Do you read what the emperor said in that book you link?

The emperor did not forbid discussion. He forbid Mark Eugenicos (Mark of Ephesus) and Anthony of Heraclea, the two opponents of union. And rightly so that he did, because these two had no argument whatsoever. They, or should I say, he ("he" being Mark Eugenicos) keep going in circle rehashing already discussed and answered objections. All their objection is sufficiently answered by John Montenaro. Keep also in mind the rest of Orthodox, the majority, agreed to the union and convinced by Montenero's codicies and reasoning.

Plus, silencing obstinate council participants, even he be Patriarkh, is not without precedent. Dioscoros, the monothelite Patriarch of Alexandria was silenced during the fourth ecumenical council.

Talking about Eugenicos' obstinacy, some of his Orthodox colleagues were going to pummel him for it.





And I don't buy that some Latin monk believe the stiff-necked Mark Eugenicos. At the very least, they probably thought that his reasoning was sound and by the time Andrew of Rhodes or Montenero or any other Latin answer Eugenicos' objection they would've learn the error of Mark Eugenicos' reasoning. Because it is even written in Joseph Gill's Council of Florence that the Lombard Provincial's explanation (ie. Montenaro) not only enlightened the Greek, but also not a few Latins.





The Council of Florence is one big giant reason why Orthodox is not the true Church because they bail out of a valid ecumenical council.

What is the proper name for the Orthodox Church?

... Sometimes the Orthodox Church is also called ... the Orthodox Catholic Church ...

‘Catholic’ and ‘Orthodox’

Finally, those united with the Pope of Rome are properly called “Roman Catholics,” not “Catholics,” just as we are properly called “Orthodox Christians” rather than just “Orthodox.” [There are, of course, also Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Presbyterians, etc.]

So we belong to Orthodox Catholic Church, whereas you belong to Roman Catholic Church. Both sides claim that their Church is Catholic.

But we don't bail from a valid ecumenical council.

Good point but what I was saying is that, while Catholics disagree, the Catholic Church itself does stay the same. Where as Orthodox Catholic Churches do disagree with each other on very important matters. I say all this but please know I have nothing but respect for the Orthodox Church. As a matter fact I wish our Mass was more like your Liturgy.

Indeed, it is not quite clear in this case. I read Mark of Ephesus' explanations: he says that he was already too tired at that time, to continue unfruitful debates. Although he mentions the fact that authorities also decided to stop further discussions.

Let's then consider another example concerning Council of Florence, which illustrates lack of discussions, and is connected with Council in Trullo. After the departure of Greeks, the public sessions of this Council still continued, Catholic Encyclopedia, The Council of Florence:

The council was over, as far as the Greeks were concerned, and they departed at once. The Latin members remained to promote the reunion with the other Eastern Churches--the Armenians (1439), the Jacobites of Syria (1442), the Mesopotamians, between the Tigris and the Euphrates (1444), the Chaldeans or Nestorians, and the Maronites of Cyprus (1445). This last was the concluding public act of the Council of Florence, the proceedings of which from 1443 onwards took place in the Lateran palace at Rome.

During one of these sessions the prohibition to eat blood, accepted by the Council of Apostles, was discarded, ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445):

Session 11—4 February 1442
[Bull of union with the Copts]
Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record.
<...>
It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel. It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the Christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly practising the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased. It condemns, then, no kind of food that human society accepts and nobody at all neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died; although for the health of the body, for the practice of virtue or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted, as the apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.

But this probition of Council of Apostles was confirmed on the Council of Trullo, in 67th canon, Hefele:

(67) The eating of the blood of animals is forbidden in Holy Scripture. A cleric who partakes of blood is to be punished by deposition, a layman with excommunication. 3

3 The Greeks want here, in their pedantry, to make a temporary prescription of the apostolic time, which was then necessary to unite Jewish and Gentile Christians, of perpetual validity. Cf. Baron. l. c. ad ann. 690, 30.

That Catholics disagree with each others — is a consequence of the fact that Roman Catholic Church itself does not stay the same. For example, Cardinal Yves Congar claims that the Filioque addition was made illicitly, while retaining the teaching of Filioque. Does he contradicts to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church? No, because the same was opinion of Pope Leo III, who forbade to make the Filioque addition to the Creed.

Did you read the dialogue of Pope Leo III with envoys?

It's unfruitful because the Greeks could not either provide objections to the Latin answers or agree to the union.




Which source said that there was no discussion? Just because the Greek didn't get their way doesn't mean that there's no discussion.

For example, in the situation, which I've just described here, the discussion may be necessary:

viewtopic.php?p=2384760#p2384760

There is visible sign of lack of discussion on the Council of Vatican, and other Councils: there are many different opinions, concerning even the most important question about Pope Honorius, raised by the opponents. But which of these opinions are correct and ratified by the Council of Vatican? No one knows even today. Because many, but separate, different speeches, which were at the Council of Vatican, could not express an opinion of the whole Council, ratified by all its members. We don't know which of those many speeches contained the correct explanation concerning Honorius, and concerning other difficult questions.

Where as at the First Seven Councils, when the dialogue did take place, we know not only the final definitions of those Council, but also the responses given by the whole Council to many different arguments of the heretics.

For example, we see just several opinions in article Third Council of Constantinople (Sixth General Council.) of Catholic Encyclopedia:

Reference is here made to the famous letter of Honorius to Sergius of Constantinople about 634, around which has arisen (especially before and during the Vatican Council) so large a controversial literature.
...
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

because he did not, as he should have done, declare authoritatively the Petrine tradition of the Roman Church. To that tradition he had made no appeal but had merely approved and enlarged upon the half-hearted compromise of Sergius. . . Neither the pope nor the council consider that Honorius had compromised the purity of the Roman tradition, for he had never claimed to represent it. Therefore, just as today we judge the letters of Pope Honorius by the Vatican definition and deny them to be ex cathedra, because they do not define any doctrine and impose it upon the whole Church, so the Christians of the seventh century judged the same letters by the custom of their day, and saw that they did not claim what papal letters were wont to claim, viz., to speak with the mouth of Peter in the name of Roman tradition. (Chapman)

Just three opinions are given. We don't know which of them is correct. And no reference is being made to the Council of Vatican. If the dialogue did took place, than we would have read in the same article: "the Council of Vatican explained, that Honorius...".

How would one measure that?



Who is this "we?" Surely it's not Vatican I fathers who attended the council.



First of all, those are "THREE different opinions with regard to HONORIUS CASE." They are not "THREE different opinions with regard to PAPAL INFALLIBILITY."

Today I found similar opinion of Philip Schaff, although he was Protestant scholar. But I noticed that independently of him. So this is really visible, if people come to the same conclusion independently of one another. At first I was looking some information on Professor Pennacchi, who is, according to Hefele, "the most distinguished of the later defenders of Pope Honorius." I typed into Google Pennacchi Honorius and the first found page was by Philip Schaff, it said about Honorius ( Excursus on the Condemnation of Pope Honorius ), that there are different opinions:

It will be sufficient for the purposes of this volume to state that Roman Catholic Curialist writers are not at one as to how the matter is to be treated.

So, although this was written after the Vatican Council, still there wasn't a single opinion among Roman Catholic scholars about Honorius. Also Philip Schaff advises his reader to read both sides concerning Honorius — just as I wrote before.

... the recent Vatican Council ... It would be highly improper for me in these pages to discuss the matter theologically. Volumes on each side have been written on this subject, and to these I must refer the reader, but in doing so I hope I may be pardoned if I add a word of counsel — to read both sides. If one's knowledge is derived only from modern Eastern, Anglican or Protestant writers, such as “Janus and the Council,” the Pere Gratry's “Letters,” or Littledale's controversial books against Rome, one is apt to be as much one-sided as if he took his information from Cardinal Baronius, Cardinal Bellarmine, Rohrbacher's History, or from the recent work on the subject by Pennacchi. 335 Perhaps the average reader will hardly find a more satisfactory treatment than that by Bossuet in the Defensio. (Liber VII., cap.xxi., etc.)

Does it matter that figures ranging from Pope John IV to St. Maximus the Confessor all defended Honorius's orthodoxy?

Let's assume for a moment that it is correct, and that Honorius was condemned, "because he did not, as he should have done, declare authoritatively the Petrine tradition of the Roman Church." (Chapman, Third Council of Constantinople (Sixth General Council.), Catholic Encyclopedia).

But even in this case unsolvable problems still remain, for it seems that he wasn't the only Pope who did so. What about St. Pius V? Look at his bull ‘Super speculum’, doesn't it look similar ho Honorius' letters? I don't see any differences except that Honorius wrote about wills in Christ, whereas St. Pius V wrote about Immaculate Conception. And yet St. Pius V not only wasn't condemned, but he is even Saint.

You have a habit of not answering the questions posed to you.

I will answer yours though. No, they don't seem similar to me as I'm unaware of St. Pius's actions contributing to the mass spread of heresy throughout the Church.

HalJordan, but your question was a little off-topic, because in this topic we discuss specific Orthodox-Catholic issues. Whether John IV and St. Maximus were right or not, you can equally discuss with Protestants. Or we may discuss this here, but at first I wanted to point at some specific Orthodox issues about Honorius. I've just read Hefele's explanation of your question: pp. 52-56. Even he maintains, that ( p. 54 ): "... we can even now not regard it (interpretation of the letter of Honorius given by Pope John and Abbot John) as quite admissible."

I thought the issue was Honorius's orthodoxy and alleged condemnation. What the indisputably orthodox had to say about that is, of course, relevant. It's been pointed out to you before that questions asked have gone unanswered. I meant no offense.

On your greater point, Hefele can say what he wants in trying to read meaning into the words of some to fit a purpose. That's fine. I'll stick with the rather plain discussion of Maximus, John, etc. I just wanted to know what your thought was on the matter.

First of all, I think that this is not "plain", but rather the most difficult aspect of case of Honorius. The most plain are some other aspects, for example: was his letter an ex cathedra teaching? I think that it is impossible to deny, that his letter was an ex cathedra teaching, because Honorius was aware from the letter of Sergius, that Church union, based on monothelite doctrine, was already concluded. So Honorius was aware that whatever he had replied, his reply would had affected many people. Only in case if he had replied: "it's a difficult question, I need at first to consult with Sophronius, or to convoke a Council" — only then his reply wouldn't had been an ex cathedra teaching. And yet Catholic Encyclopedia in article on Honorius says that Hefele and Pennacchi erred when they wrote that Honorius' letter was an ex cathedra teaching (at the end of "Modern controversies on the subject" paragraph: "These views of Hefele's ... have had a surprisingly wide influence, and have been adopted by many Catholic writers, save only his mistaken notion that a letter like that of Honorius can be supposed to fulfil the conditions laid down by the Vatican Council for an ex cathedra judgment").

Concerning more difficult aspect, with his orthodoxy — so what is, then, your opinion on Honorius' orthodoxy? From explanations of John IV and St. Maximus it follows that he was innocent, because he just replied to what Sergius asked him, and heretics intentionally misinterpreted Honorius' letter.

But then it follows that Sixth Ecumenical Council erred when at the end of the thirteenth session the Council decreed to burn his letters as "hurtful to the soul", and also at the beginning of the same session the Council decided that his first letter (his second letter was read during the same thirteenth session) was "hurtful to the soul", "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.": Hefele, pp. 182-183, paragraphs (1) and (2).

Do you agree with this consequence? This, by the way, is opinion of Pennacchi ( Hefele, p. 188 : "the Fathers of the Council had erroneously regarded the letters of Honorius as heretical"; "He (Pennacchi) maintains ... that they (the letters of Pope Honorius) are thoroughly orthodox ... he (Honorius) meant only the will of the uncorrupted human nature of Christ (as Pope John IV. asserted, p. 52)". )

First, let me say that I have never really understood the arguments that Honorius's communications rose to an ex cathedra level. They don't really look like anything else that is debated as being in that category.

Second, Hefele can say what he wants, but when guys like John IV, Maximus the Confessor, Leo II, St. Agatho, etc. all say the guy was orthodox, I have a very tough time siding against them. If you're going to rely on the language of the Council, then you at least have to work in the same framework as them, which is Pope Agatho's epistle. Check the language in that regarding the Apostolic See. Was there any challenge to the claims he made?

As far as the letters as being hurtful to the soul, Leo II (and probably Agatho as well) would agree with that while simultaneously supporting Honorius's personal orthodoxy. Leo went so far as to say that Honorius had nourished the spread of heresy but he never called him a heretic.

This view preserves both the conciliar and papal teaching on the matter and is in accord with the contemporary witnesses who all declare for the Catholic viewpoint. This is inconvenient for Hefele, but given the accord of all the authorities here, it is the most likely conclusion.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate, and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church are included in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd ed., Vol. 10, "Orthodox And Oriental Orthodox Churches") in a list entitled "Orthodox Churches of Irregular Status:"

Orthodox Churches of Irregular Status:
Old Believers (Old Ritualists)
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kiev Patriarchate
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Macedonian Orthodox Church
Old Calendar Orthodox Churches

So even for the non-Orthodox authors it is clear which churches are irregular. Those, which are not recognised by all the regular churches. This is very clear criterion. Besides, Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia is regular already.

That may be so, but the actual question was:



I am interested in this as well. What is happening on these issues?