Vigilius

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

I started this new thread on Vigilius so my response will not get lost in all the exchange currently going on in the “Papal problems” thread.

I’m assuming the issues of Popes St. Zosimus, St. Liberius, and St. Boniface IV have been settled for our readers. I assume by your posts you are willing to give Vigilius the benefit of the doubt as well (if your post #53 is from the same source as your posts on the other three popes mentioned). If that is the case, this post will not be addressed to you, but to those who may be misled by post#53 – or rather by the source of your material for post#53. The case of Honorius I will take up in the new thread begun by brother SiempreFiel within 3 days.

The source of this excerpt, EOPU or some other third-rate polemical institution, is so blinded by prejudice that it cannot even get its facts straight (but that is of course typical of polemicists). I hope our non-Catholic readers will give heed to the following true facts, to counter the lies that have been repeated here, and begin to question your sources in polemics against the Catholic Church:

Vigilius became to all appearances a supporter of heresy when, in 553, he refused to uphold firmly the Church’s teaching that Christ had two Wills, against “Monothelism.”

The truth: The Monothelite controversy did not come into being until the 7TH century. The case of Vigilius occurred in the mid-sixth century. It is impossible for Vigilius to “refuse to uphold” the Church’s teaching on a matter which had not yet come to the Church’s attention.

He did not condemn either this or the older Monophysite heresy.

The truth: In EVERY statement and decree made by the Pope, whether the Constitutum, the Judicatum, or his final sentence to what came to be known as the Fifth Ecumenical Council, Pope Vigilius explicitly upheld the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon against Monophysitism. The real issue was whether certain persons explicitly not condemned by Chalcedon should now be condemned. The Pope and the rest of the West said “no.” The Emperor and the East said “yes.” Thus, there was never any question in the eyes of the Fathers of what became known as the Fifth Ecumenical Council that Pope Vigilius held any heretical views.

The Roman deacon Pelagius attacked Vigilius on this account and charged him with heresy, for which he was excommunicated by Vigilius.

The truth: Deacon Pelagius did not charge Vigilius with heresy, but rather accused him of being weak, withdrawing from his communion. Pope Vigilius did not excommunicate Deacon Pelagius, but Pelagius was imprisoned by the Emperor at one point. The only time Pope Vigilius excommunicated anyone during his imprisonment at Constantinople was after he withdrew his Judicatum, upon which he excommunicated the Emperor and the Eastern bishops (probably for holding him in isolation for about 15 months, and forcing him to issue the Judicatum).

It was Pelagius, however, who succeeded him as pope, only to fall into similar habits of temporizing and diplomatic duplicity as his predecessor!

Consider: What goes through the mind of a Pope who has the primary responsibility for the unity of the Church when two sides who are equally orthodox are willing to schism over merely determining the orthodoxy of persons that a previous ecumenical Council explicitly accepted into communion? Who here would not walk the same tightrope with regards to the two parties. Greeks had no responsibility other than the Eastern Churches; Latins (except the Pope) had no responsibility other than the Western Churches; the Emperor was only concerned with political expediency. BUT THE POPE HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY OF UNITING ALL OF CHRISTENDOM. The polemic source describes the papal actions as “temporizing and diplomatic duplicity.” But who here, in the same position as the Pope, would not feel the necessity of walking the same tightrope between the two equally orthodox parties?

The Emperor Justianian had called a kangaroo council to rescind the condemnation of the heresy of monophysitism, a heresy that denied the two natures, human and divine, of Christ.

The truth: Emperor Justinian upheld the decisions of Chalcedon at his council (what became known as the Fifth Ecumenical). It is true that the purpose of his push for the condemnation of the Three Chapters was to offer an olive branch to the Monophysites, hoping to heal that division in his empire. However, as noted, the issue of the Three Chapters was NOT about the theological doctrine of Chalcedon, but rather the correct application of those doctrines to judge certain persons. His wife was indeed partial to monophysitism, but there is no merit in an argument of guilt by association.

Pope Vigilius, who wished to return to Rome from exile, in a decree, or Iudicatum, recanted his former orthodox Catholic position, condemned the orthodox decree of the Council of Chalcedon (451), and excommunicated the bishop-authors of that decree (the so-called Three Chapters of Theodoret).

The truth: Pope Vigilius was ALWAYS orthodox. Far from “condemning the orthodox decree of Chalcedon”, his Judicatum EXPLICITLY upheld the authority of Chalcedon, though it did condemn the three persons (Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas) requested by Justinian. This he did under duress.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

As a result of this action, he was excommunicated for heresy by an African Council and forced to annul the Iudicatum, although he continued to support it privately in correspondence with the emperor. The Fifth Oecumenical Council at Constantinople (553) excommunicated Pope Vigilius, and the next year he recanted again, saying that he had been deceived by the devil.

The truth: The first sentence is true enough. But there is simply no proof from the Council records themselves that Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. All we have is the request of the Emperor to strike the name of the Pope from the diptychs of the Eastern Churches, and a subsequent acknowledgement from the Council Fathers to “preserve unity to the Apostolic See of the most holy Church of ancient Rome, carrying out all things according to the tenor of what has been read.”

It has been argued by brother Isa that one can be in union with a particular See without being in union with its bishop. I countered that this is possible only so long as the bishop is a heretic, which Vigilius definitely was not. To this, brother Isa had no response (though later in another thread, he simply repeated the same charge against Vigilius :tsktsk. I also want to add that it is not merely a bishop’s heresy that could result in a situation where one is in communion with a particular See without being in communion with its bishop. The same can also occur if the bishop violated the Church’s canons. However, neither did Vigilius violate any Church canons.

Finally, one observes that the Sentence of the Council itself does not even mention so momentous an occasion as the excommunication of a Patriarch – i.e., Vigilius. Far from it, the Council actually appeals to Vigilius in order to uphold its own decisions!!! And the last thing we read concerning Vigilius in the Sentence is that the Council acknowledges that Vigilius “promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters.” (BTW, this latter fact also definitely refutes the canard that the Council did not require papal approval. Aside from that latter fact, it is also a fact that so important was Pope Vigilius’ approval to the Council that they would not permit him to return home to Rome without said approval, which he finally gave six months after the Council sentence. At that point, and only at that point, the Council became Ecumenical).

The only possible conclusion is that the Council did not excommunicate Pope Vigilius (by striking his name off the diptychs). The Council’s statement “carry out all things according to the tenor of what has been read” must refer not to Constantine’s (Justinian’s envoy) VERBAL request that the Pope’s name be stricken from the diptychs, but directly to requests from the letter of the emperor which was read immediately after that verbal request. One can surmise the letter contained instructions to proceed with the Council Sentence, remain united to the Apostolic See, and use Vigilius’ name in support of its decisions. Indeed, all this was done, and, as noted above, the Council’s Sentence had no reference to the excommunication, but rather appealed to Vigilius by name to uphold its own decisions.

Having thus succumbed to public and personal heresy, Pope Virgilus died before he reached Rome. His heresy had a great repercussion on the Church of the time. In the West, it even caused a schism in northern Italy.

The truth: And this is the pinnacle of the anti-Catholic argument that demonstrates the evil of such an attitude– that the final outcome of the events of the Fifth Ecumenical Council is described by detractors of the papacy as the Pope having “succumbed to public and personal heresy.” Thus, the source of brother Mickey’s statements goes so far as to call the Fifth Ecumenical Council heretical!!! Yet this does not prevent Eastern Orthodox polemicists, even sincere Eastern Orthodox apologists, from utilizing this source in their attempts to discredit the papacy.

Yet this is nothing new. Just as one example, we have already seen in the past in this very forum Eastern Orthodox polemicists side with the Arian heretics of the Council of Sardica in their attempts to diminish the papal prerogatives that have been divinely and canonically established – they argue “the Eastern bishops rejected the decisions of the Pope and boycotted the Council of Sardica,” while hiding the fact that all the bishops that rejected the papal decisions were Arian heretics!

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

As a final point, please understand that the schism in the West only occurred because of a misunderstanding, not because of any “public and personal heresy” by Vigilius. Here is the explanation of Bossuet, a Gallican author, contained in the NPNF series, Vol 7:
“*The Emperor Justinian and the Orientals thought it of great moment that these Chapters should be condemned, against the Nestorians, who were raising their heads to defend them; Vigilius, with the Occidentals, feared lest this occasion should be taken to destroy the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, because it was admitted that Theodoret and Ibas had been received in that Council, whilst Theodore, though named, was let go without any mark of censure. Though then both parties easily agreed as to the substance of the Faith, [it was] feared by the one party lest Nestorian, by the other lest the Eutychian, enemies of the Council of Chalcedon should prevail. *”

It took a while, but in the end it was understood that the condemnation of the Three Chapters did not in any way diminish the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and the schism was healed.

It should also be noted that Vigilius attempted to locate the Council in the West, to ensure equal representation for the Western Church. But Emperor Justinian, impatient with the Chalcedonian schism, jumped the gun and held the Council in the East, without inviting any other Western bishops. If the Westerns were properly represented, surely the schism would have been avoided, for all the particulars of the deliberations of the Council would have been made known. As it was, most of the West was unaware of the theological niceties of the Council. All they knew was that the decisions of Chalcedon regarding Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas were being overturned, which to them diminished the authority of Chalcedon. In the end, if anyone was to blame for the schism in the Western Church, it would have to be the Emperor Justinian, not Pope Vigilius.

Blessings all,
Marduk

 

[SiempreFiel]

I just love this! Thank you brother.

 

[SiempreFiel]

BUMP

 

[Mickey]

The source of this excerpt, EOPU or some other third-rate polemical institution, is so blinded

It was not an EO site. I cannot figure out who it was–I have deleted it from my sources.

I hope our non-Catholic readers will give heed to the following true facts, to counter the lies that have been repeated here, and begin to question your sources in polemics against the Catholic Church:

I do not often quote information that I do not check and counter reference thoroughly, but I did in that curcumstance–it was a mistake. I apologized in all humility. And now you throw it in my face in an attempt to discredit everything and any source I have ever used. I hope you are proud of yourself. This is shameful and a classic example of the way you have begun conducting your RCPU campaign. I am very disappointed.

The truth: Pope Honorius was a heretic.

 

[antgaria]

Peace,

Thank you my brother Marduk for your excellent post.

Might I dare to do a bit of sharing of some personal thoughts and reflections. You see, it has been on my mind about what makes the Ecumenical Councils validly Ecumenical.

Certainly, coming from the CotE standpoint, we were not able to participate in, nor represented in the Council of Ephesus, nor did we accept it outright. Even the Antiochians accepted the Council after it had concluded, having arrived at peace through the exchange between St. John of Antioch and St. Cyril of Alexandria.

And the 5th Ecumenical Council definitely went against our stance especially when it condemned Mar Theodore, who we revered. And as brother Marduk pointed out, many of the western bishops were not represented either. In fact, I believe parts of France, Africa, and Italy were unwilling to accept the condemnation.

Now, putting away old misunderstandings, it seems that most can now say they agree with the doctrinal teachings in the Councils, even if they do not agree on all the disciplinary actions. That is not the point of my reflection.

What I wanted some feedback on is, what makes a council ecumenical? They were surely not attended to by all the various local churches. It seems to me that the agreement and consent of the Roman Church {ie. See of Peter, ie. Pope} with the teachings of the Ecumenical Council is the constant identifying factor. Even the 5th Council, with all the issues and pressuring, jailing, etc, that played into it, at the end, can be affirmed to be valid and Ecumenical because it was upheld and re-affirmed by the Roman Church.

This is of course, a hard point to accept, but how else can you classify a Council as Ecumenical? Otherwise, would we not have to re-write the history books with only two Ecumenical Councils, because only the first two were accepted and approved by the Church that was East of the Roman Empire?

In Christ,
Anthony

 

[Allyson]

Anthony (and everyone else),

I agree.

I think that a much deeper understanding must be reached. For me it is not enough to say “that’s the position of the Church.” Reasons must be given that are based more on rote memorized definitions.

The definition of an ecumenical council (e.c.) will need to be revisited for the re-establishment of communion between all the Churches. My self and many Eastern Catholic friends of mine hold that there are only Seven. (Many of my close Latin freinds understand it, or mayhaps agree, but I can not say for sure.)

The so called Eighth Ecumenical Council from (Fourth Council of Constantinople 869/870) was revoked by the second Fourth Council of Constantinople 879/880 [held as and e.c. by some Orthodox, although most still wait for re-establishment of communion with Rome to declare it an e.c.]. The council of 879/880 was signed on to by Pope John VIII, so the identification of the first one as an e.c. makes not sense from the standard of “if the Pope approves it.” If signing on to a council counts as approving a council, well, 867-870 is null. I think it is null both because there was a council which said so, AND because the respective participants/participating sees signed on to it.

It is the signing on of multiple sees and the praxis of the Church after the council that established the Ecumenical character. Oddly enough, I have always thought that intuitively, but I have more reason to hold to it now. I and others consider all councils in the East and West after the Seventh to be particular synods of the respective attendees and participants even though many have ecumenical in their names. For example, there are important councils in Constantinople in the 15thC called ecumenical in their texts, but no one that I know of presumes to say that they have authority over the whole Church in the same way that many Catholics claim that the Orthodox would be subject to Trent if there is an end to the Schism. That really has to be ironed out after all.

As for the Sees which hold an even smaller number of councils to be Ecumenical, it is as important to understand the historical circumstances which surround the differences here as in the differences discussed above. The modern dialogues which take place between these Church and the Catholic Church and other Orthodox respectively are important in this task.

It might be dangerous to say ask, but would the end of each Schism necessarily require adherence to the greater number of councils, what ever that may be? Would the CotE be required to hold as ecumenical, councils that they have not for so long, even if there is an understanding of the content which is reached? In which case these council may be accepted by default. What is it that we should require of each other?

I like the idea of this discussion:clapping: , should we have it as a separate thread?

God Bless,
R.

 

[antgaria]

Dear Allyson,

Thank you for your thoughts on this. It is something that I am going to think about and investigate more.

I just wanted to clarify my position. I think I am in agreement with all the teachings of the Roman Church. Everything from papal infallibility, filioque, etc, can be found to be valid, and also in line with teachings that we hold in our Church tradition… I kind of say this boldly, when I should be tentative.

What do I mean by that statement? Well, it is to be taken into consideration that Catholic does not mean we are stamped copies of each other. Out of the plurality still can be discerned unity. I think the CCD that our Church signed with the Catholic Church in 1994 is a perfect example. The Roman mindset, tradition/history, and patristics definitely must be taken into account when considering what is being said by the Roman apologists, just as the semitic mindset, tradition/history, and patristics must be taken into account when considering the beliefs of my church.

So, right now, I believe we can consider other councils, down to the current century as authoritive, so long as the councils were approved by the bishops and the Pope. It seems that even as a member of a Syriac tradition, I have not been able to find things that I would not be ok with. Eg. Purgatory… never defined in Eastern Orthodox, or Church of the East traditions… explicitly. That’s the key word. Purgatory, once understood, is reconciled to the teachings of our Eastern fathers and more importantly, Scriptural.

Would our unity with the Catholic Church require us to accept more councils? I’d say we never denied the teaching of the Councils. We didn’t hold the heresy that Nestorius was accused of, nor would we espouse such a foul thought. We claimed that St. Nestorius did not either, but was faithful to his tradition. And I do believe disciplinary matters such as anathemas can be changed according to the meeting of the discipline.

Again, for a council to be ecumenical, it must at the least have the assent of the See of Rome. I’d like to hear others also on this issue. I’m going to be busy again, so I might not be able to post any time soon, but I will be eagerly waiting for and reading responses.

In Christ,
Anthony

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey

It was not an EO site. I cannot figure out who it was–I have deleted it from my sources.
I do not often quote information that I do not check and counter reference thoroughly, but I did in that curcumstance–it was a mistake. I apologized in all humility.

I know, I read it in the “Papal Problems” thread. And thank you.

And now you throw it in my face

How? All I did was refute all the lies from the source you gave. I would think you would support the truth, even if does not support your own point of view.

in an attempt to discredit everything and any source I have ever used.

Where did I do that?

I hope you are proud of yourself. This is shameful and a classic example of the way you have begun conducting your RCPU campaign. I am very disappointed.

I don’t know why you are so upset. The post was not even directed at you, as I specified in the very opening paragraph of the first post. I even acknowledged your apology. Go figure.

But clearly you are upset, so I will apologize. I seriously do not know what for, but I apologize anyway.

The truth: Pope Honorius was a heretic.

No argument from me, or anyone here (as far as I’m aware). But there are several mitigating factors, which I will detail tomorrow in the Honorius thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

Peace,

Thank you my brother Marduk for your excellent post.

Might I dare to do a bit of sharing of some personal thoughts and reflections. You see, it has been on my mind about what makes the Ecumenical Councils validly Ecumenical.

Certainly, coming from the CotE standpoint, we were not able to participate in, nor represented in the Council of Ephesus, nor did we accept it outright. Even the Antiochians accepted the Council after it had concluded, having arrived at peace through the exchange between St. John of Antioch and St. Cyril of Alexandria.

And the 5th Ecumenical Council definitely went against our stance especially when it condemned Mar Theodore, who we revered. And as brother Marduk pointed out, many of the western bishops were not represented either. In fact, I believe parts of France, Africa, and Italy were unwilling to accept the condemnation.

Now, putting away old misunderstandings, it seems that most can now say they agree with the doctrinal teachings in the Councils, even if they do not agree on all the disciplinary actions. That is not the point of my reflection.

What I wanted some feedback on is, what makes a council ecumenical? They were surely not attended to by all the various local churches. It seems to me that the agreement and consent of the Roman Church {ie. See of Peter, ie. Pope} with the teachings of the Ecumenical Council is the constant identifying factor. Even the 5th Council, with all the issues and pressuring, jailing, etc, that played into it, at the end, can be affirmed to be valid and Ecumenical because it was upheld and re-affirmed by the Roman Church.

This is of course, a hard point to accept, but how else can you classify a Council as Ecumenical? Otherwise, would we not have to re-write the history books with only two Ecumenical Councils, because only the first two were accepted and approved by the Church that was East of the Roman Empire?

Thank you for your kind words.

I would just like to say that, with respect to the first two Ecumenical Councils:

1. The Bishop of Rome was represented by legates at the First Ecumenical.
2. Pope St. Damasus’ Tome on the Holy Spirit formed part of the basis for the Second Ecumenical Council’s doctrinal decrees. By virtue of that fact, it had implicit approval by Rome.
   In any case, I do not believe the Second Ecumenical was intended from the outset to BE an ecumenical Council. What is your perception of it? The Third Ecumenical Council did not even recognize it (I hope my use of that terminology does not insult you).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Allyson (I pray you are a sister; I have several times already made the mistake of addressing a few here as “sister” because I misinterpreted their names to be referring to a woman, when it was otherwise )

I agree.

Amen and Amen!

The definition of an ecumenical council (e.c.) will need to be revisited for the re-establishment of communion between all the Churches. My self and many Eastern Catholic friends of mine hold that there are only Seven. (Many of my close Latin freinds understand it, or mayhaps agree, but I can not say for sure.)

I believe the Catholic Encyclopedia (a standard of Latin Catholic orthodoxy as far as I’m concerned) more often than not calls the later Councils “General” instead of “Ecumenical.”

I have a book published in 1960 entitled Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church by Hubert Jedin, which possesses an imprimatur and nihil obstat which explicitly calls the later councils “General” in specific distinction from “Ecumenical” (of course, it also counts EIGHT ecumenical Councils of antiquity)

The so called Eighth Ecumenical Council from (Fourth Council of Constantinople 869/870) was revoked by the second Fourth Council of Constantinople 879/880 [held as and e.c. by some Orthodox, although most still wait for re-establishment of communion with Rome to declare it an e.c.]. The council of 879/880 was signed on to by Pope John VIII, so the identification of the first one as an e.c. makes not sense from the standard of “if the Pope approves it.” If signing on to a council counts as approving a council, well, 867-870 is null. I think it is null both because there was a council which said so, AND because the respective participants/participating sees signed on to it.

I agree with you, but I think, practically and ecumenically speaking, the nullification of the 869-70 Council was not wise. Because it is at the 869-70 Council where Rome formally recognized Constantinople at the second See in Christendom. As it is, many EO are completely unaware of this fact, and it has given polemicists free license to claim that the later recognition of Constantinople as second to Rome was a matter of mere, selfish, political expediency by the Pope.

It is the signing on of multiple sees and the praxis of the Church after the council that established the Ecumenical character.

Practically speaking, I completely agree with you. The agreement of all bishops and the Church at large, not just the Pope’s, is necessary in order for a Council to have its world-wide recognition (and hence, “ecumenical”)

However, theologically speaking, I must respectfully disagree (unless I have misunderstood you). The Ecumenical Council defined as an organ of Truth does not require the assent of the Church at large (i.e., the lay people) in order for it to be an Ecumenical Council in this theoloogical sense. In such a setting, our bishops in union with her head bishop are nothing more nor less than the mouthpiece of God. As with the Pope, so with the Ecumenical Council. Truth does not require consensus to be Truth. This is the meaning of the Vatican Decree that a teaching of the Pope given ex cathedra does not require the consent of the Church - for truly the Truth does not require the consent of the Church for it to be the Truth…Given that the infallibility of the Pope is one and the same the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council (I’m not saying that the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council is dependent on the infallibility of the Pope, but rather that they are the same infallibility, which is nothing more nor less than a sharing in the infallibility of God Himself), then it must be that the Ecumenical Council, in this theological sense, does not require the assent of the lay Church for it to actually be an Ecumenical Council, and organ of God’s infallible Truth.

It might be dangerous to say ask, but would the end of each Schism necessarily require adherence to the greater number of councils, what ever that may be? Would the CotE be required to hold as ecumenical, councils that they have not for so long, even if there is an understanding of the content which is reached? In which case these council may be accepted by default. What is it that we should require of each other?

As already noted, within the Latin Church, there seems to be a growing trend to differentiate the primordial Councils of undivided Christendom from the later Councils.

The Oriental Orthodox Churches propose that there need not be a forced recognition of the Ecumenical status of the Councils, other than what each Church already holds. It is enough, we argue, that the THEOLOGICAL teachings be accepted. In truth, disciplinary and canonical decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are not protected by the charism of infallibility. I will be discussing this latter point tomorrow in the Honorius thread.

Thank you for the discussion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

I just wanted to clarify my position. I think I am in agreement with all the teachings of the Roman Church. Everything from papal infallibility, filioque, etc, can be found to be valid, and also in line with teachings that we hold in our Church tradition… I kind of say this boldly, when I should be tentative… It seems that even as a member of a Syriac tradition, I have not been able to find things that I would not be ok with. Eg. Purgatory… never defined in Eastern Orthodox, or Church of the East traditions… explicitly. That’s the key word. Purgatory, once understood, is reconciled to the teachings of our Eastern fathers and more importantly, Scriptural.

This is awesome! Perhaps you will be interested to read the experience of my translation into the Catholic Church:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=202141&highlight=My+Witness

I feel we share a lot of the same perspectives.

Would our unity with the Catholic Church require us to accept more councils? I’d say we never denied the teaching of the Councils. We didn’t hold the heresy that Nestorius was accused of, nor would we espouse such a foul thought. We claimed that St. Nestorius did not either, but was faithful to his tradition. And I do believe disciplinary matters such as anathemas can be changed according to the meeting of the discipline.

See my comments above to our sister Allyson. I hope you take the time to participate in the Honorius thread on which I will post a positive defense of the Catholic position tomorrow. I would love to hear your points of view, comments, and/or criticisms.

Again, for a council to be ecumenical, it must at the least have the assent of the See of Rome. I’d like to hear others also on this issue. I’m going to be busy again, so I might not be able to post any time soon, but I will be eagerly waiting for and reading responses.

Yes, I definitely agree with your first sentence. Apostolic Canon 34 asserts that nothing of great import is to be done without the consent of the head bishop. Without doubt, the bishop of Rome has always possessed that prerogative and honor.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Where did I do that?

Dear brother Mickey…
and begin to question your sources in polemics against the Catholic Church

I jumped on a really bad source in my zeal to debate.

Most sources carry a bias–some moreso than others. I have seen some terribly inaccurate statements from newadvent!

I am not a very accomplished debater or apologist (I was no shining star as a Catholic in communion with Rome either).

Thank you for the apology.

I will look at my souces with a magnifying glass.

And yours also.

 

[Mickey]

Eg. Purgatory… never defined in Eastern Orthodox, or Church of the East traditions… explicitly. That’s the key word. Purgatory, once understood, is reconciled to the teachings of our Eastern fathers and more importantly, Scriptural.

Greetings Anthony,

Even as a Catholic in communion with Rome, I was not convinced by the “Scriptural evidence” of purgatory. Can you give examples of Eastern Fathers who understood purgatory as it is understood today in the Latin Catholic Church?

 

[Mickey]

Apostolic Canon 34 asserts that nothing of great import is to be done without the consent of the head bishop.

“…but neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity…”

 

[Allyson]

Most sources carry a bias–some moreso than others. I have seen some terribly inaccurate statements from newadvent!

I would just like to affirm that there is some significant misinformation at New Advent. I became aware of it when I was reading a book by Francis Dvornick and went to check the Catholic Enclylcopedia out of mere morbid curiosity and found that there are indeed gross historical inaccuracies there. I have also heard the Catholic Encyclopedia critiqued (by Latin Catholics) as being a little over the top in style and piety, leading to misrepresentations of history. That is why any reprinting should really involve a rewrite.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Allyson]

Dear sister Allyson (I pray you are a sister; I have several times already made the mistake of addressing a few here as “sister” because I misinterpreted their names to be referring to a woman, when it was otherwise )

I believe the Catholic Encyclopedia (a standard of Latin Catholic orthodoxy as far as I’m concerned) more often than not calls the later Councils “General” instead of “Ecumenical.”

I have a book published in 1960 entitled Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church by Hubert Jedin, which possesses an imprimatur and nihil obstat which explicitly calls the later councils “General” in specific distinction from “Ecumenical” (of course, it also counts EIGHT ecumenical Councils of antiquity)

Brother Marduk,

Sister is correct.:byzsoc: I am about as girly as you can get!

Thank your for your reply. I was going to work on a longer response, but I will have to save it, since I just got called in to get some extra hours at work. So just one thought. There may be plenty of sources which distinguish between Ecumenical v. General that are Latin, but in the vernacular and among many lay Catholics I know, all of the major post-Schism councils call them Ecumenical and mean it in the sense that the first seven were. I think that some of them may even think that as part of the end of the Schism, these councils would be seen by everyone else just as they see them now. There seems to be some disconnect?

More later.

God Bless,
R.

 

[steve_b]

I would just like to affirm that there is some significant misinformation at New Advent. I became aware of it when I was reading a book by Francis Dvornick and went to check the Catholic Enclylcopedia out of mere morbid curiosity and found that there are indeed gross historical inaccuracies there. I have also heard the Catholic Encyclopedia critiqued (by Latin Catholics) as being a little over the top in style and piety, leading to misrepresentations of history. That is why any reprinting should really involve a rewrite.

God Bless,
R.

Allyson,

for clarification, and specifics

• Could you share with us what the gross historical innacuracies were that you found
• when you say “Latin Catholics” you make it sound like everyone. Writing style and piety, don’t necessarily lead to misrepresentations of history. Again, could you give an example of misrepresentation of history, from what you found when investigating that source.
  Thanks

 

[antgaria]

Dear brothers and sisters,

Peace,

I am sorry, but I will most likely be quite busy today and probably tomorrow. When I get time I read the responses… and I keep them in my head and think about them while I’m busy with work. Unfortunately, I hope to be able to write a response later this week.

Marduk, I have been following the thread on Honorius, and will love to read what you write… when I have time I will also post.

In Christ,
Anthony