Posted on 11/13/2014 2:40:09 PM PST by BlatherNaut
The fact the heretics cited Honorius is not decisive as to his actual guilt; as heretics of all times cite the Gospels as well to support their position. Certainly, you would not say the simple fact a heretic cites the Gospels, for example, is enough to indict the Gospel writers of heresy? Of course you would not! Your line of reasoning is fallacious. You cite heretics against Honorius, I cite St. Maximus, Pope St. Agatho and Pope John IV in favor of his orthodoxy. Who do you believe...the heretics?
The condemnations of the Council likewise attribute to him the active promotion of the heresy -- the strongest being that given after the restating of the Creed:...
No one is suggesting that the term "heretic" was not applied to Honorius, but the issue is in what sense. In session XIII, he is not included amongst those called "contrary minded to the faith" - he is rather judged for what he wrote to Sergius, wherein he supported a rule of silence, i.e., that both sides should keep quiet:
“…the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate (are)…Sergius… Cyrus …Pyrrhus…Paul and Peter…and…Theodore…all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome…rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the Holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius…because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” (Session XIII, NPNF, v. 14, p. 343)
So, we have Honorius condemned, not for being "contrary minded" to the Faith (as are Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, etc); instead he is listed separately as being condemned "with them", because he followed Sergius (i.e., accepted the suggestion for a rule of silence proposed by Sergius). We see in his letters to Sergius that Honorius does not actually confirm the monothelite doctrine; in fact, he expressly defines nothing at all! Honorius said:
"...as regards the ecclesiastical dogma and what we ought to hold and teach, on account of the simplicity of man and to avoid controversies, we must, as I have already said, define neither one nor two operations in the mediator between God and man."
Honorius defined nothing. Honorius failed to see the real issue here; clearly, mistakenly thinking, as he says, it is an idle dispute for "grammarians"; rather than a moment in which certain expressions (e.g., "one operation", or "two operations") had to be decisively ruled upon. Honorius explicitly defined nothing - and therein lies his fault.
Therefore, it was his failure to define in favor of the orthodox expressions - rather affirming the heterodox ones (which he did not do) -- that aided the growing monothelite heresy in the East. Thus, in effect, Honorius had 'favored' the heresy by failing to condemn it when the opportunity presented itself, and thereby aided its dissemination by his gross, negligent inaction. This is the sense that Pope St. Leo II - who would confirm the council - accepted and understood the condemnation of Honorius:
“…Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence." (Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispanie)
You would have us believe that the Harps of the Spirit erred in making these declarations, and this despite your church still giving lip-service to the authority of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils which we Orthodox also recognize.
I certainly would not say an ecumenical council, which requires confirmation of its acts by the pope, can err. There is no safer way to determine if a oouncil is a robber council or not - other than whether or not it maintains its communion with Rome, as proved in Church history and the Acts of the councils. Given your acceptance this Council, do you accept all of Agatho's letter, as it did? Agatho, for example, says all his predecessors (thus including Honorius) were orthodox:
"Wherefore the predecessors of Apostolic memory of my littleness, learned in the doctrine of the Lord, ever since the prelates of the Church of Constantinople have been trying to introduce into the immaculate Church of Christ an heretical innovation, have never ceased to exhort and warn them with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma, lest from this they make the beginning of a split in the unity of the Church, by asserting one will, and one operation of the two natures in the one Jesus Christ our Lord..." (Agatho's letter)
In so far as Honorius urged a silence that applied to the heterodox position his orthodoxy is defensible. Even the Council fathers did not list him with the those "contrary minded" to the faith. However, the silence to which he agreed, as shown above, also applied to formulations which were orthodox, and necessary to combat the heretical ones. In this regard, the Council, in condemning Honorius, could ground itself in full agreement with Agatho's letter, wherein he said:
"Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which I am bidden to give to the exchangers, i.e., to teach to the Christian people and imbue it therewith. What shall I say in the future examination by Christ himself, if I blush (which God forbid!) to preach here the truth of his words?" (Agatho's letter)
So, this is the 'woe'...the fault of Honorius. Not for teaching a lie, or affirming one, but for having covered the truth through silence. Honorius was not condemned for teaching a heresy, but for failing to teach the truth. And this is in agreement with Agatho's letter, the Council's self-stated agreement with all things written in Agatho's letter, and Leo II's statement re Honorius fostering heresy through negligence, etc.
(Search your recently issued Catechism for references to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils -- even with your theory that a papal assent is needed for a council to have ecumenical authority, is there any doubt, given the content of the Papal oath from the 8th to the 11th century, that Rome assented to the acts of the Sixth?)
The papal oath relative to Honorius has to be understood in the same sense the council's condemnation was approved by the Apostolic See of Rome. So, in essential agreement with Agatho, Leo II - who was the one to confirm the council (Agatho being dead by the end of it)- is seen to have accepted Honorius' condemnation in the sense that Honorius 'fostered it through negligence.' It was in this sense Honorius was a 'heretic'; rather than for having taught heresy.
Consequently, there is no contradiction with the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility; as the doctrine applies to instances when the pope intends to teach ex cathedra, and not to when he does not (as in the case of Honorius).
As a final observation, your position fails to reconcile all the facts, for example, you must ignore St. Maximus and John IV who defended the orthodoxy of Honorius, you must ignore Pope St. Agatho's letter, you must ignore Pope St. Leo II's understanding of the condemnation and you must consider the Council in error for accepting St. Agatho's letter - wherein the orthodoxy of Honorius is implicity defended.
Then also, you must reject, where the council accepted Agatho's letter:
"...because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things..."
And you consider the Council to have been in error when they with one voice cried,
“To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”
It’s not my position, I’m defending, but the position of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: besides the formal cry of anathema naming him heretic, there are at least two other places in the Acta that explicitly condemn him for heresy, one of which I quoted. Being soft on monotheletism was bad enough for the Fathers to condemn him as a heretic, the views of the worthy saints you listed to the contrary notwithstanding.
If you're going to Papa Francisco
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair
If you're going to Papa Francisco
You're gonna meet some gentle people there
For those who come to Papa Francisco
Summertime will be a love-in there
In the streets of Papa Francisco
Gentle people with flowers in their hair
All across the nation such a strange vibration
People in motion
There's a whole generation with a new explanation
People in motion people in motion
For those who come to Papa Francisco
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair
If you come to Papa Francisco
Summertime will be a love-in there
If you come to Papa Francisco
Summertime will be a love-in there
I refer you to my prior to responses. I did not say the council was in error. I outlined the sense in which the term is to be understood with respect to Honorius; based on Pope St. Agatho's letter - accepted by the Council - which asserted the orthodoxy of his predecessors; and the See of Rome being free from doctrinal error - thereby excluding Honorius once again.
I believe what I have outlined preserves the council from the charge of error. Rather, it is your thesis that puts the council into error. That is, if it is as you would seem to have it: that the Council believed Honorius was 'minded contrary to the faith'; then you must conclude the Council erred in accepting St. Agatho's letter which implicitly insists the opposite.
"...this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things..."
Your logic, if followed, would mean that the council erred in accepting St. Agatho's letter. Rather, I see no reason to accuse the council of error at all. St. Agatho's letter, the Council's acceptance of it, and the Council's judgment re Honorius are perfectly consistent.
It’s not my position, I’m defending, but the position of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: besides the formal cry of anathema naming him heretic, there are at least two other places in the Acta that explicitly condemn him for heresy, one of which I quoted.
I don't see that this statement impacts or responds to anything I've said up to now. You quote the Fathers of the Council, but you are not open to the full context of the case or the council (e.g., what Honorius actually said ["define nothing"], St. Agatho's letter, St. Leo II's view, the saints who defended Honorius, etc). You are excluding evidence, as if you have blinders on, which makes your thesis untenable.
I've agreed, the Council called him a "heretic", but I have shown how and why this must be understood in the sense that he 'fostered' the heresy through negligence. As St. Agatho said, apparently with Honorius in mind, "woe" to the one who 'covers over the truth in silence.' The blame of such one is similar to the one who teaches the lie explicity; but the action or inaction are of two different sorts as one considers it in relation to what the teaching of papal infallibility actually entails.
Honorius was not the one to teach the lie (he said he "defines nothing"); rather he failed to teach the truth and was severely faulted for it...and that is perfectly consistent with the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility, i.e., the popes are protected when they teach ex cathedra, and not when they don't (as with Honorius)!
Being soft on monotheletism was bad enough for the Fathers to condemn him as a heretic, the views of the worthy saints you listed to the contrary notwithstanding.
The point of mentioning the saints (e.g., St. Maximus, etc) was not that they defended Honorius with regard to whether he properly exercised his office or not; rather they defended him specifically on the question of whether he taught the heresy or was himself a monothelite. That is a good witness against the accusation he was a monothelite - unless you want to call these saints, such as Maximus, Agatho, Leo II, heretics. Regarding the nature of the council's condemnation, I have already addressed that question.
If this author is a “totally informed Jesuit,” why didn’t he mention “Cum Ex Apostolic Officio?” This encyclical, issued 15 Feb. 1559 by Pope Paul IV (when Robert Bellarmine was only 17 years old), focuses on the validity of a prelate or Pope in the event they are in heresy or apostasy. It says, among other things, that the Pope must be contradicted if he is found to have deviated from the Faith, and that if he has been found to be a heretic, he has no authority. It permits those who should offer him their obedience to withdraw it at any time without being subject to the retribution of any censures or penalties. This Bull was issued “Ex cathedra” and is considered not only infallible, but to be held in perpetuity.
For being so “well-informed,” this Jesuit gives evidence of not being familiar with Papal Encyclicals. His education must not have been all that thorough.
My understanding of Pope Honorius’ situation is the same.
The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our 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 Phasis 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 subjected 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.You are arguing from silence, or perhaps the placement of a period (which may or may not have been there in the original Greek Acta -- I am unable to find a source for the Greek Acta online and even if I did, unless it indicated that it used the original punctuation, rather than modernizing it, a matter of controversy among Byzantinists, it wouldn't settle the matter), in claiming that because the Holy Fathers did not repeat the phrase "minded contrary to our orthodox faith" in their condemnation of Sergius and Honorius, that the relevant distinction is between those explicitly so described in one sentence and those condemned "with these" in the following sentence beginning with "And", rather than between those suggested for condemnation by St. Agatho in his letter and those found heretical by the Council's own examination.
I suspect there is really not much point in continuing our discussion. Each of us arguing for a position the other, due to his ecclesiological commitments, regards as completely unsupportable. I seem to recall that in a similar circumstance the discussions between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Lutherans at Tubingen ended with a request from the former to cease writing about doctrinal matters, and write only for the sake of friendship. Perhaps we should end in like manner.
I do not think that it is I who err. It is the Council itself that said its condemnations were in accord with Agatho's letter, including with respect to Honorius:
"...in accordance with the sentence already given concerning them in your letter, and their names are these: Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter..."
The Council said its condemnation of Honorius was in accord specifically with the sentence given on Honorius in St. Agatho's letter. However, St. Agatho does not mention Honorius by name. He does say the Apostolic see has been free of error, and that his predecessors opposed the heresy, at least through 'silence.' Thus, Agatho grouped Honorius with his orthodox predecessors - so as the Council said its judgements were in accord with said letter, we must conclude the Council agreed with Agatho - unless YOU want to assert the Council was in error.
The only grounds the Council had in Agatho's letter is the opening he gave them - clearly with Honorius in mind - that "woe" to one who should 'cover over the truth with silence.' As Agatho had said his predecessors were orthodox - the only grounds left to the Council was to condemn Honorius, as Agatho indirectly did, on the grounds that Honorius, even though personally orthodox, had covered over the truth through silence...by 'defining nothing' - as he said in a letter to Sergius.
Further, on this point, the emperor's letter is consistent with this analysis. In his edict re the council, the emperor states:
"...The heresy of Apollinaris, etc., has been renewed by Theodore of Pharan and confirmed by Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, who also contradicted himself...."
We see here clearly stated that Honorius "contradicted" himself. What, therefore, was his contradiction? It certainly could not be that he was a heretic who expressed himself heretically; but rather, that he was orthodox but failed to defend it!
You are arguing from silence, or perhaps the placement of a period (which may or may not have been there in the original Greek Acta -- I am unable to find a source for the Greek Acta online and even if I did, unless it indicated that it used the original punctuation, rather than modernizing it, a matter of controversy among Byzantinists, it wouldn't settle the matter), in claiming that because the Holy Fathers did not repeat the phrase "minded contrary to our orthodox faith" in their condemnation of Sergius and Honorius, that the relevant distinction is between those explicitly so described in one sentence and those condemned "with these" in the following sentence beginning with "And", rather than between those suggested for condemnation by St. Agatho in his letter and those found heretical by the Council's own examination.
Yours is an amazing assertion! I am not arguing from silence. I have cited St. Agatho, St. Leo II, St. Maximus, John IV, the Acts of the Council, the Council's letter to Agatho, and now the Emperor - all showing that the case I am making is consistent, and that it alone reconciles all the known data points. You only want to cite the Council in isolation without wanting to reconcile all the data to your hypothesis.
I suspect there is really not much point in continuing our discussion. Each of us arguing for a position the other, due to his ecclesiological commitments, regards as completely unsupportable. I seem to recall that in a similar circumstance the discussions between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Lutherans at Tubingen ended with a request from the former to cease writing about doctrinal matters, and write only for the sake of friendship. Perhaps we should end in like manner.
No, indeed, there may be no more point in continuing. That said, I find your response above, respectfully, intellectually speaking, a dodge. What you say is not true. Your "ecclesiological commitments" do not require you to reject my defense of Honorius, because even if my defense is valid (and I believe it is), that in itself is not a proof of papal infallibility. So, it sounds to me as if you are copping out - making an argument from prior 'commitments' and not one from the facts of the case.
Certainly, you must see, that you could, hypothetically, admit the case I am making regarding Honorius, and that, in itself, would not prove papal infallibility or make you a "papist." Certainly, you could accept the case I am providing as at least possible without having to come close to admitting the doctrine of papal infallbility.
Interestingly, it is only by ingoring all this evidence that you can hope to maintain your erroneous view that the case of Honorius disproves papal infallibility - which essentially was your initial assertion, if I recall correctly. I've made a case from the overall record, without cherry picking the Council in isolation; and having done so, find your original assertion, respectfully, without merit, and purely polemical, based on your self-admitted 'ecclesiological commitments.' Regards.
It is, however, Honorius himself, who proposes, after a brief exposition of Chalcedonian Christology as regards the natures of Christ, that "It follows that we confess one will of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (Allen's translation, with which my bad school Greek finds no fault). Nor is this a mere passing phrase. Later Honorius gives what is plainly a monothelite exposition of "I did not come to do my will, but the will of the Father who sent me" and "Not as I will, but as you will Father," and similar sayings of Our Lord, in which the Pope does not take them at face-value as pointing to Christ's human will, but, of which Honorius instead writes, "these are not expressions of a different will, but of the economy of the humanity which he assumed." (Again, Allen's translation, with which I, again, agree.) This is not silence, but the statement of an erroneous doctrine.
This leaves you with the fallback position taken by Baronius that the Greek version of Honorius's letter to Sergius is fraudulent (no Latin version is extant, though I'm unclear whether that is because it is lost, or because there was only ever a Greek version -- Western churchmen in the seventh century were still often fluent in Greek). And if you really take that position, then as Patriarch Jeramias wrote to the Lutherans, pray do not write again about doctrinal matters, and if you must write do so only for the sake of friendship.
As to St. Agatho's letter, the comments on the Church of Rome not having fallen into heresy can be harmonized with the manifest profession of heretical Christology in Pope Honorius's letter, condemned as such by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, in another way than that which you propose: Honorius died before he had a chance to become not merely a heretic, but a heresiarch, leading the whole Patriachate of Rome into his Christological error as Dioscorus led the (bulk of the) Patriachate of Alexandria into his. Of course, this resolution requires that the usual metonymic identification of a see with its occupant be recognized as a poetic device, rather than an ecclesiological fact, something I know you Latins are unwilling to do, since on it rests the identification of the successors to St. Peter in the see of Rome with Peter himself.
It is, however, Honorius himself, who proposes, after a brief exposition of Chalcedonian Christology as regards the natures of Christ, that "It follows that we confess one will of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (Allen's translation, with which my bad school Greek finds no fault). Nor is this a mere passing phrase. Later Honorius gives what is plainly a monothelite exposition of "I did not come to do my will, but the will of the Father who sent me" and "Not as I will, but as you will Father," and similar sayings of Our Lord, in which the Pope does not take them at face-value as pointing to Christ's human will, but, of which Honorius instead writes, "these are not expressions of a different will, but of the economy of the humanity which he assumed." (Again, Allen's translation, with which I, again, agree.)
This is not silence, but the statement of an erroneous doctrine. This leaves you with the fallback position taken by Baronius that the Greek version of Honorius's letter to Sergius is fraudulent (no Latin version is extant, though I'm unclear whether that is because it is lost, or because there was only ever a Greek version -- Western churchmen in the seventh century were still often fluent in Greek). And if you really take that position, then as Patriarch Jeramias wrote to the Lutherans, pray do not write again about doctrinal matters, and if you must write do so only for the sake of friendship.
No, I am not left with such a fall back position. I do not regard the letters as forgeries. I regard them as I have previously, that it is apparent from his words that Honorius was not a monothelite, and that St. Agatho, St. Maximus, John IV and others were quite correct to defend him on this point.
With regard to Honorius' use of the term "one will", one must look at how he meant it, and not at the simple fact the monothelites could be happy with the term in the sense they meant it. Sergius in his letter, as observed by Hefele in his History of the Councils, outlined what he, Sergius, thought was the problem with the term "two energies":
"the admission of two energies in Christ would also lead to the admission of two wills in Christ, of which the one is opposed to the other, since the Logos is willing to endure suffering, but the manhood opposes. This is, however, quite inaccurate, for in one subject there cannot two contrary wills."
Here Sergius' is asserting one will in Christ, the divine only, because he cannot see that there could be any second one, because that would have meant to Sergius, apparently, there would be two contrary wills - i.e., that the human would necessarily oppose the divine.
However, Honorius implicitly rejects the premise of Sergius - that there would be two contrary wills - but he fails to explicitly correct Sergius on the assertion of the heretical point - there is only one will in Christ, the divine only. That is, he didn't fully correct Sergius. In his reply, Honorius in his first letter, states:
"...we confess one will in Our Lord Jesus Christ, since our (human) nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the fall...As he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, so also was he also born without sin of the Holy and Immaculate Virgin, the God-bearer, without experiencing any contamination of the vitiated nature."
By this, and what follows in his explanation, one can see Honorius denied the conflicting wills of spirit and flesh as found in fallen man - spoken of in Romans 7:21-23, to which the pope alludes - are to be found in Christ because God assumed not our fallen (human) nature, but had assumed that human nature created before sin, i.e., that human nature - which includes the human will - as it was before the fall. Honorius continues:
"It is this, as we said, not the vitiated nature, which was assumed by the Redeemer which would war against the law of his mind; but He came to seek and to save that which was lost, i.e., the vitiated nature of the human race. In His members there was not another law, different or contrary to the will of the Savior..."
By so expressing himself, Honorius' presumes a human will in Christ that is untainted by the fall, and thus, there is not the contrariness between the divine and human wills as asserted by Sergius. Honorius spoke of a moral unity (e.g., "thy will be done"), not an actual one, indicating Honorius held to the as yet dogmatically defined orthodox doctrine of “two wills.” The orthodoxy of Honorius was defended on this point - as pointed out before - by a number of others, including John IV and St. Maximus, and implicitly by St. Agatho. To fault them for doing so, is to accuse a couple of saints of heresy. For example, John IV stated:
“So, my aforementioned predecessor (i.e. Honorius) 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.”
St. Agatho, too, seemingly references this misuse of Honorius' letters by the heretics when he makes reference to “the heretics (who) have pursued” the Apostolic See “with false criminations.” It is even clearer in Pope Honorius' second letter to Sergius, again, as noted by Hefele (History of the Councils, Volume V), that Honorius was orthodox on the question, that even while rejecting the use of the new expressions, Honorius says:
"we confess the two natures are naturally united in the one Christ, that each works and acts in communion with the other, the divine nature in Christ works the divine, and human works that which is of the flesh"
and elsewhere:
"We must confess one Christ the Lord truly works in both natures....they should proclaim with us...the two natures, the Godhead and the assumed manhood, which work what is proper to them in the one Person of the Only begotten Son of God, unmingled, unseparated and unchanged." (quotes from Honorius and Sergius above from Hefele's History of the Councils, volume V).
Clearly, Honorius spoke of what is appropriate to each nature, unmingled and unchanged. Therefore, holding that each nature worked what was appropriate to it, he would necessarily hold two wills - one divine, one human. His fault, again, was that he held to a rule of silence that although it silenced a heretical term, also silenced an orthodox one as well - thereby contradicting himself. Thus, the emperor could note in his edict that Honorius contradicted himself, i.e., having expressed the orthodox faith, he silenced an orthodox expression that would have combatted the new heresy.
As to St. Agatho's letter, the comments on the Church of Rome not having fallen into heresy can be harmonized with the manifest profession of heretical Christology in Pope Honorius's letter, condemned as such by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, in another way than that which you propose: Honorius died before he had a chance to become not merely a heretic, but a heresiarch, leading the whole Patriachate of Rome into his Christological error as Dioscorus led the (bulk of the) Patriachate of Alexandria into his. Of course, this resolution requires that the usual metonymic identification of a see with its occupant be recognized as a poetic device, rather than an ecclesiological fact, something I know you Latins are unwilling to do, since on it rests the identification of the successors to St. Peter in the see of Rome with Peter himself.
Us "Latins"?...you "Greeks"?...is it to be thus? Oh well....regardless, your tortured reconstruction of St. Agatho's letter is untenable, but understandable given your prior commentary on your self-admitted ecclesiological disposition.
I suppose it is not surprising that your position requires one believe that councils are more concerned with poetic devices than ecclesiological facts; but the fact is, it was well known to these Eastern bishops what their predecessors had subscribed to explicitly in the Formula of Hormisdas, and it was clear to all, them and you, what is expressed in St. Agatho's letter - one that they accepted explicitly in full - regarding the Apostolic See of Rome.
First as previously mentioned, the East subscribed to the Formula of Hormisdas (c. 517 AD). You, certainly must know of it, and I suggest you and those following this discussion read it. I will not take up further space here to print it in full, other than to say it is impossible to suggest the East thought Hormisdas was dealing with "poetic devices", rather than ecclesiological and theological facts. The East Subscribed to it. With that as background, we can look at St. Agatho's letter, and know well the East wasn't using 'poetical devices' in its response.
St. Agatho says:
" And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred."
St. Agatho links the pregotives of the Apostolic See, as did Hormisdas, to the Lord's words to St. Peter; and he says its authority - that of the Prince of the Apostles - has been embraced by the whole Church - and he says it has not turned away in error, ever. Further, St. Agatho says the whole Church has embraced "its" doctrine - and as doctrine is expressed as teaching; one cannot separate the Apostolic Church from its pontiffs, as if the Apostolic Church could teach without its pontiffs.
And, so we elsewhere see in this letter:
"For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that (thy) faith fail not. And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter's faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all..."
And so, one can see, it is quite obvious, that St. Agatho is not engaging in poetical devices. He asserts the indefectibility of the Apostolic See of Rome - that it has never erred, and that it "remains undefiled unto the end"; and he explicitly links this truth to the words and promises of our Savior to St. Peter, and through him, to all the Apostolic Pontiffs - not some "poetical" abstraction. Your view is absolutely untenable.
St. Agatho asserted what was to him an ecclesiological and theological fact - echoing the aforementioned theological and ecclesiological fact of the Formula of Hormisdas. The Council accepted his letter - and we can only naturally presume, taking the eastern bishops at their word, that they accepted this claim. If they thought it heresy, or some new heretical innovation, they should have said so - as it is clear, it was no "poetical device" of St. Agatho.
Certainly, one does not respond to theological and ecclesiological assertions on so serious a matter with mere "poetical devices." I must ask you, Reader David...do you agree with St. Agatho regarding the See of Rome never erring and remaining "undefiled to the end"...and if you don't...perhaps you might explain why you do not agree with the Sixth Ecumencial Council of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which fully accepted his letter?
God bless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.