does the Orthodox church receive as much vitriol as the Catholic Church

[Cavaradossi]

Since the clergy refused to recognize Vigilius as pope until Silverus’ death that means they didn’t recognize his deposition, otherwise Vigilius would have been recognized immediately and Silverus would have been a living ex-pope not by his own will. Then you would have a case of a sitting Pope being “fired” by an Emporer and replaced with another and the church accepting it. (which is the charge the Orthodox makes)

That didn’t happen.

If they accepted the election (even if it was after the death of Silverius), as I wrote earlier, then what was de facto became de jure, i.e., that Pope Silverius had been deposed by the civil authorities in favor of Pope Vigilius. That the Roman clergy accepted Vigilius as the valid bishop of Rome instead of demanding for a new election (as if he were an anti-pope), shows that they recognized ex post facto the legitimacy of his initial appointment.

The fact that after Silverius’ death Vigilius was accepted as a legitimate Pope has no baring on the matter.

But that is precisely my point. It could have been that the dispute over Vigilius’ appointment had lasted for a month or for ten years. But regardless of when Vigilius was recognized as being the legitimate bishop of Rome, that he was recognized as such means that his initial appointment was valid. There cannot, according to Roman Canon Law itself, be two popes at the same time, which means that Pope Vigilius, upon his installment, was either the legitimate pope or an anti-pope. Were he an anti-pope, then he would have needed to be elected in a canonical fashion in order for him to become the legitimate bishop of Rome. That the clergy instead came to accept him means that his appointment (no matter how irregular) was nevertheless recognized as being valid, and that he was reckoned to be the pope and not an anti-pope.

After the death of Silverus someone had to succeed him. We don’t care the manor the holy spirit reveals who he wants as Pope. And, as has been pointed out several times already, once Pope Vigilius miraculously changed his mind and did not do what the Emporer wanted him to. Further proof that the Holy spirit protects the Papacy from falling into doctrinal error.

But he did exactly what the emperor wanted him to do. He condemned the Three Chapters.

 

[Steveabrous]

If they accepted the election (even if it was after the death of Silverius), as I wrote earlier, then what was de facto became de jure, i.e., that Pope Silverius had been deposed by the civil authorities in favor of Pope Vigilius. That the Roman clergy accepted Vigilius as the valid bishop of Rome instead of demanding for a new election (as if he were an anti-pope), shows that they recognized ex post facto the legitimacy of his initial appointment.

Not buying it.

But that is precisely my point. It could have been that the dispute over Vigilius’ appointment had lasted for a month or for ten years. But regardless of when Vigilius was recognized as being the legitimate bishop of Rome, that he was recognized as such means that his initial appointment was valid. There cannot, according to Roman Canon Law itself, be two popes at the same time, which means that Pope Vigilius, upon his installment, was either the legitimate pope or an anti-pope. Were he an anti-pope, then he would have needed to be elected in a canonical fashion in order for him to become the legitimate bishop of Rome. That the clergy instead came to accept him means that his appointment (no matter how irregular) was nevertheless recognized as being valid, and that he was reckoned to be the pope and not an anti-pope.

They did not accept him as Pope until Silverius’ death, Therefore Vigilius was not Pope until then. therefore there were not two Popes at the same time regardless of what the Emperor said. and, sorry, I’m not buying this ex post facto stuff as I stated earlier.

But he did exactly what the emperor wanted him to do. He condemned the Three Chapters.

Did the Emperor or the council want them condemned. there are conflicting posts here. As was already pointed out Vigilius did not do other things the Emperor wanted. So he comdemned the 3 Articles. Was that overturned by another Pope? If not then there is nothing to see here.

 

[Steveabrous]

But he did exactly what the emperor wanted him to do. He condemned the Three Chapters.

O.k. did a brief research here. Seems not only did the Emperor want them condemned but so did the council of Chalcedon. Pope Vigilius, that puppet of the Emperor he was, endured years of torture by the Emperor for ,at first, refusing to go along with him and the council. But in the end relented and condemned the 3 chapters along with the Council of chalcedon. Constantinople II also upheld Chalcedon which is recognized by both East and West.

I fail to see the contraversie here. The Pope condemned the three chapters and that decision was accepted by both east and west. And, apparently, stands today.

Am I wrong?

 

[Reuben_J]

If they accepted the election (even if it was after the death of Silverius), as I wrote earlier, then what was de facto became de jure, i.e., that Pope Silverius had been deposed by the civil authorities in favor of Pope Vigilius. That the Roman clergy accepted Vigilius as the valid bishop of Rome instead of demanding for a new election (as if he were an anti-pope), shows that they recognized ex post facto the legitimacy of his initial appointment.

I will not read much into this as the appointment of the Popes was under duress. Pope Vigilus was installed by the occupier of Rome, Byzantine General Belisarius of Emperor Justinian 1 of Constantinople. There was virtually nothing anyone can do in the situation which was actually a military government.

What we can note is that the Roman clergy only recognize Vigilus as Pope only after the death of his predecessor. This meant to say there were no two Pope as far as the Church was concerned. Pope Vigilus was illegal.

The fact that the clergy gave recognition to Pope Vigilus after the death of Pope Silverus, his predecessor, made his appointment now valid notwithstanding that he initially was illegally put up by General Belisarius. This is nothing unusual as the election of the Pope then was not the same as it is now. The present conclave is developed through many centuries until the thirteenth century when it was adopted officially.

Vigilus initially was a forerunner for the Pope thus he was a Pope material not altogether a bad candidate at that time. If the clergy agreed for him to become Pope, they must have seen this quality in him.

What is important to note is that when he actually became Pope he was not subjected to error of heresy. This is clear when he did not support the Monophysite Patriarch of Constantinople which was a heresy. Thus even in a very difficult situation the Pope was protected by the Holy Spirit from deviation from the faith. Not the same can be said of the Patriarch of Constantinople at that era though.

But he did exactly what the emperor wanted him to do. He condemned the Three Chapters.

The three chapters was an edict by Emperor Justinian I which very much had a political objective to encourage the Oriental Orthodox to accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Pope Leo I, thus bringing religious harmony to the Byzantine Empire. The Eastern bishops were coerced into subscribing to it; it would be a matter of time before the Pope capitulated – he was under duress, tortured and imprisoned for his resistance in Constantinople and died shortly after he was released.

 

[Steveabrous]

The three chapters was an edict by Emperor Justinian I which very much had a political objective to encourage the Oriental Orthodox to accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Pope Leo I, thus bringing religious harmony to the Byzantine Empire. The Eastern bishops were coerced into subscribing to it; it would be a matter of time before the Pope capitulated – he was under duress, tortured and imprisoned for his resistance in Constantinople and died shortly after he was released.

I believe if a Pope subscribes to a doctrine under sever distress like that it negates infallability in the matter. In otherwords the fact that the consent was attained through distress means it would not be considered infalable. And therefore can not be considered that the Pope taught in error.

 

[Reuben_J]

I believe if a Pope subscribes to a doctrine under sever distress like that it negates infallability in the matter. In otherwords the fact that the consent was attained through distress means it would not be considered infalable. And therefore can not be considered that the Pope taught in error.

I agree. The Pope could either be a martyr or he just succumbed to years of physical and mental abuse and torture. As we all know, when a person is forced to do semething he does not want to then what he consented to is not from his a true desire. In court such evidence is not acceptable.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I believe if a Pope subscribes to a doctrine under sever distress like that it negates infallability in the matter. In otherwords the fact that the consent was attained through distress means it would not be considered infalable. And therefore can not be considered that the Pope taught in error.

Given that papal infallibility never existed in the First Millennium, it wouldn’t have been an issue anyway.

 

[Steveabrous]

Given that papal infallibility never existed in the First Millennium, it wouldn’t have been an issue anyway.

Papal infallibility existed when Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.
You might check the rules of the forum. I believe comments like that are against the rules .
After all this is CATHOLIC answers.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
That is, we should resolve our issues first before we share Communion, not start sharing Communion and then resolve our goals.

Both ^^ good posts.

I’d like to chime in that, in my experience, protestants (many of them) have pretty weird attitudes towards Orthodoxy vis-a-vis Catholicism. For example Dr. Scott Hahn, before his conversion to Catholicism: he says, in telling his conversion story,

I still hoped to find that one fatal flaw that would keep me from “swimming the Tiber”, as we say, or from “pope-ing”.

So I started looking into Orthodoxy…

Of course you have to read more than that small quote to get a full sense of it, but basically he considered Eastern Orthodoxy only after his original assumption – that Protestantism is better than Catholicism – was shown to be false.

 

[Steveabrous]

Both ^^ good posts.

but basically he considered Eastern Orthodoxy only after his original assumption – that Protestantism is better than Catholicism – was shown to be false.

I don’t understand your point here. He didn’t want to be Roman Catholic, so he looked into Orthodoxy hoping to find something that would disprove The Papacy. If it was there he would have latched on to it as an excuss not to join the church. But he couldn’t find it

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t understand your point here.

Thank you for asking. Here it is:

he considered Eastern Orthodoxy only after his original assumption – that Protestantism is better than Catholicism – was shown to be false

(Or, to put it another way, he considered Eastern Orthodoxy only after he discovered that protestantism didn’t provide valid objections to Catholicism.)

 

[Steveabrous]

Thank you for asking. Here it is:

(Or, to put it another way, he considered Eastern Orthodoxy only after he discovered that protestantism didn’t provide valid objections to Catholicism.)

Yes, then he considered Orthodoxy and discovered it didn’t either. That’s my point.

 

[Steveabrous]

Thank you for asking. Here it is:

(Or, to put it another way, he considered Eastern Orthodoxy only after he discovered that protestantism didn’t provide valid objections to Catholicism.)

I think what you are trying to say is that he already had a mind set for Roman Catholicism when he looked into Orthodoxy, therefore not giving Orthodoxy a fair shake. That’s an undertandable assumption. But the exact opposite is the case

I don’t think you understand the mindset of American Protestantism, particularly the evangelical kind like he was. All other churches would be o.k. even Orthodoxy accept the Catholic church. The entire existence of Protestantism rests on the Catholic church being wrong, and quite frankly evil. And trust me the are indoctrinated to think this way. If a Protestant of this sort realizes protestantism is wrong and could not provide a valid objection to Catholicism, he would naturally look into Orthodoxy and hoped he could become Orthodox instead so he wouldn’t have to become Catholic. However he found Orthodoxy to be lacking (the Pope).

Trust me if he could have become orthodox and not have to become Catholic and have peace about it he would have

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I generally find if they learn about what we believe most protestants (arrogantly and rashly) will say “The orthodox are just Catholics without a Pope”. Statements like that grossly over simplify the issue of course but i’ve heard as much vitriol as any catholic I imagine. But the sweet irony is that these fundamentalists will often in arguing against islam point out the persecution of the Coptic “christians” as if now Coptics (who as far as I can tell agree on most things with Eastern Orthodox(correct me if mistaken)) will now consider them brothers. Anything for convenience I guess.

 

[dzheremi]

In terms of presuppositions and mindsets that need to be swept away, it is easier to convert to Catholicism than to Orthodoxy from a Protestant background. Yes, there are Evangelical types who say they would rather die than ever join the evil Roman Catholics or something like that, but even while they do that, their entire ecclesiology (or lack thereof), soteriology, etc. is defined within RCC parameters (e.g., the RCC is wrong about X, therefore we believe Y), since their entire existence is based on protesting certain post-(Chalcedon or Great) Schism developments in Western/Latin Christianity specifically. They may not notice it, but that’s still the case. Protestantism did not arise within the context of Byzantine (or Armenian, or Syriac, or Coptic, etc.) Christianity. It is an essentially Roman phenomenon, and people who convert from it to Roman Catholicism are doing nothing but turning the clock back to pre-16th century (but post-Great Schism) Western Christianity. So they’re not really changing all that much, despite the fact that it might seem otherwise.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, then he considered Orthodoxy and discovered it didn’t either. That’s my point.

Okay, although that seems like a slightly odd thing to say; I didn’t say “I don’t understand your point here”, rather you said that to me.

I think what you are trying to say is that he already had a mind set for Roman Catholicism when he looked into Orthodoxy, therefore not giving Orthodoxy a fair shake.

Nope. What I was trying to say is what I said.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, there are Evangelical types who say they would rather die than ever join the evil Roman Catholics or something like that, but even while they do that, their entire ecclesiology (or lack thereof), soteriology, etc. is defined within RCC parameters (e.g., the RCC is wrong about X, therefore we believe Y), since their entire existence is based on protesting certain post-(Chalcedon or Great) Schism developments in Western/Latin Christianity specifically. They may not notice it, but that’s still the case.

It seems that way to me too. I’ll be interested to see what protestant posters say in response.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Papal infallibility existed when Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.

Then how come Pope St. Martin was persecuted for preaching the truth? Couldn’t he have just pronounced his teaching ex cathedra (which eventually was the teaching accepted at the 6th Ecumenical Council anyway, so it wasn’t like he had a heretical opinion) and he could have saved himself and St. Maximos the Confessor from imprisonment and torture.

 

[Steveabrous]

Then how come Pope St. Martin was persecuted for preaching the truth? Couldn’t he have just pronounced his teaching ex cathedra (which eventually was the teaching accepted at the 6th Ecumenical Council anyway, so it wasn’t like he had a heretical opinion) and he could have saved himself and St. Maximos the Confessor from imprisonment and torture.

listen to yourself. He taught the truth and was persecuted for it. Unfortunately not all Christians recognize the Popes authority.

Papal infallablitiy doesn’t work that way. The matter has to be mulled over through councils and several other things have to be present before the Pope can make an ex-cathedra pronouncement. The Pope can’t just decide something is infallable.

 

[ConstantineTG]

listen to yourself. He taught the truth and was persecuted for it. Unfortunately not all Christians recognize the Popes authority.

Papal infallablitiy doesn’t work that way. The matter has to be mulled over through councils and several other things have to be present before the Pope can make an ex-cathedra pronouncement. The Pope can’t just decide something is infallable.

He never proclaimed anything infallibly. And this clearly demonstrates that such concept did not exist in the First Millennium.

By the way, Pope St. Martin did convoke a council. It wasn’t even the same council that was eventually recognized as Ecumenical. The East never accepted his council and it was only a later council, Constantinople III, that was recognized as Ecumenical.