in facto dogmatico rather than a mistake in faith or theology."

Anyway, what was being argued was that Honorius was never actually condemned (or even guilty) of heresy. Also being argued, whether or not he stated the heresy ex cathedra. The former is an undeniable historical fact. Even RC historians (some anyway) admit as much. So, that leaves us with the latter. Was it ex cathedra? Sure looks that way.

Now, I fully expect you will disagree. I'd be quite perplexed if you didn't. No self-respecting Roman Catholic would dare to challenge Papal Infallibility. Which is precisely why talk about reunification is nothing more than hot air. EO will never accept RC additions and RC no longer has the option to renounce them.

See my first post (#2) and understand, the author has no idea what he's talking about. There is no "return". Not anymore.

[dangus]

Your good to wish to defend the faith, but don't waste your breath on the likes of monkfan. He knows quite well the distinction between inerrant and infallible; he feigns ignorance so he can continue to vent his hatred. Leave him alone.

[conservonator]

Now, I fully expect you will disagree. I'd be quite perplexed if you didn't. No self-respecting Roman Catholic would dare to challenge Papal Infallibility. Which is precisely why talk about reunification is nothing more than hot air. EO will never accept RC additions and RC no longer has the option to renounce them.

And conversely I doubt the EO will admit and repent from their errors which leads me to believe, like you, union is impossible.

Which is why I am ever grateful that God, and not you or I is in charge.