In the account of his trial, the Eastern authorities questioned him on what he would do if the Roman Church made any sort of agreement with the Byzantines (those who had imprisoned Maximus). Here's how it went down:
7. They said to him, "And what will you do if the Romans unite with the Byzantines? For behold, yesterday there came legates of Rome and tomorrow on Sunday they will take communion with the patriarch; it will become evident to all that it was you who turned the Romans away. Doubtless with you removed, there will then be an easy union." And he said to them, "Those who are coming cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome, even if they should take communion because they have not brought a letter to the patriarch. And I am not at all convinced that the Romans will unite with them unless they confess that our Lord and God by nature both wills and works our salvation according to each of the natures from which he is, in which he is, as well as which he is." And they said, "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?" He replied, "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached" [Maximus the Confessor, Selected Writings (Paulist Press, 1985), p 23].Notice at the end Maximus quotes Galatians 1:8, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!" I'm not saying Maximus was a proto-Protestant, but he certainly had the right idea here about what the ultimate authority truly is.
Posts
40 comments:
That's interesting and it does show how Maximus had the right idea about what the ultimate authority truly is.
However, I don't understand the story. Were the "Romans" (western Christians) monothelite at the time? I thought that monthelitism was regnant in Byzantium (the East) only, for a brief period of time (Maximus's lifetime). If the Romans were dithelites like Maximus, how could his jailers threaten him with the idea that his orthodox beliefs would be divisive?
Nick already thoroughly dealt with this issue.
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-would-mr-robinson-do-did-st.html
Nick already thoroughly dealt with this issue.
Why should I bother to see what a anonymous blogger writes? If you have something from the magisterium or an official Roman Catholic source, I'll take a look at that.
"If you have something from the magisterium or an official Roman Catholic source, I'll take a look at that."
How about Maximus himself?
"I have no private opinion, but only agree with the Catholic Church.'.
Maximus could not have been a proto-Protestant any way shape or form (granted that you state as much) because he, like the rest of the fathers, never interpreted Sacred Scripture in isolation from the traditional faith of the Church. Thus Sola Scriptura was completely alien to him.
"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firmand immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
Now, if the Holy Spirit, according to Maximus, condems angels or anyone else from teaching what was PREACHED, then the Church of Rome having authority over ALL the Churches, then the Holy Spirit according to Maximus condems you. Because you say that the Roman Church has no such authority over the Churches and yet Maximus tells us that this is apostolic. This is what was preached.
Your post is disingenuous to say the least.
Maximus could not have been a proto-Protestant any way shape or form
How about you read a little more carefully? Notice, in the post I said:"I'm not saying Maximus was a proto-Protestant"
Unbelievable.
More cut-and-paste Romanist apologetics, taking possibly spurious quotes out of context to support the vicar of Diotrephes in Rome. No credible person serously believes the East accepted papal supremacy.
I had forgotten about Pope Honorius. I still don't understand the story, though.
Was Maximus's jailer essentially telling him "Your dithelitism is going to scandalize the Pope and could jeopardize our agreement with him. It's your duty to confess monothelitism in the interest of Church unity"? Or am I just completely misunderstanding what happened?
Pope Honorius ruled from 625 to 638 according to Wikipedia.
I betcha no one reading this believes the theory that there were "proto-protestants" in the 7th century, or that something QUITE as radical as the Reformation was yet needed at that time (of course reform is called for in the church in all generations).
@James
"I'm not saying Maximus was a proto-Protestant"
Sorry old bean, but if you had read carefully, you would have noticed that I did in fact grant as much.
However, by suggesting that Scripture was the highest authority for maximus, one can only come to the conclusion that he was a proto-protestant of sorts. Why else would you mention it? This is what I want to know. Why mention it at all?
This is why your post is disingenuous.
Also, let me ask this: when did Gal 1:8 ever show that Scripture was the highest authority? And you accuse Catholics of misrepresentation. LOL
You would need to prove that only what the apostles wrote was the highest authority. You need to do that first before claiming that it is. Guessing that the Bible is the ultimate authority simply won't do James. The Bible has to say that. But before you go looking, it doesn't say it.
By the way, Maximus is correct in using Gal 1:8 because every Catholic believes that who ever believes a different Gospel than was 'preached' is accursed. Double for a Pope. Non sequitur, James. Your getting slack in your old age.
@Louis
"More cut-and-paste Romanist apologetics"
Wow! the wealth of information that you provide to counter "Romanist apologetics" is simply staggering.
And yet, what was it that James provided for us if not "cut and paste"?
I'll bet that Papists will be hard pressed to read a rebuttal of Romanism that's as good as yours.
In the future, Protestants will write poems about you.
Jim, I expected that you weren't worth spending more than 2 minutes on, and you're latest post confirms that. Have a nice day.
James,
I have dealt with the issue in more depth than you have. (see the link posted earlier)
Maximus never saw Rome as caving in - and even when heretics from the east claimed Rome caved in Maximus refused to believe it.
The quote from Galatians 1:8 needs to be taken with the proper perspective - Paul included himself in the condemnation of Gal 1:8, yet we all know Paul never did and never would cave in to heresy.
If you interpreting Gal 1:8 the way you are doing so in your post, you must reject the infallibility and inerrancy of St Paul, because you'd be saying even he could get the Gospel wrong.
You're almost there, Nick. You just need to realize that neither we nor Paul think that Paul was always infallible. When he was inspired, he was infallible. Otherwise, no.
-TurretinFan
== And yet, what was it that James provided for us if not "cut and paste"?==
I sure get the feeling that some folk think that expertise in a narrow, specific subject automatically transfers to other subjects they may comment on...
-sigh-
Nick, Mr. Paton, and Mr. Champion will add what's needed to anyone's words in order to pick a fight about whatever to them appears to attack their sacred cow.
There's no doubt that Maximus said and held lofty ideals pertaining to the Roman Church. This I've never denied.
On the other hand, modern-day Romanists will be quick to point out that a Pope (and even those in Romanist Church authority who aren't Pope's) can get things wrong (Remember all those qualifications about infallibility?). So, in regard to the passage from Galatians, I can even pretend I'm a full-blooded Romanist myself and put Maximus in a Romanist context.
C'mon guys. I'm super-busy- don't waste my time with massive amounts of words that slay windmills you've invented.
I do have one final question: would each of you three amigos apply that passage to something the current Pope says? I think you would, and each of you, like Maximus, is on the right track.
== And yet, what was it that James provided for us if not "cut and paste"?==
I sure get the feeling that some folk think that expertise in a narrow, specific subject automatically transfers to other subjects they may comment on...
David,
If I'm understanding you correctly, your comment annoys me.
I've never claimed to be any sort of expert on anything. If I have, show me where. If you're looking for experts, go somewhere else. Go read the blogs of those Romanists who claim the title "professional apologist" and then quibble with them on their credentials. I write about what interests me. It's only you folks that seem to think something I write is either a plea for authority, or that I am in fact, an authority on anything.
Who really cares that Mr. Champion or Mr. Nick have written responses to me? Let's put things in perspective: not that many people (perhaps maybe they could be counted on hand) actually care. On the other hand, not that many people care what I write either. But you guys, for whatever reason, think what I say actually has some sort of weight or importance.
Sometimes (like right now) I just sit back and shake my head over this whole Internet dialog thing. It's simply a vehicle for millions of us to think WE actually matter or have something to say.
For tedium's sake, as to cut-and-paste, I certainly do have the Maximus book pictured in the blog entry. I transcribed the quote myself after reading it. So yes, in essence it qualifies as a cut-and-paste in that, I read the book and transcribed the quote. I didn't pull it off some other alleged "expert" blog or website. If you'd like me to take a picture of my hand holding the page open in the book, I certainly can accommodate that sort of request.
Now please, go snipe someone else on some other blog.
James,
I'm confused as to why you're speaking of people not caring what you or I say. Why write anything at all if you think your efforts are of no value? If your intention isn't about making an argument for Protestantism, then it seems you're giving off the wrong impression.
Sure there are millions of people who don't care what either of us say, but those are also generally the people who have no care for the truth and learning about the Faith.
What comes off as a snipe against Rome, I and other Catholics feel a need to correct any erroneous comments. The same can be said for you, especially when people are abusing Luther's words in order to discredit Protestantism, and you feel a duty to correct such errors.
All I'm saying in response to your original post is that (a) there is no evidence Maximus ever saw Rome caving in, and in fact always saw Rome as preserver of orthodoxy, and (b) the Galatians 1:8 says nothing one way or the other about infallibility since Paul includes the Apostles in that warning. Thus your conclusion that Maximus had the right idea about where ultimate authority rests is non-sequitor. By your logic, anyone can play the Gal1:8 card under any circumstances and be commended as orthodox.
TurretinFan,
I never intended to convey anyone thought Paul was "always infallible" - the point is that someone can be infallible under certain circumstances and still have Galatians 1:8 apply to him.
==David,
If I'm understanding you correctly, your comment annoys me.==
Me: It seems that anything I write "annoys" you; it is painfully obvious that you have a certain disdain for me, but that's OK, I have very 'broad shoulders'...
As for your "understanding", my comment was/is to be 'understood' in a broad scope; the quote I used at the beginning was merely a platform, so to speak, for a much broader application; you actually seem to grasp this broader context, after your initial reflections. For the record, that broader context applies to me too!!!
==I've never claimed to be any sort of expert on anything. If I have, show me where.==
Me: Not in exact words, but you have stated on numerous occasions to many who comment here that they have not 'done their homework' when it comes to Martin Luther, implying that you have. You have also spoken about the thousands of dollars you have spent collecting literature on Luther, and the hundreds of hours you have spent in research on Luther. I personally appreciate your zeal and efforts when it comes to Luther, and have wanted to field some questions I have had concerning Luther to you for your opinion, but have refrained from doing because of your attitude towards me...oh well...
Grace and peace,
David
I'm confused as to why you're speaking of people not caring what you or I say. Why write anything at all if you think your efforts are of no value? If your intention isn't about making an argument for Protestantism, then it seems you're giving off the wrong impression.
I write and blog because I like to. I enjoy it for me, it has value for me. That may sound selfish, but it's purely Protestant: I write and blog with the hopes of doing it to my best ability as I try to do all things: to the glory of God. Whether it's driving down the road or going to the supermarket. This is the same sort of thing Luther argued when he would say a mother changing the diaper of a baby could be done to the glory of God.
I also have been created by God with particular likes and dislikes, abilities and weaknesses. That I enjoy blogging or writing is simply yet another gift God gives me to enjoy. When I write or research, it's no different in theory than a person who sits down in front of piano and enjoys playing it (however well or poorly). Assuming the person enjoys playing the Piano, the person playing the piano does so because... they enjoy it. Now, if someone else reads or benefits from something I've written, that's fine. Just like if someone plays the piano and someone else enjoys hearing it being played. Of course I enjoy it when someone says they have benefited from something I've written, probably in the same way someone who does the job they love enjoys the occasional pat on the back for something their job requires. I say all these things because people sometimes think that what they do when they write blog articles is "ministry". Rather, they should just be honest and say they write blog entries because... they like to. If they seek to do all they do to the glory of God, well guess what? It will probably minister to someone.
As to "making an argument for Protestantism" sometimes, yes, because that's what I am. Other times I simply just post the things that interest me. In this instance, that Maximus appealed to the authority of Scripture was in a sense an appeal to Protestant theology in that the words and deeds of Maximus define who he was, and that I don't have to put some sort of template on him to have him be who I want him to be, or invoke "development of doctrine" to put in him the pen of Romanism despite whatever areas in which he might be at odds with modern-day Romanism. I found the words of Maximus to be inspiring.
What comes off as a snipe against Rome, I and other Catholics feel a need to correct any erroneous comments. The same can be said for you, especially when people are abusing Luther's words in order to discredit Protestantism, and you feel a duty to correct such errors.
In this instance, you guys filled in your own details and then attacked what you created. I'm super busy at the moment, so I can't chase each of you around and quibble over the details. Sometimes I can, this time I can't.
As to the "duty" you think I think I have, this is similar to what I stated above. I don't think of researching Luther or pointing out a Roman-error-laden-Luther contexts as a duty, I think of it as an enjoyable hobby. If it were my duty, it would be a full-time job without pay, and I would quickly learn to despise it. That is, there's enough error regarding Luther and the Reformation that if it were actually my duty, I would be consumed by trying to keep up with it.
It seems that anything I write "annoys" you; it is painfully obvious that you have a certain disdain for me, but that's OK, I have very 'broad shoulders'...
You do pop over here every so often, at times leaving little snipes (I refer to our last long-winded encounter).
As for your "understanding", my comment was/is to be 'understood' in a broad scope; the quote I used at the beginning was merely a platform, so to speak, for a much broader application; you actually seem to grasp this broader context, after your initial reflections. For the record, that broader context applies to me too!!!
Contrarily, I would posit your recent comment actually echoes back to an earlier discussion we had in which you made a very similar comment directly toward me. If you did not intend this, I can't be faulted for making such a connection as the similarity is uncanny. Perhaps you don't remember the things you wrote previously. I certainly do, and can re-post them to show that similarity.
Not in exact words, but you have stated on numerous occasions to many who comment here that they have not 'done their homework' when it comes to Martin Luther, implying that you have. You have also spoken about the thousands of dollars you have spent collecting literature on Luther, and the hundreds of hours you have spent in research on Luther.
That's a far cry from claiming to be an expert or an authority. What it is, is a claim that if someone wants to quibble over the details or challenge my findings, they better do so thoroughly by doing their own research and having the necessary tools (read= homework). Recently I got involved with a Roman blogger who simply wanted to challenge me using my own materials in which he hadn't even read the primary contexts in question. I bailed. I had no time to do the work for both of us, nor did I want to waste my time with someone who doesn't care enough to take complete contexts into question.
Nick:
You wrote this: "yet we all know Paul never did and never would cave in to heresy. "
Then you wrote this: "I never intended to convey anyone thought Paul was "always infallible" - the point is that someone can be infallible under certain circumstances and still have Galatians 1:8 apply to him."
Now your initial comment, which was this: "If you interpreting Gal 1:8 the way you are doing so in your post, you must reject the infallibility and inerrancy of St Paul, because you'd be saying even he could get the Gospel wrong."
Doesn't make much sense.
Would you like to clarify?
TurretinFan,
What doesn't make sense?
(1) Paul included himself in Gal 1:8, but he never caved into heresy.
(2) Paul was not always infallible, but was under certain circumstances.
(3) Gal 1:8 cannot be used to rule out the category of infallibility.
Your original comment is what doesn't make sense, Nick. It sounds like your original statement said that to say Paul "could" get the gospel wrong requires a general denial of infallibility.
Now it sounds like you are saying that Paul could have fallen into heresy, it just happened that he did not. That's more like Maximus/our position.
If you admit that Rome could fall into heresy, but just think it hasn't yet fallen into heresy, then you start to sound more like Maximus (although, of course, he wasn't passing judgment on the last 1000 years of dogmatic innovations). Is that where you stand?
I honestly don't see the problem here. Everyone is capable of falling into heresy by the fact they're human; that doesn't mean they will and that doesn't mean they're infallible if they don't. Some people are given the gift of infallibility to not fall into heresy under certain circumstances.
I can say the Pope as a human is capable of falling into heresy, but having infallibility he will not when teaching dogmatically. So the Pope could cave into heresy on a personal level, and that doesn't effect his infallibility anymore than Paul could cave into heresy on a personal level. But in practice, I don't see any evidence he did, much less an example that would qualify as teaching error dogmatically.
I interpret Maximus as believing Rome never would fall into error in virtue of infallibility, as well as the fact Rome never had.
I think what's interesting about this verse is it reveals what a rascally trickster Paul was. As we all know already, when he was in Galatia he preached the same gospel as Rome today, on submission to the pope and purgatory and sacramental systems whereby we merit salvation and using Jesus's mom as a mediator. But then he wrote to them as a kind of trick to test them, saying even if we or an angel (wink wink) should preach a different gospel (wink nudge). And then, in the rest of the letter, he proceeds to teach a different Gospel from his own self, one of faith, grace, God's promises and God's own ability to save apart from human effort. But he only did this to make sure the Galatians were paying attention to Gal 1:8, so that they'd immediately reject this "other gospel" in favor of the one he preached while there and that Rome still teaches.
No wonder so few Roman Catholics read the Bible! They're just following Galatians 1:8! :P
So I'm just messintg around and being silly. On a serious note, how are we not to take Galatians 1:8 as a charge to take its teachings and reject whatever does not conform to it? Even angel and apostle are to be rejected. Why am I supposed to do this with Peter and Gabriel but not the pope and cardinals?
In Christ,
JL
"I can say the Pope as a human is capable of falling into heresy, but having infallibility he will not when teaching dogmatically."
Your church does say that. On the other hand, that claim is not really consistent with Paul's teaching in Galatians.
"So the Pope could cave into heresy on a personal level, and that doesn't effect his infallibility anymore than Paul could cave into heresy on a personal level."
It doesn't effect his infallibility as narrowly defined by Rome even when the pope in his official capacity as pope teaches heresy, so long as he doesn't do it with the intent to bind the whole church.
"But in practice, I don't see any evidence he did, much less an example that would qualify as teaching error dogmatically."
Honorius wrote (as bishop of Rome, in that capacity): "Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin." For that he was condemned posthumously by councils and subsequent bishops of Rome as a monothelite.
"I interpret Maximus as believing Rome never would fall into error in virtue of infallibility, as well as the fact Rome never had."
Your interpretation isn't grounded in Maximus' answer. When posed with the question of what happened if/when Rome acceded to Constantinople's position, Maximus neither said, "I will observe whatever Most Holy Rome teaches," nor did he say, "Rome cannot err as you have suggested," but instead said that he would stick to his guns. Right?
Maybe he thought that Rome would not agree. He didn't want to believe that Honorius himself was a monothelite, and tried to argue that Honorius was simply saying that there were not two contrary wills.
Whether he thought Rome would or would not agree, however, Maximus did not say what you interpret him as saying - instead his answer suggests that Rome is able to fall away, just like he felt Constantinople already had fallen away.
If you go to the link I presented above, Maximus addresses that very "one will" quote of Honorius and says it's actually orthodox.
If he saw Rome as of little consequence or on par with everyone else, then his talk here and elsewhere extolling Rome would make little sense.
I don't have a lot of context of James' quote, but Maximus could have been thinking the political persecution could get so bad that the Pope or certain high members could cave in under pressure, but in that case it wouldn't be an infallible declaration. Consider the fact Maximus was well aware Rome was firmly on his side during the previous years (e.g. 694 Lateran Synod which Maximus attended) in opposing the heresy and that at this point he was well aware that there were false legates going around lying and that Pope Martin was kidnapped and persecuted.
I don't have a lot of context of James' quote,
Oh you've got to be kidding. Why in the world would you want to get involved with something you haven't even read?
What is it with you guys? This is the second time in about a month someone decided to teach me how to interpret documents they haven't actually read.
FYI, that Maximus book is very affordable.
"Maximus addresses that very "one will" quote of Honorius and says it's actually orthodox."
If you read through to the end of my brief comment, you'll find that I point out Maximus' attempt to justify Honorius. Of course, he was wrong according to a subsequent "ecumenical" council and centuries' worth of Roman bishops, but yes - Maximus tried to argue that Honorius was actually orthodox.
"Maximus could have been thinking the political persecution could get so bad that the Pope or certain high members could cave in under pressure, but in that case it wouldn't be an infallible declaration."
Maximus certainly wasn't thinking that the bishop of Rome was ever capable of making infallible declarations by virtue of his office. As for the rest, perhaps yes - he may have suspected that persecution might produce the result of changed opinion (expressed).
Maximus died in 662. So, I'm pretty sure that any synod of 694 is out of the question. Perhaps you mean the Lateran synod of 649?
In any event, the point is this - even if Rome taught it, Maximus would not believe it. You and people in your shoes cannot say that.
-TurretinFan
Tfan = "In any event, the point is this, even if Rome taught it, Maximus would not believe it."
Maximus = "THOSE(legates)who are coming cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome.”
Tfan = "You and people in your shoes cannot say that."
Maximus (Well, not really)= "I'm not saying what you think I'm saying"
Mr. Paton,
Keep reading what they asked him after that.
-TurretinFan
Mr Fan
Reading further only serves to prove my point.
"And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?"
The "Romans" are the legates. Maximus makes the distinction between them and the see of Rome. He states that they "cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome.”
You fail to make the distinction. I wonder why that is?
No, "the Romans" is the church of Rome, Mr. Paton.
Walk through the quotation.
1) "And what will you do if the Romans unite with the Byzantines? For behold, yesterday there came legates of Rome and tomorrow on Sunday they will take communion with the patriarch; it will become evident to all that it was you who turned the Romans away. Doubtless with you removed, there will then be an easy union."
They pose this as an argument that it is going to be just Maximus against all the major churches.
2) "Those who are coming cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome, even if they should take communion because they have not brought a letter to the patriarch. And I am not at all convinced that the Romans will unite with them unless they confess that our Lord and God by nature both wills and works our salvation according to each of the natures from which he is, in which he is, as well as which he is."
But, you see, Maximus is too clever. He points out that the mere communion of the legates is not enough to show that the Roman church is in agreement with Constantinople, because they don't bear a letter to that effect addressed to the patriarch.
3) "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?"
They set this aside, and ask what if the church of Rome does join with the other churches?
4) "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached"
Maximus refuses to assent, even under that circumstance.
-TurretinFan
All of these arguments rest on the honesty of the imperial legates as well as Maximus trusting them. But if you read the Letter to the Monks of Caligari you'll see that Maximus never trusted imperial representatives. He instructed his disciple to write to Rome to warn them of that deception and in that letter described Rome as the immovable rock where God established His custom of always shedding His grace.
Nick covers this in his article as well as has translations of the primary works.
"All of these arguments rest on the honesty of the imperial legates as well as Maximus trusting them."
No.
a) The legates here are the Roman legates, not imperial legates (by this time the imperial seat was Constantinople, not Rome).
b) The arguments don't rely on assuming that Maximus trusts anyone. It simply relies on Maximus answering the question asked.
"But if you read the Letter to the Monks of Caligari you'll see that Maximus never trusted imperial representatives."
He didn't trust the heretics in general, and thought they were basically servants of the devil.
"He instructed his disciple to write to Rome to warn them of that deception and in that letter described Rome as the immovable rock where God established His custom of always shedding His grace."
You may well have given a more accurate description than you like to admit. He does seem to have viewed the Roman church that way - not the Roman bishop. That's an important distinction that's often glossed over whenever ancient Christians say anything nice about the Rome of their day - it is just assumed that they mean "the pope," when in fact they mean the church.
"Nick covers this in his article as well as has translations of the primary works."
No comment.
-TurretinFan
TF,
Maximus didn't meet with the Roman legates. He depended on a description of their doings given by the imperial legates. So, yes, comment still stands.
///You may well have given a more accurate description than you like to admit. He does seem to have viewed the Roman church that way - not the Roman bishop. That's an important distinction that's often glossed over whenever ancient Christians say anything nice about the Rome of their day - it is just assumed that they mean "the pope," when in fact they mean the church.///
You're jumping the gun here because you haven't established that Maximus beleived that the pope fell into error. Given the fact that prior to his imprisonment he was a strong defender of the papacy that leap seems to be completely baseless.
@Tfan,
I humbly stand corrected on what I previously wrote. But I believe you proved too much.
You wrote: “He does seem to have viewed the Roman church that way - not the Roman bishop.” i.e. that Maximus believed that the Church of Rome was “the immovable rock where God established His custom of always shedding His grace.”
Ok, if he had viewed the Church of Rome that way then the statement “They set this aside, and ask what if the church of Rome does join with the other churches?” does not ring true.
Now, my contention is that it was not the Church of Rome that could be condemned, but rather, the bishop of Rome as the legates are his representatives.
I don’t see how he could say that the Roman Church is an immovable rock and then say that it could preach a different gospel. This would hardly constitute immovability. So the only conclusion is that the one to be condemned would have been the bishop of Rome (if anyone was to be condemned) and not the Church of Rome. Maximus would have known the difference of what was immovable and what wasn’t. Either that or the man is a liar. I don’t believe he was.
costrowski:
He can answer the hypothetical questions without trusting anyone, so my point stands.
"You're jumping the gun here because you haven't established that Maximus beleived that the pope fell into error."
The quotation provided by Mr. Swan shows that Maximus was open to the possibility that the church of Rome (which up to that point had stood firm on the point) would fall into error.
Whether or not he believed that the church fell into error later in his life is a different question.
"Given the fact that prior to his imprisonment he was a strong defender of the papacy that leap seems to be completely baseless."
He was a strong defender of the two wills. The argument that Rome agreed with him was just one of his arguments - the primary arguments being Scripture and the fathers.
What "imprisonment" do you have in mind?
-TurretinFan
Mr. Paton:
Thank you for the kind tone of your comment, but there's something I don't follow.
You seem to be hung up not on what he has said in the passage Mr. Swan quoted, but on this "immovable rock" characterization elsewhere.
But that characterization (in a much earlier writing, it seems - assuming that the comment is authentic) was really a flourish in passing, whilst relating the ploy used by the Roman apocrisiarii (legates to Constantinople) and its effect.
By the time of the account provided by Mr. Swan, he could have shifted his views. But we don't even have to assume that - the flourish can just be chalked up to rhetorical hyperbole.
-TurretinFan
@Tfan
"You seem to be hung up not on what he has said in the passage Mr. Swan quoted, but on this "immovable rock" characterization elsewhere."
Not really. I think I am trying to find some continuity. However, if it looks as if I am avoiding Mr Swan's quotation then I can assure you that that was not my intention.
"By the time of the account provided by Mr. Swan, he could have shifted his views"
That's an interesting thought. Do you have proof that he could have?
"the flourish can just be chalked up to rhetorical hyperbole"
Possible! But then, I am inclined to believe that Maximus (let's not forget the times in which he was living) wouldn't have been frivolous with words like "God established His custom of always shedding His grace" and remember this is upon Rome who Maximus says is immovable rock.
Now, either God does or doesn't. And to see what the man believed and suffered for, and to then claim that he didn't firmly believe this about Rome - I personally can't see it. But then again, I could be wrong.
TF
///He can answer the hypothetical questions without trusting anyone, so my point stands.///
///The quotation provided by Mr. Swan shows that Maximus was open to the possibility that the church of Rome (which up to that point had stood firm on the point) would fall into error.///
Once you have reduced the matter to a hypothetical you’ve placed yourself back into the answer that Nick explained, which gets your claim nowhere because you both agreed that
1. Paul placed himself in the category of those who could hypothetically be accursed.
2. Paul’s teachings were infallible under certain conditions.
This leaves open the possibility that Maximus saw Rome as being infallible in a similar manner to Paul’s teachings which means that they were also protected from error under certain circumstances. And so the ambiguity could be used to demonstrate Maximus' belief in some kind of Roman infallibility just as much as it could be used as an argument against it. But given the fact that Paul is one of the referrents in the scriptural quote, it stands to reason that the argument for some form of Roman infallibility is stronger than the one against it.
///What "imprisonment" do you have in mind?///
Maximus was arrested and imprisoned prior to, during, and after his trial until he died.
Post a Comment