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

[Ignatios]

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.

Vico,
The only picture that I am NOT getting is the one that you are trying to project in your above respond.

My respond to Mardukm came after he posed the following question in post #35: “… 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…”

Besides,you are providing a comments from the Catholic Encyclopedia to prove that the Pope was right??? I mean…what else do you expect from the Catholic Encyclopedia to say about the Pope??? that he was wrong???:shrug:

 

[Vico]

Vico,
The only picture that I am NOT getting is the one that you are trying to project in your above respond.

My respond to Mardukm came after he posed the following question in post #35: “… 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…”

Besides,you are providing a comments from the Catholic Encyclopedia to prove that the Pope was right??? I mean…what else do you expect from the Catholic Encyclopedia to say about the Pope??? that he was wrong???:shrug:

There is agreement between what I posted and what you posted. The delay was the problem, which is for the reason given in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

“Since it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever any question arises concerning the faith, not only the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who when he has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so. [This, of course, refers to Pope Vigilius.] We therefore, to whom it has been committed to rule the church of the Lord, fearing the curse which hangs over those who negligently perform the Lord’s work, hasten to preserve the good seed of faith pure from the tares of impiety which are being sown by the enemy.”
and

“… 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.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

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:

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

One of the anathemas of the Fifth Ecumenical council states

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.

Pope Vigilius was a strong defender of of Ibas, meaning that he was anathematized until he consented to the Council’s decision and condemned the three chapters (which he later did after claiming that he was misled by his advisers). He did not die anathematized, but, before he could be placed back on the diptychs and returned to Rome, he was forced to correct his erroneous defense of Ibas’ letter and retract his Constitutum which, although condemning Theodore’s writings, refused to anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia himself.

 

[Ignatios]

There is agreement between what I posted and what you posted. The delay was the problem, which is for the reason given in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

“Since it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever any question arises concerning the faith, not only the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who when he has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so. [This, of course, refers to Pope Vigilius.] We therefore, to whom it has been committed to rule the church of the Lord, fearing the curse which hangs over those who negligently perform the Lord’s work, hasten to preserve the good seed of faith pure from the tares of impiety which are being sown by the enemy.”
and

“… 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.”

Okay I see, however I disagree that Pope Vigilius yielded for the sake of peace and when he was satisfied … because according to the written facts that we rely on such as Pope Vigilius’s letter to Patriarch Eutychiushe where he (pope Vigilius) confesses that he was in error- and that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren. He adds, that one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognises the truth, and brings forward the example of Augustine. He says, that, after having better examined the matter of the Three Chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation. “We recognize for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned them, and annul by this writing all that has been done by us or by others for the defence of the three chapters.” (Fleury. Hist. Eccl., Liv. xxxiii. 52.)
Part of the above I have copied from the following:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.xi.html

 

[Vico]

Okay I see, however I disagree that Pope Vigilius yielded for the sake of peace and when he was satisfied … because according to the written facts that we rely on such as Pope Vigilius’s letter to Patriarch Eutychiushe where he (pope Vigilius) confesses that he was in error- and that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren. He adds, that one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognises the truth, and brings forward the example of Augustine. He says, that, after having better examined the matter of the Three Chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation. “We recognize for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned them, and annul by this writing all that has been done by us or by others for the defence of the three chapters.” (Fleury. Hist. Eccl., Liv. xxxiii. 52.)
Part of the above I have copied from the following:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.xi.html

For the sake of peace, not health, or argument, or wealth.

I made a study of the Three Chapters recently for another question. It is rather complicated. What you quoted was from 9 below. What happened was:

1. Emperor Justinian I edicted an anathematization of the Three Chapters. (543)
2. Catholic theologans decided that some of the writings conclusions were based upon language misunderstandings.
3. Many eastern bishops were coerced to agree with Justinian I, with punishments to those that did not.
4. Vigilius could not decide upon the matter since he did not understand Greek well, and he and the entire West, deemed were in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites, if he agreed.
5. Vigilius issued Judicatum (548) condemning the Three Chapters, but withdrew it.
6. Justinian pledged to a general council to decide the matter, with Pope Vigilius, but instead issued another edict as before.
7. Pope Vigilius tried to get agreement to a council with good western representation, but Justinian would not agree.
8. A council did eventually meet, called by Justinian, without Vigilius, and condemned the Three Chapters. (553)
9. Vigilius finally agreed to condemn the Three Chapters (554) after 6 months in captivity.

You read a little earlier in the Catholic Encyclopedia topic that:
“In consequence of this Vigilius had persuaded Justinian to return the aforesaid papal document and to proclaim a truce on all sides until a general council could be called to decide these controversies.”

This corresponds to items 5 and 6.

Original quote:
“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.”

 

[Ignatios]

For the sake of peace, not health, or argument, or wealth.

I made a study of the Three Chapters recently for another question. It is rather complicated. What you quoted was from 9 below. What happened was:

1. Emperor Justinian I edicted an anathematization of the Three Chapters. (543)
2. Catholic theologans decided that some of the writings conclusions were based upon language misunderstandings.
3. Many eastern bishops were coerced to agree with Justinian I, with punishments to those that did not.
4. Vigilius could not decide upon the matter since he did not understand Greek well, and he and the entire West, deemed were in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites, if he agreed.
5. Vigilius issued Judicatum (548) condemning the Three Chapters, but withdrew it.
6. Justinian pledged to a general council to decide the matter, with Pope Vigilius, but instead issued another edict as before.
7. Pope Vigilius tried to get agreement to a council with good western representation, but Justinian would not agree.
8. A council did eventually meet, called by Justinian, without Vigilius, and condemned the Three Chapters. (553)
9. Vigilius finally agreed to condemn the Three Chapters (554) after 6 months in captivity.

You read a little earlier in the Catholic Encyclopedia topic that:
“In consequence of this Vigilius had persuaded Justinian to return the aforesaid papal document and to proclaim a truce on all sides until a general council could be called to decide these controversies.”

This corresponds to items 5 and 6.

Original quote:
“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.”

My response in the past post was not a conclusion but it was based on a letter from Pope Vigilius conffessing that he was an error, no credible one had refuted the content of this letter to be flawed, in which it is evident that he coffessed that he was in error and when he reviewd the matter further he found out that the three chapters ought to be condemned., if what I have stated is not true or wrong, then, by all means show me where it is so.

 

[Vico]

My response in the past post was not a conclusion but it was based on a letter from Pope Vigilius conffessing that he was an error, no credible one had refuted the content of this letter to be flawed, in which it is evident that he coffessed that he was in error and when he reviewd the matter further he found out that the three chapters ought to be condemned., if what I have stated is not true or wrong, then, by all means show me where it is so.

There is nothing that you have written that contradicts what the Catholic Encyclopedia states. Saying it was an error, does not contradict the statement “for the sake of peace”.

 

[Ignatios]

There is nothing that you have written that contradicts what the Catholic Encyclopedia states. Saying it was an error, does not contradict the statement “for the sake of peace”.

Vico, in your post #39 ( forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8187826&postcount=39)the Catholic Encyclopedia states “The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved”
I said That Pope vigilius was in error as he confessed in his letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch.
GOD bless all †††

 

[UnityofTrinity]

in regard of the crowning of Charlemange, why was it illegitimate? Should the West not have a king of their own?

 

[Vico]

Vico, in your post #39 ( forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8187826&postcount=39)the Catholic Encyclopedia states "The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved"
I said That Pope vigilius was in error as he confessed in his letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch.
GOD bless all †††

Read the letter, which is in accord with what is published in the Catholic Encyclopedia, “we ourselves who were and are of the same opinion” and “hath removed all confusion from our minds, and hath so recalled peach to the whole world and to the Church”:

Vigilius to his beloved brother Eutychius.

…so that we ourselves who were and are of the same opinion as they touching the faith, went apart into discord, brotherly love being despised. But since Christ our God, who is the true light, whom the darkness comprehendeth not, hath removed all confusion from our minds, and hath so recalled peace to the whole world and to the Church, so that what things should be defined by us have been healthfully fulfilled through the revelation of the Lord and through the investigation of the truth.

Therefore, my dear brothers, I do you to wit, that in common with all of you, our brethren, we receive in all respects the four synods, that is to say the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first Ephesian, and the Chalcedonian; and we venerate them with devout mind, and watch over them with all our mind. And should there be any who do not follow these holy synods in all things which they have defined concerning the faith, we judge them to be aliens to the communion of the holy and Catholic Church.

Wherefore on account of our desire that you, my brothers, should know what we have done in this matter, we make it known to you by this letter. For no one can doubt how many were the discussions raised on account of the Three Chapters, that is, concerning Theodore, sometime bishop of Mopsuestia, and his writings, as well as concerning the writings of Theodoret, and concerning that letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian: and how diverse were the things spoken and written concerning these Three Chapters. Now if in every business sound wisdom demands that there should be a retractation of what was propounded after examination, there ought to be no shame when what was at first omitted is made public after it is discovered by a further study of the truth. [And if this is the case in ordinary affairs] how much more in ecclesiastical strifes should the same dictate of sound reason be observed? Especially since it is manifest that our Fathers, and especially the blessed Augustine, who was in very sooth illustrious in the Divine Scriptures, and a master in Roman eloquence, retracted some of his own writings, and corrected some of his own sayings, and added what he had omitted and afterward found out. We, led by their example never gave over the study of the questions raised by the controversy with regard to the before-mentioned Three Chapters, nor our search for passages in the writings of our Fathers which were applicable to the matter.

…

Therefore we anathematize and condemn the aforesaid impious Three Chapters, to-wit, the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia and his impious writings; And all that Theodoret impiously wrote, as well as the letter said to have been written by Ibas, in which are contained the above mentioned profane blasphemies. We likewise subject to anathema whoever shall at any time believe that these chapters should be received or defended; or shall attempt to subvert this present condemnation.

And further we define that they are our brethren and fellow-priests who ever keep the right faith set forth by those afore-mentioned synods, and shall have condemned the above-named Three Chapters, or even do now condemn them.

And further we annul and evacuate by this present written definition of ours whatever has been said by me (a me) or by others in defence of the aforesaid Three Chapters.
…

christianbookshelf.org/schaff/the_seven_ecumenical_councils/the_decretal_letter_of_pope.htm

 

[Ignatios]

Read the letter, which is in accord with what is published in the Catholic Encyclopedia, “we ourselves who were and are of the same opinion” and “hath removed all confusion from our minds, and hath so recalled peach to the whole world and to the Church”:

Vigilius to his beloved brother Eutychius.

…so that we ourselves who were and are of the same opinion as they touching the faith, went apart into discord, brotherly love being despised. But since Christ our God, who is the true light, whom the darkness comprehendeth not, hath removed all confusion from our minds, and hath so recalled peace to the whole world and to the Church, so that what things should be defined by us have been healthfully fulfilled through the revelation of the Lord and through the investigation of the truth.

Therefore, my dear brothers, I do you to wit, that in common with all of you, our brethren, we receive in all respects the four synods, that is to say the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first Ephesian, and the Chalcedonian; and we venerate them with devout mind, and watch over them with all our mind. And should there be any who do not follow these holy synods in all things which they have defined concerning the faith, we judge them to be aliens to the communion of the holy and Catholic Church.

Wherefore on account of our desire that you, my brothers, should know what we have done in this matter, we make it known to you by this letter. For no one can doubt how many were the discussions raised on account of the Three Chapters, that is, concerning Theodore, sometime bishop of Mopsuestia, and his writings, as well as concerning the writings of Theodoret, and concerning that letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian: and how diverse were the things spoken and written concerning these Three Chapters. Now if in every business sound wisdom demands that there should be a retractation of what was propounded after examination, there ought to be no shame when what was at first omitted is made public after it is discovered by a further study of the truth. [And if this is the case in ordinary affairs] how much more in ecclesiastical strifes should the same dictate of sound reason be observed? Especially since it is manifest that our Fathers, and especially the blessed Augustine, who was in very sooth illustrious in the Divine Scriptures, and a master in Roman eloquence, retracted some of his own writings, and corrected some of his own sayings, and added what he had omitted and afterward found out. We, led by their example never gave over the study of the questions raised by the controversy with regard to the before-mentioned Three Chapters, nor our search for passages in the writings of our Fathers which were applicable to the matter.
…

Therefore we anathematize and condemn the aforesaid impious Three Chapters, to-wit, the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia and his impious writings; And all that Theodoret impiously wrote, as well as the letter said to have been written by Ibas, in which are contained the above mentioned profane blasphemies. We likewise subject to anathema whoever shall at any time believe that these chapters should be received or defended; or shall attempt to subvert this present condemnation.

And further we define that they are our brethren and fellow-priests who ever keep the right faith set forth by those afore-mentioned synods, and shall have condemned the above-named Three Chapters, or even do now condemn them.

And further we annul and evacuate by this present written definition of ours whatever has been said by me (a me) or by others in defence of the aforesaid Three Chapters.
…

christianbookshelf.org/schaff/the_seven_ecumenical_councils/the_decretal_letter_of_pope.htm

I know the letter and read it many times over, over the years, did you ? please read it yourself and comprehend it as well?
Besides I don’t really know what are you trying to tell me or what is your arguement if there is any, can you please say what your position is from, do you agree that the statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia ( i.e.the pope was always correct) does not agree with the letter of Pope vigilius where he confesses to the Ecumenical Patriarch that he was in error? or not?

 

[dcointin]

Could anyone point to any specific writings of the great Orthodox players in the schism, such as Photius, who specifically mentioned the primacy of the Church of Rome or the Pope as a heresy?

 

[mardukm]

One of the anathemas of the Fifth Ecumenical council states

Pope Vigilius was a strong defender of of Ibas, meaning that he was anathematized until he consented to the Council’s decision and condemned the three chapters (which he later did after claiming that he was misled by his advisers). He did not die anathematized, but, before he could be placed back on the diptychs and returned to Rome, he was forced to correct his erroneous defense of Ibas’ letter and retract his Constitutum which, although condemning Theodore’s writings, refused to anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia himself.

So you are admitting that the Fifth Ecumenical Council anathemized the Fourth Ecumenical Council? Read the Anathema more carefully, and let’s discuss.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I know the letter and read it many times over, over the years, did you ? please read it yourself and comprehend it as well?
Besides I don’t really know what are you trying to tell me or what is your arguement if there is any, can you please say what your position is from, do you agree that the statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia ( i.e.the pope was always correct) does not agree with the letter of Pope vigilius where he confesses to the Ecumenical Patriarch that he was in error? or not?

He was in error for not condemning the PERSONS of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, and for defending an ORTHODOX understanding of their writings. In short, Pope Vigilius was defending the judgment of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

Will you admit right here and now that the Fourth Ecumenical Council erred theologically? Or is there a proper way to understand this whole event?

Whatever defense you can offer for the orthodoxy of the Fourth Ecumenical Council redounds to Pope Vigilius, because he was simply defending the judgment of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

As an Oriental, I would love to hear/read the grounds for the EO defense of the orthodoxy of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in light of the Fifth Ecum Council. This should be interesting.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

I know the letter and read it many times over, over the years, did you ? please read it yourself and comprehend it as well?

Besides I don’t really know what are you trying to tell me or what is your arguement if there is any, can you please say what your position is from, do you agree that the statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia ( i.e.the pope was always correct) does not agree with the letter of Pope vigilius where he confesses to the Ecumenical Patriarch that he was in error? or not?

I posted the answer before but will again. The original quote:
“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.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia states "The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved. That is what he says in his letter, that he held to the doctrines of the Council of Chalcedon:

“…so that we ourselves who were and are of the same opinion as they touching the faith,”

The second thing that he “yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon”, which is also stated:

“… hath removed all confusion from our minds, and hath so recalled peace to the whole world and to the Church, so that what things should be defined by us have been healthfully fulfilled through the revelation of the Lord and through the investigation of the truth.”

 

[Ignatios]

He was in error for not condemning the PERSONS of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, and for defending an ORTHODOX understanding of their writings. In short, Pope Vigilius was defending the judgment of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

Wait you are insinuating that Pope Vigilius was in error for defending the judgement of the Fourth Ecumenical Council???

Besides, your statement above shows that you are against the judgement of the 5th E.C. since you called that the three chapters understanding was ORTHODOX??? which is contrary to the judgement of that Council !!!

Please re-read your statement above within context, I would allow you to retract yourself and consider your statement above as a misstatement, not unless otherwise you are against the judgement of the Fifth ecumenical council, and you hold on to the error of Pope Vigilius which he himself confessed that it was so when he considered that there is no shame in their writings, then by all means admit it clearly right here and now.

Will you admit right here and now that the Fourth Ecumenical Council erred theologically? Or is there a proper way to understand this whole event?

What a grotesque reflection??? why would you want me to say that the 4th E.C. erred theologically??? and I don’t know what motivate you to such sayings other than your fallacious mind? or another foolish attempt to setup a strawman…

The only way to understand this whole event is to abandon relying on your thoughts and stick to your RCC teaching concerning those issues.

Whatever defense you can offer for the orthodoxy of the Fourth Ecumenical Council redounds to Pope Vigilius, because he was simply defending the judgment of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

If you believe in the outcome of the 5TH Ecumenical COUNCIL it wouldn’t be so at all, because the Orthodoxy of the 4th was maintained intact and they still yet condemned the three chapetrs. Pope Vigilius at first was in error concerning a sound judgement in the matter of faith, thanks to the Wisdom of the Orthodox Fathers of that Council who were guided by the Holy Spirit, INDEED, that corrected Pope Vigilius and guided him back to the true Faith.

As an Oriental, I would love to hear/read the grounds for the EO defense of the orthodoxy of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in light of the Fifth Ecum Council. This should be interesting.

Blessings,
Marduk

Your statements indicates that you lack a full knowledge and comprehension concerning those issues.
Will you admit right here and now that the outcome of the 4th Ecumenical Councils was NOT Orthodox?

Would you also admit when you stated in your first sentence above, that Pope Vigilius was in error when he defended the the writings of the three chapters in which you considered to be ORTHODOX and you added that he was defending the judgement of the 4th Ecumenical Council? in which it means that he was in error in defending the judgement of the 4th E.C. ??? as you insinuated.

NOw this would be veeeeeeeeery interesting to watch

GOD bless you all †††

 

[mardukm]

Wait you are insinuating that Pope Vigilius was in error for defending the judgement of the Fourth Ecumenical Council???

Brother Vico argued that Pope Vigilius relented for the sake of peace, not for admitting error, because all he was doing was defending the judgment of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which exonerated the persons of Ibas, Theodoret and Theodore, and who had their writings before them and understood them in an orthodox sense. You were the one who flat out stated that Pope Vigilius was in error for defending the judgment of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Why are you being inconsistent?

Besides, your statement above shows that you are against the judgement of the 5th E.C. since you called that the three chapters understanding was ORTHODOX??? which is contrary to the judgement of that Council !!!

That’s only in your own fantasy world. I did not say that the Three Chapters were orthodox. I said it was interpreted in an orthodox manner. Try to read more carefully.

Please re-read your statement above within context, I would allow you to retract yourself and consider your statement above as a misstatement, not unless otherwise you are against the judgement of the Fifth ecumenical council, and you hold on to the error of Pope Vigilius which he himself confessed that it was so when he considered that there is no shame in their writings, then by all means admit it clearly right here and now.

Again, you admit that Pope Vigilius was in error for defending the judgment of the Fourth Ecum. You are the one who should be retracting your boasts. It appears you are entirely ignorant of the whole context of the matter. The Fourth Ecum had the writings of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas before it, and interpreted them in an orthodox sense, thus explicitly exonerating their persons. In order to facilitate a reunion with the non-Chalcedonians, the emperor wanted to condemn Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, exposing their writings in their proper Nestorian sense. Pope Vigilius (and the Fourth Ecum) never defended the proper Nestorian sense of the writings of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, only the orthodox sense in which the Fourth Ecum granted it could possibly be understood.

So Pope Vigilius never gave in to the Nestorian error, contrary to your and brother Cavaradossi’s claims. Pope Vigilius letter does not admit that he gave in to the Nestorian error (that occurred only in your own imagination), only that he was wanting in charity for not being at one with his fellow bishops over the condemnation of the persons of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, and for adhering to the judgment of the Fourth Ecum that their writings had the possibility of being understood in an orthodox sense.

What a grotesque reflection??? why would you want me to say that the 4th E.C. erred theologically??? and I don’t know what motivate you to such sayings other than your fallacious mind? or another foolish attempt to setup a strawman…

Because you claim that Pope Vigilius was in error for defending the judgment of the Fourth Ecum. Stop being inconsistent, and the dialogue can continue.

The only way to understand this whole event is to abandon relying on your thoughts and stick to your RCC teaching concerning those issues.

So you want to avoid answering my question on how the EO rationalize the orthodoxy of the Fourth Ecum in light of the Fifth Ecum. That’s OK. It’s plain you have no response.

If you believe in the outcome of the 5TH Ecumenical COUNCIL it wouldn’t be so at all, because the Orthodoxy of the 4th was maintained intact and they still yet condemned the three chapetrs. Pope Vigilius at first was in error concerning a sound judgement in the matter of faith, thanks to the Wisdom of the Orthodox Fathers of that Council who were guided by the Holy Spirit, INDEED, that corrected Pope Vigilius and guided him back to the true Faith.

There you go again, claiming that Pope Vigilius was in error theologically for adhering to the judgment of the Fourth Ecum. You are just running around in circles and are not making any sense. You make a hollow claim that the orthodoxy of the 4th remained intact. It is thoroughly hollow because (1) you fail to give the EO rationale for it, and (2) simultaneously accuse Pope Vigilius of theological error for adhering to the judgment of the Fourth Ecum. The Catholic Church has remained consistent for she does not admit that Pope Vigilius was in error for defending the judgment of the Fourth Ecum. EO “apologists,” on the other hand, cannot justify the orthodoxy of the Fourth Ecum while simultaneously accusing Pope Vigilius of theological error. When you are ready to retract your inconsistent statements, let us know.

NOw this would be veeeeeeeeery interesting to watch

You running around in circles is indeed an interesting thing to watch, but it gets old rather quickly.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

Though I haven’t studied this issue in depth, I would like to give my understanding.

It seems to me that Pope Vigilius said that he was in error for defending the Three Chapters, not because he agreed with their theology as he eventually understood it, but because he interpreted them in an orthodox fashion. We have to keep in mind that very few people in the west understood Greek well, and in the east understood Latin well, and so were dependant on translations which could at times be very poor. I’m reminded of the decrees of the 7th ecumenical council, which were translated into Latin soo poorly that they read that Christians are to worship icons as they would God, which is the opposite of what they really said! So I would have to see some very clear evidence that the aforementioned pope understood what Theodore actually taught and that he agreed with it before condemning him of heresy. It seems that he was anathematized for his defense, not his beliefs.

The real reason behind the claim of heresy is to undermind the dogma of papal infallibility, but I doubt this is relevant to that argument for several reasons. One, again it isn’t at all clear that Pope Vigilius held any heretical beliefs. Two, it only states that in certain very limited situations the pope, speaking on behalf of the Church as its spokesman, is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching heresy, not that his personal beliefs would always be so protected. I don’t believe that any decrees of his on this matter would fit that narrow definition. Three, it does not say that popes will always react to situations perfectly. They are as liable to misunderstand fail to react properly as the rest of us. Further, I’m personally impressed that in the era of the ecumenical councils when numerous patriarchs were heretics (particularly in Constantinople), only two possible popes could be accused of heresy, Honorius and Vigilius, and there is no clear evidence of heresy on their parts, only of defending heretical works based on misunderstanding. This speaks quite loudly to the orthodox of the Roman See in contrast to other churches.

 

[Cavaradossi]

So you are admitting that the Fifth Ecumenical Council anathemized the Fourth Ecumenical Council? Read the Anathema more carefully, and let’s discuss.

Blessings,
Marduk

Not at all, the anathema, which I will provide again below, only anathematizes the writings and the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, some writings of Theodoret, the letter of Ibas to Maris and all those who would defend their writings. The anathema does not overturn Theodoret and Ibas’ reconciliation with Church effected by the Council of Chalcedon because it does not condemn them in person, instead it condemns some of their writings of questionable Orthodoxy, nor does it anathematize the Fathers at Chalcedon, because they did not defend the Three Chapters.

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.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

Not at all, the anathema, which I will provide again below, only anathematizes the writings and the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, some writings of Theodoret, the letter of Ibas to Maris and all those who would defend their writings. The anathema does not overturn Theodoret and Ibas’ reconciliation with Church effected by the Council of Chalcedon because it does not condemn them in person, instead it condemns some of their writings of questionable Orthodoxy, nor does it anathematize the Fathers at Chalcedon, because they did not defend the Three Chapters.

There are several points I would like to cover here. Everything I had written prior to this was off of memory. After due investigation, here is my response:

The most important point, of course, is the question of whether or not Pope Vigilius had submitted to the Nestorian heresy, which is the focus of the Anathema. To determine this, consider these facts:
(a) It is a fact that Theodore was explictly mentioned by name at the Council of Chalcedon, but did not receive any censure. It is also a fact that both Theodoret and Ibas were accepted into the Catholic communion after rejecting their errors. However, their writings, which were before the Fourth Ecum, did not receive any censure.
(b) For these reasons, it was the general view of the entire Church, East, West, and Orient, before the events surrounding the Fifth Ecum, that the Fourth Ecum had investigated the writings of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, and exonerated both their writings and their persons.
(c) This was, moreover, perhaps the main argument the non-Chalcedonians proposed in their accusations of Nestorianism against the Chalcedonians.
(d) Pope Vigilius had issued a Judicatum in 548 condemning the Three Chapters.
(e) Thereafter, in response to the protests of many Latin bishops, he issues the Constitutum, which was a mitigated form of the Judicatum. In it, he admits that the letter of Ibas had the possibility of being understood in an orthodox sense. Nevertheless, in the very same Constitutum, he explicitly condemns everything that Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas were said to have written against the Faith.
(f) In the same Constitutum, on the matter of their persons, because the Fourth Ecum had explicitly mentioned Theodore by name without censure, and in fact received Theodoret and Ibas back into communion, Pope Vigilius asserted that their persons should be spared from anathema.
(g) The Sentence of the Synod actually metions Pope Vigilius by name in these words, “When, therefore, we saw that the followers of Nestorius were attempting to introduce their impiety into the chruch of God through the impious Theodore, who was bishops of Mopsuestia, and through his impious writings, and moreoever through those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and through the wicked epistle which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, moved by all these sights we rose up for the correction of what was going on, and assembled in this royal city called thither by the will of God and the bidding of the most religious Emperor. And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in this royal City was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters, that a suitable definition of the right fiath might be set for by us all.”

The Fathers of what came to be known as the Fifth Ecum had every opportunity to condemn Pope Vigilius by name in the anathema of the Sentence. Far from it, they appealed to him as a doctrinal authority in favor of their Sentence. They could not in good conscience anathemize him because they knew and admitted in the Sentence itself that he was thoroughly orthodox in the Faith (despite his ambivalence to dogmatically confirm the condemnation of the Three Chapters). At best, this was an issue of the formal condemnation of the person of Theodore, who the Fourth Ecum had explicitly mentioned by name without censure, and the possibility of informally condemning the persons of Theodoret and Ibas, who had been explicitly exonerated by the Fourth Ecum.

According to the Sentence, the Anathema fell on those who defended the person of Theodore AND the Nestorian heresy - it does not say those who defended the person of Theodore OR defended the Nestorian heresy. According to the literal words of the Anathema, someone who merely defended the person of Theodore would not fall under the Anathema. At best, the Fathers may have taken Pope Vigilius’ name off the dyptichs. But I ask you once again, where and when did the Fifth Ecum anathematize Pope Vigilius?

I would also ask you a second question: Given the facts stated above, what proof can you offer us that Pope Vigilius had given in to the Nestorian heresy (thus falling under the Anathema)?

Btw, I was in error for assuming the issue was the condemnation of the person of not only Theodore, but also of Theodoret and Ibas. That’s what I get for trying to work off of my memory alone. Without a proper brush-up, my comment was influenced by the general Oriental Orthodox outlook that made the exoneration of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas a point of contention between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians.

Blessings,
Marduk