>[someone blundered, saying:] >:>> Remember: Paul told Timothy to regard elders--priests--as >:>> fathers. Christ's words are hyperbole, just as when he said to >:>> gouge our eyes out. [Me:] >This man is ignorant of the context. Paul spoke about older (or aged) >people, not "priests". Or are we to suppose that he in vain spoke about >old women and young persons in the very same sentence? >1Tim 5:1-2 >"An aged person thou mayest not rebuke, but be entreating as a father; >"younger persons as brethren; aged women as mothers, younger ones as >"sisters -- in all purity... :The argument was a response to someone who used the old anti-Catholic :charge of "call no man father" to show that Paul told Timothy to regard :these men as "fathers". I agree the context here does not seem to support :that "elder" here means priest. However, in other cases of the Bible it :does. :1 Peter 5:1, for instance. The use here according to Strongs is "presbyter". I agree that the word "presbyter" has a basic meaning different from "old man". But it never means "priest". Priest in Greek is "hiereos", applied to all believers in the NT, but never to "elders" specifically. >:> The elders were not priests. Where do you find references in >:> Scripture specifically refering elders as "priests"? :How do you "ordain" people old? It was not my stuff, but that of the "one" who answered to the "someone". However, why would "elder" mean "priest"? By your definition? :Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set :in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as :I had appointed thee: "Elder" is an office, too. But it is not that of a "sacerdos", that is, sacrificing priest. >: The origin of the word >:In Greek, the word for elder is presbuteros. That word was transliterated >:into Latin as presbyter, which then in English became shortened to priest. >:That's why you never hear about "Catholic elders." It is because Catholic >:priests are Catholics elders. That's what the word "priest" means; it is >:simply a shortened English form of presbuteros. You can check any >:dictionary you want to confirm this. So obviously we can say that there >:is some kind of priesthood today because there are elders today. >This weak reasoning can only be deemed cultural and not theological. >Cultural reasons neither justify nor excuse bad theology. And the point >is exactly that the Church doesn't have that kind of sacerdotal priests >which the Roman Catholic Church claims to have. Christ died only once, >and dies no more. He is our only high priest. All believers are priests >in a sense of thanksgiving, praises, etc. (Cf. Mal 1:11, and an occurrence >in the NT which excludes the wresting of Malachi to the Mass: Rom 15:16.) :Who says that Christ died more than once? The Mass. It is alleged to be a real expiatory sacrifice. A real expiatory sacrifice without real expiatory death of the victim is curious. >The most grievous thing is that your denomination did away both with the >eternal sacerdotal priesthood of Christ and the royal priesthood of all >believers when she instituted the so-called clergy. "Kleros", by the way, >is applied to all believers in 1Pt 5:2-3, or at best to those whom you are >likely to call "laity": >"Feed the flock of God that [is] among you, overseeing not constrainedly, >"but willingly, neither for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, neither as >"exercising lordship over the heritages, but patterns becoming of the flock. :Not true. :Priesthood and sacrifice :A. The Universal Priesthoods :1. New Testament: Spiritual sacrifices :Of course every priesthood has sacrifices to offer. As 1 Peter :2:5 states, we in the universal priesthood have spiritual :sacrifices we give to God. Romans 12:1 says we offer our bodies. :Philippians 4:18 says we offer our donations. And Hebrews :13:15-16 state that we offer our praise, our good deeds, and our :sharing with others. Thus far I agree. But the correct term for this priesthood is not "universal" but "royal", expressing Christ's dignity. By replacing it with "universal", your theologians betrayed 1) fear that their "Holy Orders" would be despised if this word is widely used; 2) bias against the royal priesthood, and the "lay" in general. :2. Old Testament: Spiritual sacrifices too (Hos 14:2) : :These were the same things offered by ordinary Jews as members :of the Old Testament universal priesthood. They could pray to :God; they could offer him praises; they could offer donations :and good deeds; and they could offer their bodies in his :service. In all of those things they were like us, offering up :their own spiritual sacrifices to God. In fact, one of the :references I cited, Hebrews 13:15-16, which says we offer the :sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips, is a reference to :the Hosea 14:2, in which the Israelites are urged to promise to :offer him the sacrifice of their lips in praise. Agreed. :B. The ministerial priesthoods :1. The Old Testament priesthoods: drink, grain, animal :But formal, ministerial priests have a separate set of :offerings. This is true both in the Old Testament and the New. :In the Old Testament the most notable sacrifices the priests :offered were the drink offerings, the grain offerings, and the :animal offerings that were prescribed by the Law of Moses. :2. New Testament priesthood You omit Christ, the High Priest, in whom the whole sacerdotal priesthood culminates! Further no reasoning is needed, as your way of proof falls flat on the face at the very beginning. :a. The priestly duty of preaching :i. Rom 15:15-16 :The Bible indicates New Testament priests offer at least two :sacrifices. One of them is discussed in Romans 15:15-16. In the :New International Version of this passage, we read: :"I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind :you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a :minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty :of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might :become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy :Spirit." :Paul tells us that because he has been given a calling as a :professional minister of Christ, he has a priestly duty of :preaching the gospel so that the Gentiles may be an offering-- :a sacrifice to God. My friend, you seem to be ignorant of what sacrifice Paul is speaking about here, so let me quote the first verses of that chapter: Romans 15:8-21 [...] So try to deny that Paul's priestly duty is just preaching, and not some expiatory sacrifice. The offering of the Pagans turned out to be PRAISES (15:10-11, 15:16). You want to use the "priestly duty" of >preaching< to exclude others from >offering the Mass<; what is it if not a speculative leap which results in hitting the ground? :ii. Every elder in every church :This is not something only he has. Every elder in every church :has that same "priestly duty" of preaching the gospel. So Paul :here conceives of the office of the New Testament minister as a :priestly office. Not just elders can preach. In Eph 4:11 no restriction is there to elders. 1Tim 5:17 allows that other presbyters exist apart from those who teach. (In my opinion, they may be governors, 1Cor 12:28) :iii. Ministers as priests, not the congregation :Notice that the hearers of the gospel in this passage are not :depicted as priests, but as the sacrifice to God. Paul draws :a distinction between himself and his duty of preaching the :gospel, and his readers and their duty of hearing it. It is the :minister, not the congregation, who is here pictured as priest. :We don't deny the universal priesthood we simply say that the Bible :supports both the universal priesthood and the ministerial priesthood. For your information, the "priests" of your denomination are called so not because they preach but because they can allegedly offer the "Sacrifice of the Mass". So it's a giant and gratuitous leap to dwell on Paul's priestly service by preaching, and to unscrupulously transfer it to people who are not required either to preach or to teach, but just to perform rituals. Moreover, even Paul didn't dare to say that his priestly duty of preaching is an expiatory sacrifice, while those who vaunt of being able to change the bread into God assert that what they offer is expiatory. >:>Only God is infallible! Can any man be considered infallible? The church is >:>made up of men who are all fallible. Why else would the scriptures say that >:>all have sinned? As to the authority of the apostles and the other disciples >:>whom Jesus sent to preach the word, did they preach their own message or the >:>message that Jesus taught them? We cannot consider any concept conceived by >:>men to be infallible. Only what was taught by God can be considered perfect. :Do you believe the writers of Scripture wrote infallibly? :Were they men and as such sinners? It was not my speech, but that of the one criticizing the "someone". You, indeed, might have known this, as it was you to have replied to him first. I won't defend him, as I included his stuff only for context's sake. Please delete it in the reply. >:You have no concept of what the Catholic Church teaches >:concerning infallibility. Of course it comes from God. >:The Spirit guides into all truth: >:John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you >:into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what >:he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. >Jn 15:6 sets the condition: > "if any one may not remain in me, he was cast forth without > "as the branch, and was withered, and they gather them, and > "cast to fire, and they are burned; :Ok. You haven't shown that this is not true in the Catholic Church. You haven't shown that John 16:13 applies to Roman Catholicism. In the absence of this, yours is a blank-cheque tactic. >:The Spirit will teach/remind everything: >:John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will >:send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of >:everything I have said to you. >The same apostle warns us of lying spirits in 1Jn 4:1: > "Beloved, every spirit believe not, but prove the spirits, if > "of God they are, because many false prophets have gone forth > "to the world; :You haven't shown that Catholic teachings are lies. You haven't shown that the spirit which whispers your leaders their teaching is the Holy Spirit. In the absence of this, yours is a blank-cheque tactic. >:The Apostles speak with Christ's own voice: >:Luke 10:16 "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you >:rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." >In 2Cor 11:13-14 Paul bitterly inveighs against false apostles: > "for those such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming > "themselves into apostles of Christ, and no wonder -- for even the > "Adversary doth transform himself into a messenger of light; :You haven't shown me any false Apostles. Here you are, Joe. Pope Boniface the Eighth (Benedetto Caetani, The Black Monster). Pope Alexander the Sixth (Rodrigo Borgia). Many popes in the ninth and tenth centuries - you may be interested in the dictum of the ultra-Romanist historian Caesar Baronius (late 16th century) who in his Annales Ecclesiastici called those popes who indulged in filthy adultery, "non apostolicos sed apostaticos", not apostles but apostates. >and in Rev 2:2 Christ praises a congregation for having rejected them: > "I have known thy works, and thy labour, and thy endurance, > "and that thou art not able to bear evil ones, and that thou > "hast tried those saying themselves to be apostles and are not, > "and hast found them liars, :Right, how do I know you don't fit into this category. You Email is :telling me what you think the Bible says. By whose authority do you :interpret Scripture and what makes you think you are infallible? A wide shot, my friend. I never said that I applied it to your denomination, although with little effort I could have gathered some additional instances of papal apostasy, seeing which even you would admit that those infamous murderers of true doctrine have to be rejected by anyone sincerely follow- ing Christ. My intention was to make you more attentive towards the traps which are before those who on their mere assertion that they are the the successors of the apostles, build a whole system which excludes their fall automatically, with an "ex opere operato" clergy. >:The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth: >:1 Tim 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct >:themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, >:the pillar and foundation of the truth. >In 2Tim 2:19 Paul acquaints us with the distinctive marks of the >strong foundation of God: His knowledge, and our proper conduct: > "sure, nevertheless, hath the foundation of God stood, having this seal, > "`The Lord hath known those who are His,' and `Let him depart from un- > "righteousness -- every one who is naming the name of Christ.' :This doesn't address 1 Tim 3:15. It does. The Church, which is the >foundation< and pillar of the truth is known by the >seal< mentioned above. Is it not addressing 1Tim 3:15? >:The anointing of the Holy Spirit remains in you: >:1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains >:in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing >:teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not >:counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him. >Unless we hurt Him - Heb 10:29: > "of how much sorer punishment shall he be counted worthy who the Son of God > "did trample on, and the blood of the covenant did count a common thing, > "in which he was sanctified, and to the Spirit of the grace did despite? :You haven't said anything that I disagree with. I can only assume :that you think this applies to the Catholic Church, you have yet to :show that. No >such< proof is needed. I just wanted to trim your blank-cheque logic by showing that there is no blank cheque. Your "proof" used a blank cheque. But now it is wrested out of your hand, so you evidently have to consider Heb 10:29 and passages in the like additional guidelines which your denomination (just as mine) has to adhere to. It's pretty amazing that you Roman Catholics usually place an enormous emphasis on works coming from faith, but make an exception to this in the case of their clergy. You say, if someone has faith but has no works then his justification is incomplete, and that if he goes on doing evil while by the word of mouth still voicing his Christianity, he will go to hell. But why don't you apply it to the clergy? You say that they have divine promises ("Upon this rock", "Go and teach", "Whose sins you remit", etc.), but fail to recognize that those appointed to lead the Church also have duty and responsibility. If someone argues that misbehaved bishops and popes have to be deposed immediately you RCs usually charge him of Donatism. (This was a heretical movement insisting that where there is sin there is no Church.) But we don't say that, just in the spirit of 2Tim 2:19 warn that where sins are tolerated without excommunication there the Church is diluted, subverted, tampered. >:The Apostles speak with the voice of the Holy Spirit: >:Acts 15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden >:you with anything beyond the following requirements: >Provided they stick to the truth - Gal 2:11-13: > "And when Peter came to Antioch, to the face I stood up against him, > "because he was blameworthy, for before the coming of certain from James, > "with the nations he was eating, and when they came, he was withdrawing > "and separating himself, fearing those of the circumcision, and dissemble > "with him also did the other Jews, so that also Barnabas was carried away > "by their dissimulation. :You haven't said anything that I disagree with. I can only assume that :you think this applies to the Catholic Church, you have yet to show that. Here you are, some heretical popes for you to condemn. The quotations are made from a thick volume of a RC scholar: "The Ancient Christian Church and Her Literature" by Laszlo VANYO, Budapest, 1988, imprimatur etc. Of course, what you see now is my translation of the Hungarian text. The titles are mine. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I. THE CASE OF POPE LIBERIUS p. 850. 'Pope Liberius (352-66) was a defender of the Nicene Creed. The people 'of Rome loved him so much that the emperor Constantius dared to have 'him kidnapped only at night. The pope dwelt in exile in Berea of Thracia 'from 355 to 358. He could return to Rome only after having signed after 'the First Formula of Sirmium the Third one too, which withdrew the 'communion from Athanasius and the Eastern bishops in union with him. 'The pope's deed didn't harm his orthodoxy because he signed the Third 'Formula of Sirmium only with the [additional] comment: "If someone does 'not profess that the Son is similar in essence with the Father, and that 'in all respects, let him be anathema." Thirteen epistles have remained 'from the correspondence of the pope in fragments or whole. He wrote three 'letters to Eusebius of Vercelli. Four of his epistles written from exile 'give rise to much debate as they compromise hi[s memory] significantly, 'however, there is no considerable reason to deem them spurious. ---------------------------- Comment: The remark of Prof. Vanyo about the signature not doing harm to Liberius's orthodoxy is a wilful obfuscation. He doesn't treat this case in >that< part of the book which deals with the dogmatic issue of Christ's consubstantiality with the Father but places it much later, when he covers popes. Doing so, he obviously strives to rely on the reader's oblivion who, when arriving to this part, has totally forgotten that it was the usage of >Arian heretics< to say "of SIMILAR essence" instead of "of ONE essence"; "homoiusion" instead of "homousion". Upon this one iota so much vigour was exerted, and to save his pope, Vanyo hints that he only said something Arian, so it doesn't harm his orthodoxy! No Greek knowledge is needed to understand the logical fallacy in the book - so, pope Liberius turned out to have been a heretic. ------------------------------------------------------------------- II. THE CASE OF POPE VIGILIUS AND THE 5TH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL p. 703-704. '[Emperor] Justinian had a more difficult task with [convincing] the 'Monophysites. They stumbled in the fact that the Council of Chalcedon had 'rehabilitated two bishops who have been charged with Nestorianism, namely 'Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa. Justinian came to the conclusion 'that he could have the Chalcedonian dogma accepted by Monophysites [the 'easiest way] in an interpretation of Cyril [of Alexandria], and that [to 'achieve his goal] he had to condemn those chapters of the writings of 'Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas of Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyrus, which 'were most ardently criticized [by Monophysites]. In carrying out this 'plan he had to obtain the opinion of the West, first of all the consent 'of pope Vigilius (537-555). 'Justinian drew the necessary conclusions from the failure of Emperor Zeno's 'policy, and he didn't want to cause a schism between Rome and Constantinople. 'The emperor knew it well that getting the consent of pope Vigilius wouldn't 'be easy. The pope had to bear in mind that the Western bishops considered 'Justinian's plan senseless because the emperor wanted to have the Mono- 'physites accept the Chalcedonian dogma by sacrificing persons who took 'part in formulating it, and kept defending it after the council. 'If Justinian condemns Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa then he contra- 'dicts the Council of Chalcedon which had acquitted these two prelates from 'the charge of Nestorianism. 'In 548 Justinian had pope Vigilius brought into Constantinople and had him 'sign the writing about "the Three Chapters" which condemned the views of 'Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa. Justinian's 'decree simply branded Theodore of Mopsuestia a heretic, while it censured 'only some scandalous views on the part of Theodoret and Ibas. Justinian 'expressed himself very cautiously in the document. Pope Vigilius signed 'the Three Chapters reluctantly, knowing that his signature would stir up 'vehement protests in the West, especially in Northern Africa. It really 'ensued, and the pope revoked his signature because of the flurry of 'protests. 'Justinian continued his efforts to carry out his plans; he convened a 'council into Constantinople to May 533. Its duty was to confirm the 'judgment of the Three Chapters, and the condemnation of Origenist 'propositions. He had pope Vigilius brought in Constantinople anew, 'and the pope yielded to the pressure of the emperor again, and signed 'the decrees. The swaying and lenience of the pope raised great tumult 'in Rome; probably it has happened very luckily that he died on his way 'to Rome on the ship, and just his corpse could arrive into his capital 'city. 'The emperor succeeded in his plan but his intervention worked to the 'contrary of his expectations. The Monophysites considered Justinian's 'policy dangerous for they feared that it would result in the annulment 'of the Monophysite church. The fanatical Syrian Monophysite Jacob Bradaeus 'travelled all the East in disguise after 553 and consecrated Monophysite 'bishops. An underground Monophysite hierarchy was born which began to 'operate besides the Orthodox hierarchy loyal to the Chalcedonian dogma. 'Thus did the Monophysited retain their independence in the Byzantine 'empire. Syrian Jacobites, Armenians, Kopts, and Ethiopians have been 'professing the propositions of Cyril of Alexandria up to now, and they 'reject the dogma of Chalcedon. ------------------ It seems fitting to cite another reference: "Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils", ed. Norman P. Tanner. ~Second Council of Constantinople - 553 A.D. ~Introduction ~The emperor Justinian and Pope Vigilius decided to summon this council ~after the latter withdrew his "Judgment" condemning the "Three ~Chapters" of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret and Ibas. This ~"Judgment" had been issued on 11 April 548 but the bishops of the west ~and especially of Africa unanimously opposed it. The council was ~summoned by Justinian to Constantinople, although Vigilius would have ~preferred to convene it in Sicily or Italy so that western bishops ~might be present. It assembled on 5 May 553 in the great hall ~attached to Hagia Sophia cathedral. ~Since the Roman pontiff refused to take part in the council, because ~Justinian had summoned bishops in equal numbers from each of the five ~patriarchal sees, so that there would be many more eastern than ~western bishops present, Eutychius, patriarch of Constantinople, ~presided. The decrees of the council were signed by 160 bishops, of ~whom 8 were Africans. ~On 14 May 553 Pope Vigilius issued his "Constitution", which was ~signed by 16 bishops (9 from Italy, 2 from Africa, 2 from Illyricum ~and 3 from Asia Minor). This rejected sixty propositions of Theodore ~of Mopsuestia, but spared his personal memory and refused to condemn ~either Theodoret or Ibas since, on the testimony of the council of ~Chalcedon, all suspicion of heresy against them had been removed. ~Nevertheless, the council in its 8th session on 2 June 553 again ~condemned the "Three Chapters", for the same reasons as Justinian had ~done so, in a judgment which concludes with 14 anathemas. ...Here is a very curious gap... ~After carefully considering the matter for six months, Vigilius, ~weighing up the persecutions of Justinian against his clergy and ~having sent a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, approved the ~council, thus changing his mind "after the example of Augustine". ~Furthermore he anathematized Theodore and condemned his writings and ~those of Theodoret and Ibas. On 23 February 554, in a second ~"Constitution", he tried to reconcile the recent condemnation with ~what had been decreed at the council of Chalcedon. The gap is due to Papalist courtesy: Norman Tanner didn't want the reader to know the whole truth about the pope. He meditates on why the Constantino- politan patriarch "had to" preside "in the absence of the Roman Pontiff". In a less Vaticanist viewpoint this necessity would turn out to be dependent on other factors, namely that the pope had just been past his revocation of the Judgment, originally issued at the pressure of Justinian, and fell out of his favour; and he was just about to issue a Constitution in which he would not at all regain it. We must pay due heed to the fact that he refused to come because the council was held in the East. It was the favourite tactic of the popes when they feared being outvoted. For example Leo I. resorted to it against the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) when - in answer to his excessive greed for power - the "danger" of giving more prerogatives to the See of Constantinople seemed to be just behind the corner. Leo didn't appear, and ordered that his legates also withdrew from the very session on which the rights of the New Rome should be extended. The 16th session eventually resulted in the 28th canon, defining: | we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of | the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers | rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is | an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout | bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new | Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the | imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older | imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical | affairs and take second place after her. Afterwards, "with a truly Roman intrepidity as to what had taken place in their absence, [the legates] affirmed that the signatures had been given under constraint" (William Bright: The Roman See in the Early Church, Longmans-Green, 1896. p. 201.) Here we see a specimen of papal presence and absence as weapons applied against the majority during councils. No wonder that Vigilius, a century later, resorted to it again. How the council treated Vigilius' absence, is clear from its "Sentence against the Three Chapters" (Quotation from Tanner): [...] /The most religious Vigilius happened to be present in this imperial /city and took part in all the criticisms against the three chapters. /He had frequently condemned them by word of mouth and in his writings. /Later he gave a written agreement to take part in our council and to /study with us the three chapters so that we could all issue an /appropriate definition of the true faith. The most pious emperor, /prompted by what was acceptable to us, encouraged a meeting between /Vigilius and ourselves because it is proper that the priesthood should /impose a common conclusion to matters of common concern. Consequently /we asked his reverence to carry out his written undertakings. It did /not seem right that the scandal over these three chapters should /continue and that the church of God should be further disturbed. In /order to persuade him, we reminded him of the great example left us by /the apostles and of the traditions of the fathers. Even though the /grace of the holy Spirit was abundant in each of the apostles, so /that none of them required the advice of another in order to do his /work, nevertheless they were loathe to come to a decision on the issue /of the circumcision of gentiles until they had met together to test /their various opinions against the witness of the holy scriptures. /In this way they unanimously reached the conclusion which they wrote /to the gentiles: It has seemed good to the holy Spirit and to us to /lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that you /abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols a nd from blood and /from what is strangled and from unchastity. /The holy fathers, who have gathered at intervals in the four holy /councils, have followed the examples of antiquity. They dealt with /heresies and current problems by debate in common, since it was /established as certain that when the disputed question is set out by /each side in communal discussions, the light of truth drives out the /shadows of lying. /The truth cannot be made clear in any other way when there are debates /about questions of faith, since everyone requires the assistance of /his neighbour. As Solomon says in his proverbs: A brother who helps a /brother shall be exalted like a strong city; he shall be as strong as /a well-established kingdom. Again in Ecclesiastes he says: Two are /better than one, for they have a good reward for their toil. And the /Lord himself says: Amen I say to you, if two of you agree on earth /about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in /heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in /the midst of them. Vigilius was frequently invited by us all, and most /distinguished judges were sent to him by the most pious emperor. /Eventually he promised to give judgment personally on the three /chapters. When we heard this promise, we remembered the warning of the /Apostle that each of us shall give an account of himself to God. We /were afraid of the condemnation which threatens those who /scandalize one of the least important, and of the much more serious one /which threatens those who scandalize so very christian an emperor, the /people and all the churches. We also remembered what was said by God /to Paul: Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not be silent; for I am /with you, and nobody shall be able to harm you. When we met together, /therefore, we first of all briefly made a confession of the faith /which our lord Jesus Christ true God, handed down to his holy apostles /and by means of them to the holy churches, the same faith which those /who afterwards were holy fathers and doctors handed down to the people /entrusted to them. We confessed that we believe, protect and preach to /the holy churches that confession of faith which was set out at /greater length by the 318 holy fathers who met in council at Nicaea /and handed down the holy doctrine or creed. The 150 who met in council /at Constantinople also set out the same faith and made a confession of /it and explained it. The 200 holy fathers who met in the first /council of Ephesus agreed to the same faith. We follow also the /definitions of the 630 who met in council at Chalcedon, regarding the /same faith which they both followed and preached. We confessed that we /held to be condemned and anathematized all those who had been /previously condemned and anathematized by the catholic church and by /the aforesaid four councils. Thus they urged Vigilius to appear and "to carry out his written under- takings". It was, after all, quite natural a request after the pope having revoked his solemn declaration in the aforementioned "Judgment". The fathers of the synod used scriptural and traditional arguments to cause Vigilius eventually appear and revoke his revocation of the "Judgment". They, not without cause, weren't satisfied by the papal promise to give "a private judgment" on the matter: it is mirrored in the allusions to Vigilius's personal responsibility before God, especially for scandal- izing the emperor, and for being afraid of speaking. The following events are very scarcely reported by Tanner: he slurs over the very important fact that in his first "Constitution", issued after the urgence quoted above, Vigilius actually REFUSED to condemn those whom the Council condemned, and dwells long on Vigilius's polite treatment of Ibas and Theodoret. The pope was, of course, anathematized for doing so, but our writer, as befits a Jesuit historian, buries it too. But if properly placing into historical context, it even underscores the significance of papal absence. Vigilius didn't just fear being outvoted but also being excommunicated. And it really ensued when he did not come but issued a hesitating "Constit- ution" instead. The history of the "gap" in the introduction went on like this: The pope counter-anathematized the council. In answer to this monstr- ous audacity, Justinian sent him to exile into Proconessus where he could "carefully consider the matter for six months", and finally "change his mind after the example of Augustine". If Roman apologists (like Prof. Vanyo) still strive to make the reader believe that the Emperor's plan to reconcile the Monophysites by sacri- ficing Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, was erroneous, then they actually smite the pope the more, as it was Vigilius who acted like a heroic mini- Augustine, saying that just as the great bishop of Hippo at the end of his life had to revoke many of his former teachings (Retractations), he was also convinced about his error. So, these apologists defile the memory of Vigilius when depicting of him as . Further, they make him an accomplice in the exacerbation of the Monophysite schism, as it was him to have endorsed the ill plan of the emperor while the whole West was behind him spiritually in his exile. It was very well manifest in the frigid reception of his dead body in Rome - the body of a pope whose last deed was to betray his diocese - that is, the whole West. -------------------------------------------------------------------- III. THE CASE OF POPE HONORIUS AND THE 6TH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL p. 705. 'The theological debate was continued on whether Christ had two wills, 'according to His two natures, or according to His one personal reality 'He had one will. The writings spread under the name of Dionysius Areo- 'pagites [Acts 17:34] attributed "one operation", called "theanthropic 'energy". This concept seemed useful to mediate between the opposing 'views. Monophysites interpreted "one theanthropic energy" as meaning 'Christ's one divine will. Pope Honorius I. (625-38) accepted the stand- 'point in which in Christ one operation was working. The imperial power 'fully endorsed this view, and strove to have it accepted. However, the 'bishops and [lay] Christians loyal to the Chalcedonian dogma rejected it. 'Pope Martin I. in a council of Lateran rejected that view according to 'which in Christ only one operation worked. Those of East in the Sixth 'Ecumenical Council [,the Third one] of Constantinople in 680-681, 'condemned that compromising and ambiguous formula which allowed the 'interpretation that Christ had only one will (Monotheletism). Comments: There have been much obfuscation in the issue of Honorius' incriminated letters ("Scripta fraternitatis vestrae" and "Scripta dilectissimi filii" to Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, in which he asserted respectively: 'Hence, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ also, because surely 'our nature, not our guilt, was assumed by the Godhead... (see Denz.251), and 'we should not preach one or two operations, but instead of one operation, 'which some affirm, we should confess one operator, Christ the Lord, in both 'natures... (see Denz. 252) For example pope John IV. wanted to explain away the meaning of Honorius's words, said that their intention was to exclude the two contradictory wills in Christ: 'So, my aforementioned predecessor said concerning the mystery of the 'incarnation of Christ, that there were not in him, as in us sinners, 'contrary wills of mind and flesh; and certain ones converting this to 'their own meaning, suspected that he taught one will of His divinity 'and humanity which is altogether contrary to the truth. (From the epistle "Dominus qui dixit" to Constantius the Emperor, 641., see Denz. 253). But this solution is flawed, as Honorius didn't expressly condemn the "one will" and uphold the "two wills" but minimized the significance of the terms. He said 'Whether on account of the works of divinity and of humanity, one or two 'operations ought to be said or understood to be derived, such (questions) 'should not concern us, leaving them to the grammarians, who are accustomed 'to sell to children words acquired by derivation. (Denz. 251). In another, much-cited, letter, not included in Denzinger, he mocks the "bombastic and time-wasting philosophers" who, pondering the two natures of Christ, "croak like frogs". With this, he gave way to heresy, as the Monothelites believed before on the Sixth Universal Council that the pope supported them. At least this was the judgment of the Fathers of the Council who, as it will be clear from the below quotation, condemned Honorius as the agent of the Satan. Whether or not Honorius's letters were just intended to calm down the nerves, it's undeniable that they at least proved lenient towards heresy by mis-evaluating the situation or not being aware of the heresy altogether. Now the Papalist writers are bound to maintain in the face of the above that "not recognizing a heresy is not a heresy", but they should fight not against me but against the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Indeed, they feel bound to perform even this duty in defense of their pope. We see it manifest when looking up the acts of the Council and comparing them with the RC dogmatic selection (Denzinger's "Enchiridion Symbolorum") which, in turn, omits the "harmful" part of the Sixth Universal Council. Denz. 289-293 starts almost at the very point where I finish the following quotation. 'Third Council of Constantinople : 680-681 A. D. [...] 'The holy and universal synod said: 'This pious and orthodox creed of the divine favour was enough for a 'complete knowledge of the orthodox faith and a complete assurance therein. 'But since from the first, the contriver of evil did not rest, finding an 'accomplice in the serpent and through him bringing upon human nature the 'poisoned dart of death, so too now he has found instruments suited to his 'own purpose--namely Theodore, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, 'Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this imperial city, and further ' ********************************************** ' * Honorius, who was pope of elder Rome * ' ********************************************** 'Cyrus, who held the see of Alexandria, and Macarius, who was recently 'bishop of Antioch, and his disciple Stephen -- and has not been idle in 'raising through them obstacles of error against the full body of the church 'sowing with novel speech among the orthodox people the heresy of a single 'will and a single principle of action in the two natures of the one member 'of the holy Trinity Christ our true God, a heresy in harmony with the evil 'belief, ruinous to the mind, of the impious Apollinarius, Severus and 'Themistius, and one intent on removing the perfection of the becoming man 'of the same one lord Jesus Christ our God, through a certain guileful 'device, leading from there to the blasphemous conclusion that his 'rationally animate flesh is without a will and a principle of action. From: "Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils", ed. Norman P. Tanner. ------------ Comment: The pope was not just a heretic but also condemned by the universal council as heretic. The objection that "it was a private letter which was condemned, not an ex cathedra statement" is moot, as in that time no one applied this term, simply because the pope then wasn't appointed to rule over the whole Church, and "ex cathedra" includes that he speaks as the authoritative teacher of the whole Christian community. This papal role having been then totally unheard of, consequently, the application of a much later formula in order to defend him, is conspicuously unhistorical. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe: I think it will suffice for you. Other popes (Zosimus and the Pelagians, Victor and the Asiatics, and medieval ones like Boniface VIII or John XXII) will arrive soon. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >:Jesus is with us always: >:Mat 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. >:And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." >Even disciplining us (Heb 12:6-7): > "for whom the Lord doth love He doth chasten, and He scourgeth every son > "whom He receiveth;' if chastening ye endure, as to sons God beareth > "Himself to you, for who is a son whom a father doth not chasten? >and punishing us for our stiff-neckedness (Rev 2:5): > "remember, then, whence thou hast fallen, and reform, and the first works > "do; and if not, I come to thee quickly, and will remove thy lamp-stand > "from its place -- if thou mayest not reform... :Are you doing God' job? Are you judging me and saying I need to reform? :You don't even know me. No, no, excuse me if I hinted at that. Alas, I couldn't alter the grammar of the quotations, but anyhow, my introductory sentences contained "us" and "our". So no judgmentalness was my aim. Just to point out to the task which the Redeemer left us, and the responsibility we all bear before Him.