The Petrine views

[Cavaradossi]

Do you believe the Eastern Bishops, the Patriarchs in particular, were unaware of the claims Pope Hadrian makes?

I think that the bishops in general were likely unaware, and that the Patriarch of Constantinople as well as some other high ranking bishops and officials (including the papal legates) may have been aware. It was somewhat common practice for a lot to be done secretly behind the scenes so that the sessions of a council could be somewhat of a fait accompli by the time they were actually carried out (though this did not always go so smoothly; Chalcedon for example had a few messy and disorderly sessions). The editing of the letters was probably also done with the permission of the legates.

 

[LionHeart777]

I think that the bishops in general were likely unaware, and that the Patriarch of Constantinople as well as some other high ranking bishops and officials (including the papal legates) may have been aware. It was somewhat common practice for a lot to be done secretly behind the scenes so that the sessions of a council could be somewhat of a fait accompli by the time they were actually carried out (though this did not always go so smoothly; Chalcedon for example had a few messy and disorderly sessions). The editing of the letters was probably also done with the permission of the legates.

(Emphasis mine.)

That seems reasonable, or that they would at least be aware of the edits. I don’t feel comfortable assuming either as certain though. I just wish I could dig up more info. Hefele doesn’t say much about it, it seems, other than mentioning ‘arbitrary alterations’ like I said.

 

[tdgesq]

I don’t know that the decision made by the Constantinople Synod to lift the anathemas has been accepted as valid by the other patriarchates. Certainly the original anathemas have been accepted.

That’s not the point I was making. It’s that an anathema, which is a major excommunication, is not an infallible declaration of the Church.

 

[tdgesq]

See my post above. St. Maximus offers several mutually exclusive theories on Honorius’ teaching of one will, sometimes claiming that they were forged, sometimes claiming that one will referred to the divine will and sometimes claiming the opposite, that one will referred to the human will. Which theory then are we to take? And furthermore, how does accepting these defenses of Honorius not exonerate the other monothelites? I think it is far more likely that the Third Council of Constantinople, which was under no pressing need to salvage such quotes from Honorius, and did not propose several mutually exclusive theories, was more accurate in its judgment, openly condemning Honorius with the other monothelites. And as St. Vincent of Lerins teaches in the Commonitorium, we should prefer the conclusions of the councils over those of individual fathers. And if that even is not enough convincing evidence that Pope Honorius was indeed condemned, it should also be mentioned that not only was this condemnation repeated at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, but that the very fact of Honorius’ condemnation was for centuries included in the Roman Breviary as part of a reading for the feast day of Pope St. Leo II.

The letters from Honorius to Patriarch Sergius have been preserved. Have you read them?

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

That is of course a non-sequitur, because not even all of the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, (which I am positive are considered infallible in your Church) were issued with the phrasing, “we declare,” but also sometimes in the form of anathematisms (for example, nobody, I think, would argue that the dogmatic canons of the Fifth Ecumenical Council are prone to error, even though they are in the form of anathematisms and not of positive declarations). The words “we declare,” in fact don’t seem to need to be present in the opinion of some scholars, such as those who view Pope Leo’s Tome as an ex-cathedra statement.

Sorry to be unclear. First, it is not the “declare” on its own that is the effective terminology, but “declare and define.” In any case, my point was that on the matter in contention - the condemnation of persons - this was not a matter doctrine, but merely of discipline.

At any rate, Pope Vigilius anathematizes anybody of ecclesiastical rank who would inflict contumely upon one who died at peace with the Church, and again at the end of the Constitution annuls by the power of the apostolic see any contrary declaration which has been written or which will be written by anybody of ecclesiastical rank.

Again, a point of discipline, not doctrine. So infallibility is not an issue.

Even if this statement were not infallible, how is it that the council pressed on despite the fact that Pope Vigilius pronounced any contrary declaration to be null? Was not, then, the decision of the Council automatically nullified by Pope Vigilius’ declaration?

The Constitutum never came before the Council. You must also remember that the 5th Ecum was initiated by Pope VIgilius himself (only its location was at issue). According to Catholic teaching, in an Ecum Council, all the bishops sit together as judges along with the Pope. So it is not a one-man show. The conclusion - that Pope Vigilius’ Constitutum “automatically nullified” the Council’s Sentence is a non-sequitur.

How then could the Pope later affirm the council’s decrees if they were already null and void?

The Council’s decrees were not “null and void,” On the other hand, that does not mean they had ecumenical authority – at least not until Pope Vigilius confirmed them.

Reading primary sources before trying to make me out as “confused” might be helpful. As I have actually read the First Constitution, I can quite confidently say that I am not confused. For Vigilius writes of the letter, “…earlier on in the same letter Ibas had said that the same Nestorius wrote harmful books which were a scandal to their readers and he denied the blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. For it is right for us to understand correctly in this way a document that our fathers accepted, and not to suspect something else which the writer of the letter is not recorded as having said.” and again, “On account, therefore, of what we have said above, and on account of that profession of faith which through the offices of Paul bishop of the city of Emesa restored to concord Cyril bishop of Alexandria of venerable memory and the most devout John of Antioch and all the bishops of the east (a profession that Ibas also praises and freely embraces in the letter), the writing of Bishop Ibas was pronounced by the fathers to be orthodox.”

Your quotation confirmed exactly what I stated.

You stated: “Ibas letter contained a true exposition of faith.” That statement is false. As the quote plainly indicates, the fathers pronounced the letter orthodox not because the letter “contained a true exposition of faith,” but merely because Ibas had praised and embraced the Faith of the Ephesine Council in the letter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It is rather difficult to argue that Pope Honorius did not teach monothelitism since the historical record shows that his letters are the origin of this particular heresy. Read the accounts of the 6th Ecumenical Council which condemned Honorius for the content of his letters. I can also cite evidence for you. Go to this site and go to the last vol. of the Nicene Fathers, the one containing the acts and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.

Father, if you read the Acts of the 6th Ecum carefully, you will find that the actual teachers and originators of the heresy were Sergius et al. Honorius is placed in a separate category as one who supported the heresy - not by teaching, but by virtue of “what was written by him” in that letter.

Again, please provide the direct citation from the 6th Ecum which states that Honorius taught the Monothelite heresy. Either produce it, or simply admit that this is another case of reading notions into the historical record that is not really there.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. John,

I’m glad, I just wanted to be sure and sometimes it is hard to gauge by type. I learn a lot from conversations like these; they force me to dig into matters deeper. I also get tips on some books that I am interested in; one example being Fr. Dvornik’s book “The Photian schism: history and legend”, which is now on my Amazon list.

A few posts back, discussion of the term “universal bishop” came up and I was trying to make a point that the other Patriarchs were aware of the Roman Bishops’ claims. One thing that came to mind was part of Pope St. Hadrian’s Letter to the Emperor and Empress which is included in the Acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council. The Latin version shows Rome’s claims quite vociferously, the Greek translation of the first part, which was read at the Council and contains, to use the late Bishop Hefele’s words, “arbitrary alterations” which seem to soften the letter a bit (“History of the Councils”, pg. 349) (if anyone knows anything about why the text was altered so, I would like to know.)

Anyway, the last part of the letter was not read at the Council as Hefele tell’s us, because the Patriarch “…Tarasius was blamed by the Pope, and this might have been abused by his opponents and those of the Council so as to do injury to the good cause itself.” (Ibid.) This part of the letter, included in the Acts of the 2nd session, reads as follows:

“We greatly wondered that in your imperial commands, directed for the Patriarch of the royal city, Tarasius, we find him there called Universal: but we know not whether this was written through ignorance or schism, or the heresy of the wicked. But henceforth we advise your most merciful and imperial majesty, that he be by no means called Universal in your writings, because it appears to be contrary to the institutions of the holy Canons and the decrees of the traditions of the holy Fathers. For he never could have ranked second, save for the authority of our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as is plain to all. Because if he be named Universal, above the holy Roman Church which has a prior rank, which is the head of all the Churches of God, it is certain that he shows himself as a rebel against the holy Councils, and a heretic. For, if he is Universal, he is recognized to have the Primacy even over the Church of our See, which appears ridiculous to all faithful Christians: because in the whole world the chief rank and power was given to the blessed Apostle Peter by the Redeemer of the world himself; and through the same Apostle, whose place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds the first rank, and the authority of power, now and for ever, so that if any one, which we believe not, has called him, or assents to his being called Universal, let him know that he is estranged from the orthodox Faith, and a rebel against our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

Again here, we have the “Roman claims” voiced rather frankly. Do you believe that the other Patriarchs had no idea of Hadrain’s claims?

Regards,

Nick

Note: Hefele’s work I cited is found at:

archive.org/stream/historyofcouncil05hefeuoft#page/348/mode/2up

.
That whole issue was a misunderstanding. The title Ecumenical Patriarch meant the Patriarch of the imperial city, or the Emperor’s Patriarch not universal Bishop. St. John the Faster made no claims to be a universal Bishop. Even today the Ecumenical Patriarch has no real authority outside of his own patriarchate. All he can do is call a pan-Orthodox Council, which makes decisions, on matters concerning the entire Eastern Orthodox Church not the Ecumenical Patriarch. Even the decisions of a Pan-Orthodox Council have to be ratified by the Holy Synods of the autocephalous Churches for them to have any authority.

There was really nothing in the portion of the letter that was not read at the council that would offend the Eastern Patriarchs. The Eastern Orthodox Church always recognized Rome as holding a primacy of honor and first rank among the Bishops of the Church. As long as the Popes only exercised power over the West, the Eastern Patriarchs did not consider it their right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Western Patriarchate. Although the Eastern Patriarchs made clear their disagreement with the West on the issue of married Priests, they did not break Communion with Rome over the matter. Only when Rome tried to interfere in the internal affairs of the Eastern Patriarchates as in the case of St. Photius, and the mission of Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople in 1054, was there a problem. It was Rome that broke Communion with the Eastern Patriarchs, they did not break Communion with Rome.

Fr. John

 

[Cavaradossi]

Sorry to be unclear. First, it is not the “declare” on its own that is the effective terminology, but “declare and define.” In any case, my point was that on the matter in contention - the condemnation of persons - this was not a matter doctrine, but merely of discipline.

What magisterial document states that the words “declare and define” must be used?

Again, a point of discipline, not doctrine. So infallibility is not an issue.

Pope Vigilius certainly seems to make it a point of doctrine in the First Constitutum. This is why he quotes several fathers and popes who teach firmly that one cannot judge one contrary to the status of his death (that is to say that one cannot exonerate one who died in a state of schism, and one cannot condemn one who died at peace with the Church).

The Constitutum never came before the Council.

It matters little, because the Council was made aware of Vigilius’ constant wavering on whether the Three Chapters should be condemned. The Council, knowing that Vigilius refused to support it, nevertheless went on to promulgate its decisions, even remarking in the Eighth Session that despite Vigilius’ refusal to participate, it nevertheless continued to make a decree on the Three Chapters.

You must also remember that the 5th Ecum was initiated by Pope VIgilius himself (only its location was at issue).

Nonsense. It says right in the acts that Pope Vigilius refused to meet with the Council. It is true that Vigilius made a prior arrangement with Justinian to hold a council, but when the time came, and Justinian convened the council, Vigilius refused to cooperate, and the council in turn decided to continue on.

According to Catholic teaching, in an Ecum Council, all the bishops sit together as judges along with the Pope. So it is not a one-man show. The conclusion - that Pope Vigilius’ Constitutum “automatically nullified” the Council’s Sentence is a non-sequitur.

No, it most certainly is not. Pope Vigilius and what was effectively a rival synod of 17 bishops signed the First Constitutum which ends declaring:

But if in the name of anyone with ecclesiastical dignity and rank there has been, or will have been, done, said and written, by whomsoever and wheresoever it so transpire, anything in breach of what we have here declared and enacted concerning these Three Chapters, this we totally annul with the authority of the apostolic see over which by the grace of God we preside.

The Council’s decrees were not “null and void,” On the other hand, that does not mean they had ecumenical authority – at least not until Pope Vigilius confirmed them.

Why were they not null and void? According to the First Constitutum, anything ever written in breach of what was declared in the Constitutum would be null and void, which would include the Council’s anathematizing the Three Chapters, and the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Your quotation confirmed exactly what I stated.

You stated: “Ibas letter contained a true exposition of faith.” That statement is false.

I am sorry Marduk, but you are simply mistaken on this point. To quote from another point in the First Constitutum. Since, therefore, this is what is to be found in the judgement and enactment of the holy Synod of Chalcedon, and these are the verdicts plainly delivered by the legates of the apostolic see, representing their venerable president, and by the other fathers, we note that it was said by those who are known to have represented our most blessed predecessor Pope Leo at the same holy Synod of Chalcedon, ‘From the reading of his letter we have found him to be catholic,’ that it was said by Anatolius of Constantinople, ‘The reading of everything that followed proves the most devout Ibas guiltless of what his accusers had charged him with,’ and that it was said by Maximus of Antioch, ‘From the reading of the text of the letter produced by his adversary his writing has been shown to be catholic.’

And elsewhere

For Juvenal would not have said that Ibas was orthodox, unless he had confirmed from the words of Ibas’ letter that his profession of faith was orthodox.

And again

it is quite clear with the most evident truth from the words of the letter of the venerable man Ibas when perused with a correct and respectful interpretation, from the proceedings conducted before Photius and Eustathius, and from the discussion of the meaning of Bishop Ibas himself when present by those who were likewise present, that our fathers in session at Chalcedon most justly pronounced orthodox the faith of the same venerable man Ibas…

The general argument that Pope Vigilius is making here (in his defense of the letter to Mari) is that the Council recognized Ibas’ catholicity and orthodoxy by virtue of the letter, thereby giving the letter (minus its criticisms of St. Cyril, which Vigilius explains away as Ibas’ misunderstandings of Cyril) a stamp of orthodoxy, which means that to anathematize the letter would be to defy the decrees of Chalcedon, which were perfect and in no need of amendment.

As the quote plainly indicates, the fathers pronounced the letter orthodox not because the letter “contained a true exposition of faith,” but merely because Ibas had praised and embraced the Faith of the Ephesine Council in the letter.

That would be a most ridiculous assertion, because Ibas did nothing of the sort in his letter (and in fact, I am rather sure that Vigilius never argued anything of the sort either). Unless perhaps we are to take this passage as his supposed glowing support and praise for the faith of the Council of Ephesus:But before all the bishops who had been ordered to assemble had reached Ephesus, Cyril acted prematurely and pre-empted the hearing of all with a spell that could blind the eyes of the wise; he had as his motive his hatred for Nestorius. Even before the most holy and God-beloved Archbishop John arrived at the council, they deposed Nestorius from the episcopate, without there being a trial and investigation. Two days after his deposition we arrived at Ephesus. When we learnt that on the occasion of the deposition of Nestorius, carried out by them, they had also proclaimed and confirmed the Twelve Chapters composed by Cyril, which are contrary to the true faith, and expressed agreement with them as if they were in harmony with the true faith, all the bishops of the Orient deposed Cyril himself, and decreed a sentence of excommunication on the other bishops who had endorsed the Chapters. What Ibas did write in praise of was what he perceived as St. Cyril’s supposed capitulation in the act of signing the formula of union. And it was his adherence to the formula of union (not to Ephesus), which Vigilius speaks of as being one of the factors in recognizing the Orthodoxy of his letter.

But there are yet other passages of theological content in his letter (primarily his rebuttals to some supposed teachings of St. Cyril), which act as professions of his faith, such as when he opposes St. Cyril’s twelve chapters, and it is over these passages where there existed controversy. For the faction that wished to condemn the Three chapters, these passages were sufficient proof of the heterodoxy of the supposed letter of Ibas to Mari (those who condemned the Three Chapters also claimed that the letter was forged), while for Pope Vigilius in his First Constitutum these passages were of a right confession, having been deemed orthodox by the Council of Chalcedon (only erring in their inaccurate depictions of St. Cyril’s teachings), and for this reason, it would be contrary to the catholic faith of Chalcedon to anathematize such a document.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Father, if you read the Acts of the 6th Ecum carefully, you will find that the actual teachers and originators of the heresy were Sergius et al. Honorius is placed in a separate category as one who supported the heresy - not by teaching, but by virtue of “what was written by him” in that letter.

Again, please provide the direct citation from the 6th Ecum which states that Honorius taught the Monothelite heresy. Either produce it, or simply admit that this is another case of reading notions into the historical record that is not really there.

Humbly,
Marduk

From session 13 of the Third Council of Constantinople:

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

newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

And also Pope Leo II, who in the Latin version of his letter to the Emperor wrote:Honorius, who did not keep this Apostolic Church pure with doctrine of Apostolic tradition, but endeavoured to overthrow the unspotted faith by his profane betrayal."

 

[frjohnmorris]

From session 13 of the Third Council of Constantinople:

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

newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

And also Pope Leo II, who in the Latin version of his letter to the Emperor wrote:Honorius, who did not keep this Apostolic Church pure with doctrine of Apostolic tradition, but endeavoured to overthrow the unspotted faith by his profane betrayal."

The Monothelite heresy was a refined version of the Monoenergism heresy taught by Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople in an effort to heal the schism with the non-Chalcedonians. The Patriarch taught that there is one energy in Christ. He wrote to Pope Honorius about the issue. Pope Honorius wrote in reply that it was better to teach that there is on will in Christ. That letter is the origin of Monothlitism and is the reason that the 6th Ecumenical Council denounced him for heresy.
I have noticed that some people have cited St. Maximus the Confessor as proof that Pope Honorius did not teach Monothelitism. Pope Honorius died in 638. Theodore I was Pope when St. Maximus went to Rome for support in 645. Pope Theodore and his successor Pope St. Martin I rejected Monothelitism. Both St. Maximus and Pope St. Martin were arrested on orders of Emperor Constans II who supported Monothelitism. St. Vitalian was Pope when St. Maximus was tried for heresy in 658. Thus when St. Maximus appealed to Rome for support, Pope Honorius was not Pope. Pope St. Agatho was a strong opponent of Monothelitism and wrote a letter that was read during the 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 680. Therefore, the appeal to Rome by St. Maximus had nothing to do with Pope Honorius who was dead and whose Monothelite teaching was rejected by his successors.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father, if you read the Acts of the 6th Ecum carefully, you will find that the actual teachers and originators of the heresy were Sergius et al. Honorius is placed in a separate category as one who supported the heresy - not by teaching, but by virtue of “what was written by him” in that letter.

Again, please provide the direct citation from the 6th Ecum which states that Honorius taught the Monothelite heresy. Either produce it, or simply admit that this is another case of reading notions into the historical record that is not really there.

Humbly,
Marduk

If Pope Honous wrote a letter to Patriarch Sergius that was the origin of the Monothelite heresy, how can you not argue that he did not teach Monothelitism? That argument makes no sense. The 6th Council read his letters and condemned for heresy because they contained heretical teachings. It is historical fact that a Pope was officially condemned by an Ecumenical Council for teaching heresy. You cannot rewrite history to conform to your personal beliefs, you have to accept the history as it actually happened. Look at the decrees of the 6th Ecumenical Council yourself. Go to this site ccel.org/fathers.html and download the last vol. the Ecumenical Councils and you can read the documents from the 6th Ecumenical Council for yourself.

Fr. John

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Was the Tome of Leo deemed by the great majority of the Church’s bishops to be orthodox or not? If it was not, then that would be the sure sign of a denial of “papal” infallibility. Otherwise — to claim that the agreement of the bishops is a sign that they did not believe in “papal” infallibility either demonstrates a misundertanding of what “papal” infallibility is as defined by the CC, or demonstrates an eisegetic reading into history.

CONT’d

The Tome of Leo was not accepted by the Council of Chalcedon simply because it was written by a Pope, but only after a committee studied the document and decided that it was Orthodox. The very fact that the Tome of Leo was studied first by a special committee of the council to decide if it was orthodox before it was accepted shows that the council did not recognize the authority of a Pope issue doctrinal proclamations binding on the whole Church.

Fr. John

 

[mardukm]

What magisterial document states that the words “declare and define” must be used?

That was the explanation in the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser. Namely, the term definit must be clearly expressed - as far as doctrinal matters go, anyway.

Pope Vigilius certainly seems to make it a point of doctrine in the First Constitutum. This is why he quotes several fathers and popes who teach firmly that one cannot judge one contrary to the status of his death (that is to say that one cannot exonerate one who died in a state of schism, and one cannot condemn one who died at peace with the Church).

(1) So what if he quotes several Fathers to evince what their practice was? How does that make it a doctrine?
(2) Please clearly cite where Vigilius “teaches” that the Church cannot judge one contrary to his status at death? IIRC, he was just giving examples of the practice of those that went before, stating that he did not dare to do it, so others should not do it as well.

It matters little…The Council, knowing that Vigilius refused to support it, nevertheless went on to promulgate its decisions, even remarking in the Eighth Session that despite Vigilius’ refusal to participate, it nevertheless continued to make a decree on the Three Chapters.

A decision that still awaited his confirmation.

Your interpretation that the fathers went ahead DESPITE Pope Vigilius does not align with the text of the Sentence. Here was the course of events:
(1) Vigilius issues the Judicatum then withdraws it, when the West and other Eastern bishops protested;
(2) Vigilius initiates a Council, wanting it in Italy or Sicily to ensure equal representation. But Julian convened it in the East w/ a preponderance of bishops under his control.
(3) Vigilius refused to attend, but was forced by the Emperor to do so.
(4) Vigilius did not participate at the Council, but promised to make a separate judgment against the matters in the 3 chapters.
(5) Vigilius made his judgment in the Consitutum (signed w/ some other bishops), affirming the orthodox doctrine of the Church, while condemning the heterodox doctrines in the 3 chapters, but refused to condemn any person and the letter of Ibas.
(6) The Constitutum was not made public to the Council because the Emperor refused to do so.
(7) Thus, based on Vigilius’ promise in (4) above, the last impression of the Council fathers was that Vigilius intended to condemn the 3 Chapters, proceeding w/ the Sentence in good faith that they were one with their head bishop. Indeed, the last mention of Vigilius in the Sentence was his promise to make a separate judgment on the matter.
(8) So the Councils fathers were simply waiting for the separate judgment of their head bishop - in effect, his confirmation.

It says right in the acts that Pope Vigilius refused to meet with the Council. It is true that Vigilius made a prior arrangement with Justinian to hold a council. but when the time came, and Justinian convened the council, Vigilius refused to cooperate

Ummm. That’s what I said.

No, it most certainly is not. Pope Vigilius and what was effectively a rival synod of 17 bishops signed the First Constitutum which ends declaring:

(1) A "rival synod - an imaginative claim. What support is there for it? Did the other bishops condemn this so-called “rival synod” in its Sentence? Were the other bishops even aware that a “rival synod” was being held? The idea is rather ridiculous.
(2) Thanks for the quote. It’s interesting that no anathema was made, as was wont for such matters in those days. The issue was not one of doctrine, contrary to your earlier claim.
(3) Since it was Pope Vigilius’ intention to call a council in the first place, then that means he intended the matter to be judged by a council composed of bishops from everywhere, not by himself. The effective authority here was the formal collegial authority of a council, not the personal authority of the Pope. That his brother bishops corrected their head bishop on this matter is NO big thing. It is a very natural procedure in the principle of collegiality - sometimes it is the head bishop who must accept correction; other times it is other bishops who must accept correction.
(4) In any case, this was not really a contest between the formal personal authority of the Pope, on the one hand, and the formal collegial authority of the Pope with his brother bishops, on the other (for even the Eastern bishops thought they were giving a Sentence in consensus with an expected judgment by the Pope). Rather this was a contest between the Emperor and the Pope.

Why were they not null and void? According to the First Constitutum, anything ever written in breach of what was declared in the Constitutum would be null and void, which would include the Council’s anathematizing the Three Chapters, and the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Catholic Canon law recognizes that a decree must be published before it is effective. The Constitutum was never published - it was not effective.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I am sorry Marduk, but you are simply mistaken on this point…

Yet, for your effort at reproducing those excerpts, not a single one states that the letter of Ibas contains a profession of Faith that was orthodox. What the excerpts do affirm is that Ibas himself was orthodox, and this was garnered not only from his retracting his statements against Pope St. Cyril, but also because his letter makes a commendatory statement about the reunion of the two patriarchs.

The general argument that Pope Vigilius is making here (in his defense of the letter to Mari) is that the Council recognized Ibas’ catholicity and orthodoxy by virtue of the letter,

Where is it argued by Pope Vigilius that Ibas was orthodox “by virtue of his letter?” Please cite the exact text. Contrary to your claim, Vigilius actually argued that Ibas had retracted his statements against Pope St. Cyril that was contained in his letter to Mari.

What Ibas did write in praise of was what he perceived as St. Cyril’s supposed capitulation in the act of signing the formula of union. And it was his adherence to the formula of union (not to Ephesus), which Vigilius speaks of as being one of the factors in recognizing the Orthodoxy of his letter.

So your claim is that the formula of Union between the two patriarchs was rejected by Ephesus? If not, what is your justification for bifurcating the formula of union from the decrees of the 3rd Ecum?

while for Pope Vigilius in his First Constitutum these passages were of a right confession, having been deemed orthodox by the Council of Chalcedon (only erring in their inaccurate depictions of St. Cyril’s teachings)

Another — imaginative – mishandling of the text. Nowhere does Pope Vigilius claim that these passages condemning Pope St. Cyril were “a right confession.” Nowhere does Pope Vigilius claim that the Council of Chalcedon deemed these passages as “orthodox.” Answer this: why would Pope Vigilius assert that Ibas had retracted these passages, if Pope Vigilius (supposedly) claimed these passages against Pope St. Cyril were orthodox? Please respond, if only to correct this unjustified claim.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Let me ask again:
Where does the 6th Council condemn Pope Honorius for publicly teaching the heresy of monothelitism to his flock?

Perhaps you can answer the question according to this form:
If Pope Honorius was publicly teaching monothelitism, please explain why NONE of the Council Fathers were aware of Pope Honorius’ involvement in the matter until Sergius produced his private letter from Honorius?

From session 13 of the Third Council of Constantinople:

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

newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

And also Pope Leo II, who in the Latin version of his letter to the Emperor wrote:Honorius, who did not keep this Apostolic Church pure with doctrine of Apostolic tradition, but endeavoured to overthrow the unspotted faith by his profane betrayal."

 

[Cavaradossi]

Marduk, have you even read Pope Vigilius’ First Constitutum?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Let me ask again:
Where does the 6th Council condemn Pope Honorius for publicly teaching the heresy of monothelitism to his flock?

Perhaps you can answer the question according to this form:
If Pope Honorius was publicly teaching monothelitism, please explain why NONE of the Council Fathers were aware of Pope Honorius’ involvement in the matter until Sergius produced his private letter from Honorius?

The Council says that he confirmed his doctrines. What else under the great blue sky could that possibly mean but that Honorius in the eyes of the council taught the same doctrine as they?

Also, this distinction between private and public letters is very modern. The ancients, unlike our wonderful American Supreme Court since Roe v. Wade, did not have a concept of a right to privacy, and communications which were meant to be kept secret or private would not be done in the form of epistolary, but perhaps only in the form of secret documents which only the signers possessed (and would have signed in person), or dread oaths and the like (much like the sort of shocking documents it was alleged in the Seventh Session of Second Constantinople that Pope Vigilius had signed in secret with Justinian).

 

[mardukm]

I’ve read the documents before. I don’t recall it stating anywhere that the letter of Pope Honorius was “the origin of the Monothelite controversy.” Can you please cite the exact text? As stated before, as a professional historian yourself, I’m sure you can distinguish between fact and interpretations imposed on the facts.

Humbly,
Marduk

If Pope Honous wrote a letter to Patriarch Sergius that was the origin of the Monothelite heresy, how can you not argue that he did not teach Monothelitism? That argument makes no sense. The 6th Council read his letters and condemned for heresy because they contained heretical teachings. It is historical fact that a Pope was officially condemned by an Ecumenical Council for teaching heresy. You cannot rewrite history to conform to your personal beliefs, you have to accept the history as it actually happened. Look at the decrees of the 6th Ecumenical Council yourself. Go to this site ccel.org/fathers.html and download the last vol. the Ecumenical Councils and you can read the documents from the 6th Ecumenical Council for yourself.

 

[mardukm]

Marduk, have you even read Pope Vigilius’ First Constitutum?

I’ve read various excerpts from it (not the ones you’ve quoted), and have read Hefele’s detailed account of it. I have not read the whole letter in toto.

Please give a link to it, if you think it would be worthwhile.

As it is, none of the quotes you have provided thus far justify your imaginative interpretations (e.g., that Pope Vigilius deemed Ibas’ statements against Pope St, Cyril as orthodox; that Ibas’ letter contains a profession of Faith that was orthodox, etc.)

Blessings,
Marduk