The issue of the papacy and its support in the early centuries of the Church came up in another thread. I came across these citations in a piece I wrote some time ago. Notice that these come from Eastern Fathers of the Church, many centuries before the Eastern churches broke from the West in A.D. 1054. Note too that the status of the Church of Rome is assumed by these Eastern Fathers to be grounded on the promises of Scripture and not on any political preeminence of Rome.

The Holy Spirit does not lead the entire body of professing Christians astray. The papacy was an integral part of the "undivided Church" of the early centuries of Christendom.

From St. Maximus the Confessor:

"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell never prevail against her, that she has the keys of orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High." (Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne PG 90.)

The Libellus of Hormisdas signed by 250 Eastern bishops and approximately 2500 Eastern priests:

"[Our] first safety is to guard the rule of the right faith and to deviate in no wise from the ordinances of the Fathers; because we cannot pass over the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ who said: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." These [words] which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain. . . . Moreover, we accept and approve all the letters of blessed Leo the Pope, which he wrote regarding the Christian religion, just as we said before, following the Apostolic See in all things, and extolling its ordinances. And, therefore, I hope that I may merit to be in the one communion with you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which there is the whole and the true and the perfect solidity of the Christian religion, promising that in the future the names of those separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, those not agreeing with the Apostolic See, shall not be read during the sacred mysteries. But if I shall attempt in any way to deviate from my profession, I confess that I am a confederate in my opinion with those whom I have condemned. However, I have with my own hand signed this profession of mine, and to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the City of Rome, I have directed it." (Libellus professionis fidei, in Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma, 171).

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 04, 1999

Answers

David - Good Stuff!!

Jean B.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 05, 1999.

The seven ecumenical councils cleraly placed the Pope has head of the Universal Church. In the first thousand years of the Catholic Faith, Rome was regarded as the final authority on matters of faith; it was the Bishop of Rome as evidenced in the Council of Ephesus who utlimately made the final decisions on matters of Faith, and imposed the fitting sentence on those who defied it such as Nestorious in the middle of the Fifth Century.

When the Eastern Church institutionalized heresey, by her supreme prelate, the Eastern Bishops would appeal of Saint Athanasius did to the Bishop of Rome, who supported him and recognized his orthodoxy in a council in Rome in the 4th Century.

I agree with David Palm in that the Eastern Bishops did see the Pope as the successor of Peter. At the Council of Chalcedon, the Eastern Bishops had stated that" Peter has spoken through Leo." Pope Leo was the Patriach of the West at the time.

Orthodox theologians believe that when Christ referring to the rock, that state that he is not refferening to Peter, but to Faith; upon reading the passage, one can clearly see that this false. When the disciples doubted whom and what Christ was, Peter stood and stated that "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. Peter's leadership and faithfulness were the items that compelled our Lord to state that Peter was the Rock on which Christ would build his Church. Saint Peter was clearly chief of the Apostles and the apostles were the cornerstone on which Christ built his Church. However, in all academic fairness, there is something that does need to be said; it is clear that the Bishop of Rome during the first 1,000 years of the Church did abuse his power as Supreme head of the Church. Between the 6th and 9th centuries the Archbishop of Constantinople Sergius and the Pope of Rome had embraced monthielism, distorting the divinity of Christ. In the 11th and 12 th century, when there was still communion between east and west excursions to the Holy Land sponspored by the Pope lead to the killing of many Eastern Christians, a fact that Pope John Paul had just apologized for. The question that begs itself can the Pope be the Supreme Head of the Catholic Chuch, Latin Rite and Orthodox now... ? The answer is yes. Pope John Paul has been the chief Bishop and leader in perserving the Catholic Faith around the world, and even going to Orhodox Bishops can be service to them; cleraly an indication of the servant of the servants of God, a title created by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th and 7th centuries.

-- David J. Valentini (padrig115@yahoo.com), May 07, 2002.

Mr. Valenti--
Show us your sources for this:

Between the 6th and 9th centuries the Archbishop of Constantinople Sergius and the Pope of Rome had embraced monthielism, distorting the divinity of Christ.

In all fairness.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 07, 2002.

Gene, please permit me to make a pre-emptive strike here.
Mr. Valentini is referring to the case of Pope Honorius. Here is what Catholic Answers, Inc., says (in very brief terms) about the case:

"According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case [against infallibility] lies with Pope Honorius. They say that he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold. But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As [Msgr.] Ronald Knox [convert from Anglicanism] explained, 'To the best of his human wisdom, [Pope Honorius] thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. 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.'"

A scholarly and detailed encyclopedia article about Monothelitism, Sergius, Honorius, etc., can be found here.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 08, 2002.

In response to John's commentary on my last commentary. It was not my intention to condemm the papacy; nor am I fundamentalist. I do ascribe to Catholic Faith and Truth, and to the Holy Father being ahead of the Church. However, there is some research in conflict with Catholic Answers. In Fr. Michael P O'Brien's the Lives of the Pope he claims that Sergius,the Archbishop of Constantinople and Honorarius, the Bishop of Rome had exchanged letters regarding the heresey of Monthielism; apparently the letters between the two prelates were intercepted, and their views were condeemmed by the other Bishops of the Undivided Church. It was not my intention to tarnish the image of the Bishop of Rome. The first 1,000 years showed that the Holy Father had guarded the Church against many heresies that came out of the East: Nestorianism, Arianism, Monosphytism, just to name a few; these heresies were insitutionalized in the East and never in Rome; and that Honorarius, accepting the montheilistic heresy is the only time that a Roman prelate did so. In addition, there is substantive controversy regarding his pontificate. My intention in bringing the case of Sergius and Honorarius was not defame the Pope, but to give a balanced presentation to the orginal question. The Holy Father is a sinner just like everyone else, and will make mistakes as Honorarius did in the case of Monthielism and Saint Peter did, in denying Christ. We must always remember that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church, but he is the servant of the servants of God, and the utlimately head of the Church is Jesus Christ, and the ultiimately giver of truth is the Holy Spirit.

-- David J.Valentini (padrig115@yahoo.com), May 09, 2002.

Sorry, Daniel, but you don't seem to understand something fundamental. Pope Honorius [not "Honorarius"] did not teach the Church the heresy of Monothelitism, and he could not have done so, thanks to the protection of the Holy Spirit. (The priest/author to whom you referred did not say that the pope taught Monothelitism, but rather wrote private letters.)

You later stated "that Honorarius, accepting the montheilistic heresy is the only time that a Roman prelate did so."
My understanding is that it has not actually been proved that he accepted the heresy, but mainly that he did not actively condemn it.

You later stated that "The Holy Father is a sinner just like everyone else, and will make mistakes as Honorarius did in the case of Monthielism and Saint Peter did, in denying Christ."
You are mixing apples and oranges. Pope Honorius did not publicly approve of Monothelitism. He did not "make mistakes" as a teacher, though he may have been guilty of a sin of omission. St. Peter did not publicly teach error either, but only acted in a cowardly way.

If you would like to read an exchange on Pope Honorius between two Catholics and a Protestant, please click here.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 09, 2002.

Dear John:

Thanks for keying me in on the article in Catholic Answers regarding Monothelitism and Monothelites. It was very informative. I will know respond to your last post.

I never stated that Pope Honoraius taught the heresy of Monothelitism, but he did accept it. In the article that you directed me to the author indicated that the Bishop of Rome accepted the Monothelistic Heresy: "It cannot be too carefully borne in mind that theological accuracy is a matter of defintion, and defintion is a matter of words. The prohibition of the right words is always heresy, even though the author of the prohibition has no heretical intention and is merely shortsighted or confused. Honorius replied reproving Sophorius, and praising Sergius for rejecting his "new expression of two operations". He approves recommendations made by Sergius, and has no blame for the capitula of Cyrus. In one point he goes further than either, for he uses the words: "Wherefore we acknowlege one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The author goes onto to say that"It is clear that Honorius was not any more a wilful heretic than was Segius, but he was equally correct in his position, and his position made the mistake fat diasterous. In another letter to Sergius he has informed Cyrus that the new expressions, one and two operations are to be dropped, their use being most foolish."

The traditional Catholic teaching is that our Lord has two wills: One Fully Human and Fully Divine. Honorius as quoted previously not only stated that Christ has One Will, but also advocated dropping the phrasing that our Lord also had not only two wills or two "energia"; by doing so he denied a fundamental orthodox teaching regarding the nature of Christ; Christ has two wills and accompanied by them two energia, a phrase utilized by the author.

Thirdly, Honorius is condemmed by the Six Ecumenical Council. Here the author writes again:

"The final dogmatic decrees contains the decisions of the five preceeding general councils, condemms the Ectheisis and the Type, and heretics by name, including Honorius, and greets with "uplifted hands", the letter of Pope Agatho and his council." Pope Agatho upheld the true Catholic teaching.

Again in response to your comment: "Pope Honorius did not publicly approve of Monothelitism. He did not "make mistakes" as a teacher, though he may have been guilty of a sin of omission."

You are correct the Pope Honorius did not publicly approve of Monothelitism, but in private he did, as exampled by His exchanges with Sergius. Did he publicly teach this heresey ? no ?. However, by this "sin of omission", he was quilty of failing to embrace the fullness of the Catholic doctrine on the dual nature of God; this in itself is heresy.

Yours in Christ,

Dave

-- David J.Valentini (padrig115@yahoo.com), May 10, 2002.

Hello, David V.

The article from which you quoted is not from Catholic Answers, but in the old (~1913) Catholic Encyclopedia. I don't think that the editor of the article intended to put quite the "spin" on it that you have, but that's a matter of opinion.

You stated: "However, by this 'sin of omission", [Honorius] was guilty of failing to embrace the fullness of the Catholic doctrine on the dual nature of God; this in itself is heresy."

You are mistaken about this. Here is what the Catechism (quoting Canon Law) says on the subject: "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same."
We have no evidence that Pope Honorius engaged in "obstinate denial" or "obstinate doubt." My reading of the Encyclopedia is that he did not -- again, a matter of opinion.

I don't have Patrick Madrid's book, "Pope Fiction," but I know that it contains an explanation of the Honorius/Monothelitism problem, so I hope that you come across the book some day.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.

Dear John:

There is some evidence that Honorius had engaged in heresey. In 638, at the end of his pontificate, the emperor Heraclius published the "Ecthesis", denying the two wills of Christ. Honorius response to Sergius claiming that Christ had only one will was incorporated into this heretical piece of writing by the Emperor; as a result, that Undivided Church, which is infalibale and guided by the Holy Spirit in the name of perfect Truth, at the Sixth Ecumenical branded the Pope as a heretic, along with those who had erred along with him.

In Christ,

Dave

-- David Valentini (padrig115@yahoo.com), May 14, 2002.