What were the main reason beside the Nicene Creed that caused the Great Schism?

[Ignatios]

continued

…AND you cant assume that since the 4th did not issue a condemnation against the three chapter, then it is permissible to speak against the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril, and against the first Council of Ephesus, which were written by Theodoret in defence of Theodore and Nestorius. those my friend are a direct assault against the christian faith and against GOD.

AAAAND you cannot claim that you did not deviate from the Canons of Chalcedon when you say that God the Word was one [Person] and Christ another [Person]… and that it was a mere man who was baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and that he received through his baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, and merited his adoption; and therefore that Christ could be venerated in the same way that the image of the Emperor is venerated as being the persona (εἰς πρόσωπον) of God the Word. And that [only] after his resurrection he became immutable in his thoughts and altogether impeccable… In like strain of profanity he dared to say that the confession which Thomas made, when he touched the hands and side of the Lord after his resurrection, saying, My Lord and my God, did not apply to Christ (for Theodore did not acknowledge Christ to be God); but that Thomas gave glory to God being filled with wonder at the miracle of the resurrection, and so said these words.
But what is still worse is this, that in interpreting the Acts of the Apostles, Theodore makes Christ like to Plato…[all the above was taken from the Pope Vigilius’s confession letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Conbstantinople after he retracted from deffending the Three chapters]

NOW this my friend is not only an antiChrist but Satanic and it strikes the core of the Christian Faith, AND THIS IS what it worth to be called a different then both 3rd and the fourth and the 5th and all of the E.C. Thus I disagree with you my friend, and I truly think that you should reconsider your understanding in these issues.

Also the 5th did not put forth any Canons all there was really, The three chapters which they were the point in question and they reconfirmed everything in the Previous Four Councils . and it all put forth was the Anathemas.

And you wrote: “and now you are saying because it was composed in a very particular way by the Fathers of the 5th e.c. which it was different from the conclusion of Chalcedon!”

But that is not the reason that I gave for objection, and you know that because you acknowledged that I wrote “because they thought by condemning the Three Chapters would be condemning the 4th E.C.”.

Sorry my friend but I think you lost track, of what " I said and you said" it is okay lets forget it because I don’t really want to go back and forth on "I said you said " thing, I believe that the point was made.

I said that the decisions of Constantinople II are a refinement of the doctrine of Chalcedon, that council did not condemn the person of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas, (which Justinian’s two edicts demanded by 545 and again in 551) although Chalcedon did condemn the writings of Theodore. Since Pope Vigilius states that he always holds the faith of Chalcedon, we know that he does not believe in the heretical dyophysite teachings of Theodore.

He didn’t believe in it yet he defended it.

Your statement was omitted by mistake: “Besides have you forgotten that YOU said before that the reason for the support of the Western Bishops to the Three Chapters was because of language barrier?”

As you mentioned, I posted these:

• Catholic theologians decided that some of the writings conclusions were based upon language misunderstandings.
• “Pope Vigilius was slow to reject the Three Chapters, and admitted not understanding what was written in the Three Chapters.”

Neither of those remarks explicitly state the reason for the opposition to condemnation of the Three Chapters.

Why?

Because the first is about theologians opinions and the second is about what Pope Vigilius said.

Yet you used both of them to support your argument, if you are insinuating that it is different view than what you were arguing then why post those at all

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Vico]

+++quote]

I understand what you are saying. Apparently, you do not understand what I am saying.

I believe that the reasons are: 1) you do not accept what that western bishops were afraid of, as stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 2) you are using a different defintion of doctrine, 3) you believe that to not condemn something is to positively teach the opposite.

For the third item, allowing only opposites would mean that there is no possibility of a holding a positon of uncertainty.

According the Merriam-Webster, and in the sense that I have used it in this thread it is:

doctrine (noun):
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief**:** dogma
When the Church defines what is not meant, it excludes something. There were schisms due to this. Each of those conciliar definitions is a new doctrine even though pertaining to the same topic, for example Christology.

When Chalcedon did not condemn the persons of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas it was a doctrine, just as the condemnation of various heritical writings are doctrine.

 

[Ignatios]

I understand what you are saying.

Seriously, I doubt it with all due respect to you my friend.

… Apparently, you do not understand what I am saying.

Honestly, you are right for most of the part.

But I also think that all of your argument revolve around one thing that to keep the Pope or the Papacy from appearing in error.

I believe that the reasons are: 1) you do not accept what that western bishops were afraid of, as stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia,

Afraid or not, I don’t see this to support your contention point which it was used by you from the Cath. Encyc. that the Pope was always correct in the matter of Doctrine.

1. you are using a different defintion of doctrine

How many definition of doctrine could there be in an ecclesiastical matters?

1. you believe that to not condemn something is to positively teach the opposite.

your statement above is very general, we are speaking specifically of someone who is an overseer a Bishop and considered to be the FIRST among the hierarch of the Church catholic that his only job is to oversee that that the nothing pollute the Apostolic Teaching nor anything should be allowed into the Church that is not an Apostolic.
And here Pope Vigilius not only refuse to do something to stop this horrible heresy from being permitted as orthodox in the Church but he also defended it.

For the third item, allowing only opposites would mean that there is no possibility of a holding a positon of uncertainty.

According the Merriam-Webster, and in the sense that I have used it in this thread it is:

doctrine (noun):
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief**:** dogma
When the Church defines what is not meant, it excludes something. There were schisms due to this. Each of those conciliar definitions is a new doctrine even though pertaining to the same topic, for example Christology.

Vico slice it anyway you like, he defended the doctrine of the three chapters in which it taught everything contrary to the belief of Chalcedon and Ephesus as I have showed you in my previous post what the Three chapters teaches, Pope Vigilius was wrong in defending the doctrine of the three chapters as he specifically stated in his letter with his own hand, I really don’t and cannot comprehend how one can continue try to argue this.

My apology my friend but this is a clear sign of pride, you just cannot admit that your infallibility dogma is proved to be wrong at least twice prior to the schism.

When Chalcedon did not condemn the persons of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas it was a doctrine, just as the condemnation of various heritical writings are doctrine.

Chalcedon did condemn all the teaching that was listed in their letters they did not condemn Ibas and theodoret because they were received back in to the Church AFTER they condemn all the teaching of NESTORIUS in which their letters were written in his defense and the 5th completed the work of the 4th by condemning those writings and Theodore just as the 2nd completed the work of the 1st E.C. concerning the LORD Holy Spirit†.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Vico]

†††

I am glad to see you understand that Chalcedon did not condemn those received back into the Church. I wish that you could understand that it was not the practice of the Church to personally condemn dead people. And as stated in Catholic Encyclopedia, the plan was to expurgate the decision at Chalcedon:
“If the writings of Theodore and the epistle of Ibas were anathematized, the Council of Chalcedon being thus revised and expurgated (Synodus … retractata et expurgata) would no longer be a stumbling block to the Monophysites.”
newadvent.org/cathen/14707b.htm

You ask: “How many definition of doctrine could there be in an ecclesiastical matters?”

Each and every definition and clarification is another doctrine, even if it clarifies a previous one.

There is no infallability doctrine involved in this issue, anyway, so it is beside the point.

There is no record of Pope Vigilius stating that it was orthodox to believe in the dyophysite doctrine.

 

[Ignatios]

I am glad to see you understand that Chalcedon did not condemn those received back into the Church.

You mean you didn’t see my post when I presented that Ibas and Theodoret were accepted back in the Church after they denounced the Nestorian doctrines? in which their writings were Nestorians. IOW you weren’t reading my posts looool but yet you were responding, this proves what I’ve said before that your defense is based on saving the Papacy infallibility, for it is now clear that it didn’t matter the evidence, you were focused on shooting words that would make Pope Vigilius correct regardless how true the information from the other side is.
Besides as I have mentioned times before that the issue was not Ibas or Theodoret PERSONS but their writings.

I wish that you could understand that it was not the practice of the Church to personally condemn dead people.

O my GOD!!! I posted about this one too and I showed that the 5th E.C. proved that that was common for the Church to condemn dead for their heresy or clear dead from their heresy, they (fathers of the 5th council) even showed that that was even done in the Church of Rome, and now your respond above shows as if it is the first time we discuss this or the first time you see it !!!

You mean I was writing all this time for nothing?

And as stated in Catholic Encyclopedia, the plan was to expurgate the decision at Chalcedon:
“If the writings of Theodore and the epistle of Ibas were anathematized, the Council of Chalcedon being thus revised and expurgated (Synodus … retractata et expurgata) would no longer be a stumbling block to the Monophysites.”
newadvent.org/cathen/14707b.htm

We have been there before and we have discussed this AAAnd I showed that the authority of the 4th Council remained intact and fully Orthodox since the writings of Theodore and his person also the epistle of Ibas and Theodoret were not aproved by the Council of Chalcedon. thus it was necessary to condemn them.

You ask: “How many definition of doctrine could there be in an ecclesiastical matters?”

Each and every definition and clarification is another doctrine, even if it clarifies a previous one.

Are you for real? my question was more of a sarcastic one, in which your answer above was not adequate.
My sarcastic question was in respond to your claim that you understand the word Doctrine in different definition than mine and you gave an example from the dictionary ( Marriam webster), and now here you are saying totally different thing i.e. you are speaking now about how many doctrine there is where before you were saying how many definition for the word doctrine there is.

There is no infallability doctrine involved in this issue, anyway, so it is beside the point.

Why ? is it because this particular controversy shows that the dogma of the Pope infallibility is a false one?

There is no record of Pope Vigilius stating that it was orthodox to believe in the dyophysite doctrine.

HUH???

I believe the Dyophysite is the Chalcedonian position. means two nature. !!!

well Vico it seems like we are going around the circle again here so if you have anything new to add that it relates to our discussion I will respond otherwise, I think I have proved my contention point to be true and as claimed through historical evidence documents and Decrees and extract from council acts, without any interpretation of mine, so I bid you well and may GOD bless you and all †††.

 

[Vico]

†††

Surely I did read your posts, and they are difficult so it takes me significant time to go through them. (That does not mean I understand all your sentences.) You wrote ~ Aug 22, about Theororet and Ibas receipt back into communion by posting quote from Constantinople II, not Chalcedon. So it has never been clear to me that you understand what Chalcedon did with respect to them. Session VIII of Chalcedon restored Theodoret to his see, and Session X of Chalcedon cleared Ibas (both removed from their sees at Ephesus). Photius at Chalcedon testified that Ibas was not proved guilty at Ephesus.

Reference: The acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Volume 3 - Richard Price, Michael Gaddis

As John Romanides wrote regarding Chalcedon there was no personal condemnation of Theodoret and Ibas:
Theodoret and Ibas were restored to the episcopacy because they accepted Ephesus I and especially the Twelve Chapters, which acceptance is in itself a condemnation of what they had written about and against Cyril and his anathemas.
And about Constantinople II, that there was no personal condemnation of Theodoret and Ibas:
The Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 anathematized the writings of Theodoret and Ibas against Cyril and the very person of Theodore, the Father of Nestorianism.
romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm

 

[Vico]

I left one out by mistake: Youwrote: “I believe the Dyophysite is the Chalcedonian position. means two nature.”

Yes, but it is also used for Nestorianism, and that is what I mean by my post:

“There is no record of Pope Vigilius stating that it was orthodox to believe in the dyophysite doctrine.” In other words

There is no record of Pope Vigilius stating that it was orthodox to believe in the Nestorian doctrine.