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

[Cavaradossi]

Here is the decree of Union in English. I looked over the Latin on-line too. Hard to find what you are talking about.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: ** that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.**

Right there. The Decree states that the Holy Spirit proceeds (and they use the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι here) from the Father and the Son. They also call the Son as being the cause and principle of the Holy Spirit, which is not in line with Orthodox teaching.

As for the muddiness of history, well yeah, it is muddy. The Eastern Orthodox Church to this day holds that they said at Florence that they needed to approve of the council with a Synod back in the East. Because no Synod was ever held, the Orthodox would say that it was never enacted and hence never binding (of course, the desperate Emperors disagreed). As to the thing about Athanasius II, I can’t really say that I’m aware of much that talks about his short time as the patriarch (a grand total of three years, I think), It’s perhaps better to look at his predecessor Gregory III, who we do know was deposed and spent the rest of his years in the West, claiming to be the legitimate Patriarch of the united Easterners. He died in 1459, five years after Gennadios Scholarios was installed by the Sultan in 1454 (after Athanasius II was killed in 1453). The history around that time is really hectic, and it’s hard to determine what was going on religiously due to the pressing threat of Ottoman conquest, hence the multiple takes on what was going on. The truth, as we just agreed in the another thread is not black and white, and that is especially so with the Union of Florence. There’s enough grey there to fill a fleet of UFOs.

 

[PodunkMommy]

What confuses me about the Creed issue is that the Eastern Churches had been saying the creed without the Filioque for centuries, right? Why, in 1054, should they all of the sudden have to start changing the creed? I know there are other issues as well but that is one that never really sit well with me. It just doesn’t make sense. It seems to be more of a cultural difference.

Blessings.

 

[dvdjs]

What confuses me about the Creed issue is that the Eastern Churches had been saying the creed without the Filioque for centuries, right? Why, in 1054, should they all of the sudden have to start changing the creed? I know there are other issues as well but that is one that never really sit well with me. It just doesn’t make sense. It seems to be more of a cultural difference.

I don’t believe that the East was asked in 1054 to start changing the Creed.

 

[Vico]

Right there. The Decree states that the Holy Spirit proceeds (and they use the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι here) from the Father and the Son. They also call the Son as being the cause and principle of the Holy Spirit, which is not in line with Orthodox teaching…

Your quote is from ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445) Session 6—6 July 1439.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church 248:
“The eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the ‘principle without principle,’ is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds” (Council of Lyons II, DS 850).
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, 1995:
On the basis of Jn. 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit “to ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon” (“who takes his origin from the Father”). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arche anarchos) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (peghe) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner. [1]

[1] These are the terms employed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, Ia q. 36 a. 3 1um and 2um.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=88105218&CFTOKEN=88314277

 

[dvdjs]

Right there. The Decree states that the Holy Spirit proceeds (and they use the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι here) from the Father and the Son. They also call the Son as being the cause and principle of the Holy Spirit, which is not in line with Orthodox teaching.

I haven’t found a Greek text, perhaps you have a reference or link for it. And the part about the Son being the cause and principle.

As for the muddiness of history, well yeah, it is muddy. The Eastern Orthodox Church to this day holds that they said at Florence that they needed to approve of the council with a Synod back in the East. Because no Synod was ever held, the Orthodox would say that it was never enacted and hence never binding (of course, the desperate Emperors disagreed).

In fact some say that this manner of reception is a general principle in the East for accepting an Ecumenical Council. Except that it doesn’t hold for Chalcedon.

As to the thing about Athanasius II, I can’t really say that I’m aware of much that talks about his short time as the patriarch (a grand total of three years, I think), It’s perhaps better to look at his predecessor Gregory III, who we do know was deposed and spent the rest of his years in the West, claiming to be the legitimate Patriarch of the united Easterners. He died in 1459, five years after Gennadios Scholarios was installed by the Sultan in 1454 (after Athanasius II was killed in 1453). The history around that time is really hectic, and it’s hard to determine what was going on religiously due to the pressing threat of Ottoman conquest, hence the multiple takes on what was going on. The truth, as we just agreed in the another thread is not black and white, and that is especially so with the Union of Florence. I agree about the murkiness. The departure of Gregory III is clear, but his deposition is not; neither is the accession of Athanasius II. And what did Athanasius II do when Constantine had the union solemnly proclaimed
in Hagia Sophia? After the fall, one can imagine that a clearer picture emerges, but given the pressures, it is difficult to say if that clear picture is really true or driven by the practical situation of the day.

 

[Cavaradossi]

In fact some say that this manner of reception is a general principle in the East for accepting an Ecumenical Council. Except that it doesn’t hold for Chalcedon.

The funny thing is that nobody, Roman Catholic or Orthodox can really tell you how a Council is determined to be Ecumenical. Is it the approval of the Pope? No, Pope Vigilius disapproved of the Fifth Council, yet it was still held to be Ecumenical and he was anathematized until he recanted his defense of the Three Chapters. We also have the case where the Council which reinstated Photios as the legitimate Patriarch if Constantinople after Ignatius’ death met with no resistance from Rome at the time, but then during the years surrounding the schism, it was repudiated and the council which earlier deposed Photios was regarded as being the Eighth Ecumenical Council by Rome.

Is it ratification by popular support? No, the Arians were very popular since several emperors were Arian heretics. Are general synods immediately binding? No, the Second Council of Ephesus was declared to be a robber synod by the Council of Ephesus, and several iconoclast councils were declared to be null by the Second Council of Nicaea.

I think that it really does boil down to faith in the working of the Holy Spirit within the Church. We have to have faith that the conclusion of an Ecumenical Council has to represent the deposit of the faith, and when it does not, we have faith that the Holy Spirit will guide us to repudiate bad councils. It’s a scary system, I suppose, but if we try to put too many constraints on it, then we’ll choke the life out of the Church and prevent the Holy Spirit from bringing about God’s will.

I agree about the murkiness. The departure of Gregory III is clear, but his deposition is not; neither is the accession of Athanasius II. And what did Athanasius II do when Constantine had the union solemnly proclaimed in Hagia Sophia? After the fall, one can imagine that a clearer picture emerges, but given the pressures, it is difficult to say if that clear picture is really true or driven by the practical situation of the day.

Yes, the Muslim invasions were a really awful event for God’s flock. Let’s hope that in a newer day and age when political influences on the church are less, we can finally make a real substantive union which is free of all political influence under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For all that’s happened over the centuries, the two sides are working (not without internal resistance on both sides, of course) rather diligently to come to an understanding. While I don’t see it happening in my lifetime, I can always hope for reunion.

 

[ahs]

What confuses me about the Creed issue is that the Eastern Churches had been saying the creed without the Filioque for centuries, right? Why, in 1054, should they all of the sudden have to start changing the creed? I know there are other issues as well but that is one that never really sit well with me. It just doesn’t make sense. It seems to be more of a cultural difference.

Blessings.

The Creed was adopted (not sure if that’s the right word) in Nicea in 325. The start of the problems began with the fact that Arians controlled the East and their influence in the Church pushed for a less rigid definition of Church Doctrine (according to the book I have mentioned). Thus began a long battle back and forth, consisting of many excommunications, beatings, and martyrs of the Faith. However, by 681, all had settled out and the Creed of Nicea was reaffirmed by East (Roman) and West (Greek) alike. The Filioque was, by this time, a confirmed part of the Creed of the Church both in the East and the West.

So the question now is…what happened to cause the Greek Church to detach itself from the Creed that was fully accepted by the late 600’s? Regardless of whatever historical facts there are of disagreements, arguments, battle, etc…that occurred between 681 and the present day, how can anyone argue that is was right that the Creed be abandoned by any facet of the Church?

One could argue all day long about primacy of the Pope or a Pope being among equals (regarding East and West), but to throw out the Creed that was adopted by both…?

-ahs

 

[UnityofTrinity]

If you think that the Orthodox were going to achieve some sort of union without accepting Rome’s precious filioque and papal supremacy, then you’re mistaken. The decree of Florence states that the spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father through the Son, which makes the Son cause (αἰτίαν) and principle (άρχήν) of the Holy Spirit. To call the Son either the cause or principle of the Holy Spirit is completely contrary to Orthodox faith, and this is now recognized by both the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox (let us acknowledge how contemporary Catholic theologians say it is inappropriate to use the filioque with the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι or to regard the Son as cause of the Holy Spirit).

And you tell me then, where was the military aid for Constantinople in 1452, when Sultan Mehmed II was building his fortress near Constantinople? Where were the great crusades of old which pushed encroaching Muslims back off of the heels of the Eastern Roman Empire (or perhaps you would rather just talk about the great crusade of 1204 and how successful that one was for producing plunder for Venice; I’ve seen those horses at St. Mark’s by the way, they’re wonderful pieces of pirated loot). If my version of history is mythologized, then yours is a mere fairytale. If you really think so highly of Florence, then enjoy the filioque with the Son as cause of the Holy Spirit and the Pope as the supreme vicar of God upon the earth; I’ll take union (if it ever materializes) at a better price and on far different terms than what amounts to political exploitation.

First of all, the Pope added a Latin word “filoque”. The word was for Latin Church and was for the Latin language and Latin concept only. The Greek Church used it as an excuse to split is their entire problem, not the problem with the Roman Church.

Secondly, the Crusade’s goal is to defeat the Islamic army and take Jerusalem, not trying to help Byzantium. The sacks of Constantinople was a Venician effort, it was not caused by the crusade per say. Venice did not get any order from the pope to fight against Byzantium, it came primarily from greed alone. Furthermore Byzantium refused the Church in the West and placed the spiritual and secular power upon the emperor, something known as caesaropapism. Byzantium established an another church, an another kingdom, and split itself from Catholicism, then please tell me with what reasons should the Western Church helped Byzantium politically speaking?

 

[Ignatios]

First of all, the Pope added a Latin word “filoque”. The word was for Latin Church and was for the Latin language and Latin concept only. The Greek Church used it as an excuse to split is their entire problem, not the problem with the Roman Church.

Secondly, the Crusade’s goal is to defeat the Islamic army and take Jerusalem, not trying to help Byzantium. The sacks of Constantinople was a Venician effort, it was not caused by the crusade per say. Venice did not get any order from the pope to fight against Byzantium, it came primarily from greed alone. Furthermore Byzantium refused the Church in the West and placed the spiritual and secular power upon the emperor, something known as caesaropapism. Byzantium established an another church, an another kingdom, and split itself from Catholicism, then please tell me with what reasons should the Western Church helped Byzantium politically speaking?

Hello UOT, with all due respect my friend, I think your informations are very inacurate and miles n’ miles away from being complete, Please allow me to advise you to do some studying of history or read about those issues before you get into those discussion.

The (FILIOQUE=and the SON) was not for Latin Church and was ***not ***for the Latin language and Latin concept ONLY.

Try to look up the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons 1274 of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son”.

Also try to read about the “Fourth Crusade”.

GOD bless †††

 

[Cavaradossi]

First of all, the Pope added a Latin word “filoque”. The word was for Latin Church and was for the Latin language and Latin concept only. The Greek Church used it as an excuse to split is their entire problem, not the problem with the Roman Church.

Secondly, the Crusade’s goal is to defeat the Islamic army and take Jerusalem, not trying to help Byzantium. The sacks of Constantinople was a Venician effort, it was not caused by the crusade per say. Venice did not get any order from the pope to fight against Byzantium, it came primarily from greed alone. Furthermore Byzantium refused the Church in the West and placed the spiritual and secular power upon the emperor, something known as caesaropapism. Byzantium established an another church, an another kingdom, and split itself from Catholicism, then please tell me with what reasons should the Western Church helped Byzantium politically speaking?

Funny, some would say that the Popes, using forged documents, illegitimately crowned Frankish emperors in the West and split off from the East. Surely you cannot believe such a simplistic version of history where one side just woke up one day and decided, “let’s split away from the other side!”

 

[dzheremi]

Out of all the topics that are suspended/banned here on CAF, I’m increasingly surprised that Great Schism is not among them. Any threads on this topic always degenerate into this sort of “history war”. It’s impossible to be neutral on history, I suppose, but it just seems like it’s asking for trouble.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Out of all the topics that are suspended/banned here on CAF, I’m increasingly surprised that Great Schism is not among them. Any threads on this topic always degenerate into this sort of “history war”. It’s impossible to be neutral on history, I suppose, but it just seems like it’s asking for trouble.

This is true. You can find an obscure yet credible historian to support almost any view these days.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

Some corrections:

The funny thing is that nobody, Roman Catholic or Orthodox can really tell you how a Council is determined to be Ecumenical. Is it the approval of the Pope?

The official Catholic position is that the approval of the Pope and the body of bishops are necessary for a Council to be regarded as “Ecumenical.”

No, Pope Vigilius disapproved of the Fifth Council, yet it was still held to be Ecumenical

Not true. The very reason that Pope Vigilius was imprisoned by the Emperor until he confirmed the Council was because everyone knew that without his confirmation, it could not be “Ecumenical.”

and he was anathematized.

This never happened. All we have is a record of the emperor requesting that the bishops take the name of the Pope off the diptychs. That is not by any stretch of the imagination equivalent to an anathema.

until he recanted his defense of the Three Chapters.

Not exactly. Pope Vigilius never accepted the doctrinal errors in the 3 chapters, but only refused to condemn the PERSONS of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas.

We also have the case where the Council which reinstated Photios as the legitimate Patriarch if Constantinople after Ignatius’ death met with no resistance from Rome at the time, but then during the years surrounding the schism, it was repudiated and the council which earlier deposed Photios was regarded as being the Eighth Ecumenical Council by Rome.

Actually, the 879 Council of Constantinople was repudiated by the same Pope John VIII only two years after he accepted it, when it was discovered that Patriarch Photius had forged some documents in support of himself. The next Pope (Marinus) also repudiated the 879 Council. I’m not certain of the history of the status of your 879 Council after that.

I think that it really does boil down to faith in the working of the Holy Spirit within the Church. We have to have faith that the conclusion of an Ecumenical Council has to represent the deposit of the faith, and when it does not, we have faith that the Holy Spirit will guide us to repudiate bad councils. It’s a scary system, I suppose, but if we try to put too many constraints on it, then we’ll choke the life out of the Church and prevent the Holy Spirit from bringing about God’s will.

This notion would contradict the recent Ravenna colloquy which regards an Ecumenical Council as a mystical event protected by the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

This notion would contradict the recent Ravenna colloquy which regards an Ecumenical Council as a mystical event protected by the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk

What are we to make then, of the Second Council of Ephesus, if we cannot repudiate bad councils?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

What are we to make then, of the Second Council of Ephesus, if we cannot repudiate bad councils?

I’m not aware that the bishop of Rome as protos ever confirmed that Council, so that should answer your question.

I also wanted to give a further elucidation on the following statement I made earlier:

mardukm:

Not exactly. Pope Vigilius never accepted the doctrinal errors in the 3 chapters, but only refused to condemn the PERSONS of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas.

If you read the acts of the Fifth Ecum, you will discover that the Fathers consistently affirmed the orthodoxy of Pope Vigilius. They even appealed to him directly as a doctrinal authority in their final judgment - and this was before he gave his final confirmation to the Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

Pope Vigilius disapproved of the Fifth Council…and he was anathematized…

It just dawned on me – You are the second EO in recent memory who has claimed that Pope Vigilius was anathematized by the Fifth Ecum. May I ask what your source is for this claim? I mean, it certainly is not the Acts of the Fifth Ecum, so I am wondering where you are getting your info?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

It just dawned on me – You are the second EO in recent memory who has claimed that Pope Vigilius was anathematized by the Fifth Ecum. May I ask what your source is for this claim? I mean, it certainly is not the Acts of the Fifth Ecum, so I am wondering where you are getting your info?

Blessings,
Marduk

Here it is:

" …The " Three Chapters" were condemned, and their authors, long dead, anathematized, without, however, derogating from the authority of the council of Chalcedon, which had given them a clean bill of orthodoxy. Vigilius was excommunicated, and his name erased from the diptychs. The Orthodox faith was set forth in fourteen anathemas…"
books.google.com/books?pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=pope%20vigilius%20was%20excommunicated&sig=No859rV_WZT5IpCfaKyeWCyPLes&ei=xlksTvj3BOrs0gHxytjkDg&ct=result&id=0DwEAAAAYAAJ&ots=w_lqCuDB6t&output=text

And here again:

“But the council, after his Constitution, both raised a question about the Three Chapters, and decided that question was properly raised concerning the dead, and that the letter of Ibas was manifestly heretical and Nestorian, and contrary in all things to the Faith of Chalcedon, and that they were altogether accursed, who defended the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, or the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, or the impious letter of Ibas defending the tenets of Nestorius: and all such as did not anathematize it, but said it was correct.
In these latter words they seemed not even to spare Vigilius”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ii.html

And here straight from the acts:

" Constantine, the most glorious Quæstor, said: While I am still present at your holy council by reason of the reading of the documents which have been presented to you, I would say that the most pious Emperor has sent a minute (formam), to your Holy Synod, concerning the name of Vigilius,* that it be no more inserted in the holy diptychs of the Church, on account of the impiety which he defended**. Neither let it be recited by you, nor retained, either in the church of the royal city, or in other churches which are intrusted to you and to the other bishops in the State committed by God to his rule. And when you hear this minute, again you will perceive by it how much the most serene Emperor cares for the unity of the holy churches and for the purity of the holy mysteries."*
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.v.html

And finally again from the acts:

"We therefore anathematize* the Three Chapters** before-mentioned,** that is**, the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, with his execrable writings, and those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and the impious letter which is said to be of Ibas, and their defenders,** and those who have written or do write in defence of them**, or who dare to say that they are correct, and who have defended or attempt to defend their impiety with the names of the holy Fathers, or of the holy Council of Chalcedon. "*

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.vi.html

Mardukm any thing more than this, it would be Pope Vigilius throwing something at you.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Halyna]

I live 2 blocks from an Orthodox Church and miles to a Ukrainian Catholic Church, so I called the orthodox priest and asked him.
He told me that the whole basis for the separation was 3 points:

1. In the Nicene Creed: Proceeds from the Father and the Son …
   There is a problem with this (though I personally thought it was a play on words). He said that proceeds means that the Holy Spirit came from the Father (like if born) yet not totally part of the entire God
2. He said that the infallibility of the Pope is not true and is verified by certain popes in history (and I can’t truly deny that - there have been ‘false’ popes & even a female pope which makes me question that)
3. There is a 3rd point I cant remember right now.
   Should I call him and ask him again? I’m Catholic and am not searching for another faith.

 

[Ignatios]

I live 2 blocks from an Orthodox Church and miles to a Ukrainian Catholic Church, so I called the orthodox priest and asked him.
He told me that the whole basis for the separation was 3 points:

1. In the Nicene Creed: Proceeds from the Father and the Son …
   There is a problem with this (though I personally thought it was a play on words). He said that proceeds means that the Holy Spirit came from the Father (like if born) yet not totally part of the entire God
2. He said that the infallibility of the Pope is not true and is verified by certain popes in history (and I can’t truly deny that - there have been ‘false’ popes & even a female pope which makes me question that)
3. There is a 3rd point I cant remember right now.
   Should I call him and ask him again? I’m Catholic and am not searching for another faith.

Hello Halyna,
My Humble opinion on this is, that Filioque cannot be explain over the phone, maybe this priest has no clue what he is talking about maybe he said too much or maybe too little to a point that you couldn’t make any sense out of what he said, but the issues of separation or what led to it are many, In addition to the Filioque ( although the Filioque is what broke the Camel’s back as they say) there was many Theological, Ecclesiastical, Sacramental and Political issues.

The Theological Issues are many such as the Issue of the Filioque, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, the Original Sin, the Purgatory, God’s Essence and HIS Uncreated Energy, etc…

Ecclesiastical issues are, The Primacy of the Pope, his infallibility to the Pope being the Head of the Church as a Dogma, the Canonical territory ( Jurisdiction of the Pope) priests celibacy etc…

Sacramental Issues such as Leavened Vs. unleavened and receiving both species ( Body and Blood), Divorce etc…

I hope I didn’t confuse you, but the reality is very complicated one and it requires lots of study with an open mind in order to see it.

GOD bless all †††

 

[Vico]

Here it is:

" …The " Three Chapters" were condemned, and their authors, long dead, anathematized, without, however, derogating from the authority of the council of Chalcedon, which had given them a clean bill of orthodoxy. Vigilius was excommunicated, and his name erased from the diptychs. The Orthodox faith was set forth in fourteen anathemas…"
books.google.com/books?pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=pope%20vigilius%20was%20excommunicated&sig=No859rV_WZT5IpCfaKyeWCyPLes&ei=xlksTvj3BOrs0gHxytjkDg&ct=result&id=0DwEAAAAYAAJ&ots=w_lqCuDB6t&output=text

And here again:

"But the council, after his Constitution, both raised a question about the Three Chapters, and decided that question was properly raised concerning the dead, and that the letter of Ibas was manifestly heretical and Nestorian, and contrary in all things to the Faith of Chalcedon, and that they were altogether accursed, who defended the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, or the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, or the impious letter of Ibas defending the tenets of Nestorius: and all such as did not anathematize it, but said it was correct.
In these latter words they seemed not even to spare Vigilius"
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ii.html

And here straight from the acts:

" Constantine, the most glorious Quæstor, said: While I am still present at your holy council by reason of the reading of the documents which have been presented to you, I would say that the most pious Emperor has sent a minute (formam), to your Holy Synod, concerning the name of Vigilius,** that it be no more inserted in the holy diptychs of the Church, on account of the impiety which he defended**. Neither let it be recited by you, nor retained, either in the church of the royal city, or in other churches which are intrusted to you and to the other bishops in the State committed by God to his rule. And when you hear this minute, again you will perceive by it how much the most serene Emperor cares for the unity of the holy churches and for the purity of the holy mysteries."
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.v.html

And finally again from the acts:

"We therefore anathematize** the Three Chapters** before-mentioned,** that is**, the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, with his execrable writings, and those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and the impious letter which is said to be of Ibas, and their defenders,** and those who have written or do write in defence of them**, or who dare to say that they are correct, and who have defended or attempt to defend their impiety with the names of the holy Fathers, or of the holy Council of Chalcedon. "

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.vi.html

Mardukm any thing more than this, it would be Pope Vigilius throwing something at you.

GOD bless you all †††

Ignatios, even with all those sources, you are not getting the full picture. As stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“… the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; …”

“The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites.”

MLA citation. Shahan, Thomas. “Second Council of Constantinople.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 31 Jul. 2011 newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.