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

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

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.

I don’t think anyone said that Pope Vigilius had submitted to the Nestorian heresy, but only that he was Anathematized because of this support for the three chapters, and especially the letter of Ibas, in which his opinion concerning the Three Chapter was not Orthodox.

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.

We have a record that Theodore was as you mentioned above, IOW he had somehow escaped the sentence of the Council some suggest because he was already dead.

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.

They were received after they condemned Nestorius and his teaching and they accepted the Orthodox Teaching of the 4th Council, in which was the opposite of what they had taught in their Letters, as For Ibas’s letter which Pope Vigilius defended, and after examination of the matter by the Fathers of the Fifth E.C. they found that it was not approved by the 4th E.C.

" "The three chapters were the point in question…For great as was the dignity of those holy men who wrote the letters recited, yet they did not approve their letters simply or without inquiry, nor without taking cognizance that they were in all things agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers, with which they were compared.” But the Acts proved that this course was not pursued in the case of the letter of Ibas; they inferred, therefore, most justly, that that letter had not been approved.. "

And this is why Pope Vigilius was Anathematized. read The Capitula of that Council.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. V., col. 568.)

(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.

When you read the Acts of the Fifth E.C. you will find out that the opinion on this matter was not the general view at all.

(c) This was, moreover, perhaps the main argument the non-Chalcedonians proposed in their accusations of Nestorianism against the Chalcedonians.[/quotye]

Perhaps, I would think that it was mostly because they condemned Pope Dioscoros, when his letter basically didn’t really say anything different than that of Pope Leo’s Tome.

quote Pope Vigilius had issued a Judicatum

in 548 condemning the Three Chapters.

Very well.

(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.

1. I say it was quit different otherwise the Council and the Emperor would not have acted towards him the way they did.
2. actually he said that it was blameless: **" Concerning the letter of Ibas, he published the following, that, “understood in the best and most pious sense,” it was blameless; " **
   nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Second-Council-of-Constantinople

continued
[/quote]

 

[Ignatios]

(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.

He was in error in the matter of the person of Theodore and the letter of Ibas.

(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 above is about Vigilius when he met with them prior to the Council for it is clear the we refused to attend the Council, that was just an account about the things that it happen during this whole issue.

I am sure that you read the one that it proceeded this:**"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.308308 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"** [The Sentence of the Synod.](From the Acts. Collation VIII., L. and C., Conc., Tom. V., col. 562.)

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.

Mardukm, you are confused again go back and read carefully this time, you find out that you are wrong too.

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)?

To all the above Mardukm, go and read the following and again you will see that you are in error again, I know I will be asking too much if I asked you for another retraction:
The Capitula of the Council.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. V., col. 568.)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.vii.html

XII.​

XIII.​

XIV.​

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

I never thought that such a thing would come out of you, I admire you for your humility that you showed through your retraction, sincerely, :tiphat:

GOD bless you all †††

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

He was in error in the matter of the person of Theodore and the letter of Ibas.

But he was not guilty of Nestorianism. And that is your error. Are you willing to retract it? On the matter of the letter of Ibas, he had already affirmed in his Constitutum that everything that was contrary to the Faith in that letter must be condemned (a fact to which you have conveniently failed to respond). He merely stated that it had the possibility of being interpreted in an orthodox manner, not that it was actually orthodox.

The above is about Vigilius when he met with them prior to the Council for it is clear the we refused to attend the Council, that was just an account about the things that it happen during this whole issue.

So why did they not mention him by name as a supporter of the Three Chapters later on?

I am sure that you read the one that it proceeded this:"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.308308

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"

This, of course, refers to Pope Vigilius.

No it doesn’t. It is a general statement that the Council itself must not neglect its duty. If you take it to mean anything beyond that, then it must necessarily be a condemnation not only of Pope Vigilius, but also of the Fourth Ecum, since the Fourth Ecum had those letters before them, and had the opportunity to try Theodore. Are you willing to do this, or rather, are you willing to retract your inconsistency?

Mardukm, you are confused again go back and read carefully this time, you find out that you are wrong too.

To all the above Mardukm, go and read the following and again you will see that you are in error again, I know I will be asking too much if I asked you for another retraction:

Nah. You are applying a misinterpretation, while conveniently refusing to admit that your misinterpretation would be taken as a condemnation of the Fourth Ecumenical Council itself. There is no Truth inspiring your comments, but only an unworthy prejudice against the Papacy.

I never thought that such a thing would come out of you, I admire you for your humility that you showed through your retraction, sincerely, :tiphat:

Sure. It doesn’t mitigate your inconsistencies however. So I hope you are yourself willing to retract your inconsistent misinterpretations.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

I don’t think anyone said that Pope Vigilius had submitted to the Nestorian heresy, but only that he was Anathematized because of this support for the three chapters, and especially the letter of Ibas, in which his opinion concerning the Three Chapter was not Orthodox.

You and brother Cavaradossi both said he was THEOLOGICALLY in error. What other theological matter was being adderssed by the Fifth other than Nestorianism? If you say he was in theological error in the context of the Fifth Ecum, then you are accusing him of adhering to Nestorianism.

We have a record that Theodore was as you mentioned above, IOW he had somehow escaped the sentence of the Council some suggest because he was already dead.

And this was the same reason proposed by Vigilius. As I stated previously, any defense you can imagine for the 4th Ecum automatically redounds to Vigilius. You cannot keep impugning Pope Vigilius without impugning the 4th Ecum, which is why your position is inconsistent.

" "The three chapters were the point in question…For great as was the dignity of those holy men who wrote the letters recited, yet they did not approve their letters simply or without inquiry, nor without taking cognizance that they were in all things agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers, with which they were compared.” But the Acts proved that this course was not pursued in the case of the letter of Ibas; they inferred, therefore, most justly, that that letter had not been approved…

"

And this is why Pope Vigilius was Anathematized. read The Capitula of that Council.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. V., col. 568.)
OK. So at least you are now being consistent. The statement you quote above is referring specifically to the Fathers of the Fourth Ecum. You are saying that this was the reason that Pope Vigilius was anathematized. Conclusively, you are affirming that the Fifth Ecum anathematized the Fathers of the Fourth Ecum for neglecting their duty.

Of course, I believe you are misinterpreting the whole thing due to an unrighteous prejudice against the papacy.

When you read the Acts of the Fifth E.C. you will find out that the opinion on this matter was not the general view at all.

Then you are ignorant of what went on before the Council. There was much opposition from both the Eastern and Western bishops to the condemnation of the Three Chapters prior to the Council (e.g., even the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria affirmed to the Bishop of Rome prior to the Council that he was forced to sign the condemnation of the Three Chapters).

quote This was, moreover, perhaps the main argument the non-Chalcedonians proposed in their accusations of Nestorianism against the Chalcedonians.

Perhaps, I would think that it was mostly because they condemned Pope Dioscoros, when his letter basically didn’t really say anything different than that of Pope Leo’s Tome.
[/quote]

No. The general Oriental Orthodox position is that the condemnation of Pope St. Dioscorus had a mainly political motive, and was not theological. But one of the main proofs for apparent theological aberration on the part of the Chalcedonians on the minds of the non-Chalcedonians at that time was indeed the exoneration of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas, as well as a lack of condemnation of their writings (as well as that of Theodore), which the Fathers of the Fourth Ecum had the opportunity to examine, yet did not condemn.

1. I say it was quit different otherwise the Council and the Emperor would not have acted towards him the way they did.

He did not want to confirm (officially) the condemnation of the Three Chapters, due to pressure from numerous Latin bishops. That would have been sufficient for the way they acted towards him. But you have no proof that Pope Vigilius was treated in that way because he gave in to the heresy of Nestorianism. Think about it. Though you seem to be an advocate of the Low Petrine view which I oppose, both the High Petrine and Low Petrine positions admit that a Pope in heresy is no Pope at all. If the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum actually believed the Pope to be a heretic, why did they bother to throw him in prison in the hope of goading him for his confirmation? In fact, the Acts of the Council show that they pleaded with Pope Vigilius for his confirmation. Why would they do this if they believed he was a heretic? Face reality, brother. Divest yourself of your unhealthy prejudice against the papacy. Pope Vigilius never gave in to the Nestorian heresy and thus never fell under the Anathema of the Fifth Ecum.

1. actually he said that it was blameless: **" Concerning the letter of Ibas, he published the following, that, “understood in the best and most pious sense,” it was blameless; " **

This is very disappointing. You have the quote before you, but you only focus on a little snippet to support your opinion. The fact is, the Pope did not say “it was blameless” without qualification. He said it was “blameless” ONLY if “understood in the best and most pious sense.” As I have repeatedly stated, the Pope did not say the letter was orthodox - only that it had the possibility of being understood that way.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I did not notice this previous post of yours before I wrote my prior response. I did not know you had actually attempted to address what the Constitutum had to say. Forgive me for stating you had not addressed it.

 

[Fidi]

How about you tell me this. How did the Catholic Church, in good conscience, take advantage of the militarily weak East in trying to make it conform to every single one of its dogmata in exchange for military support? Or how about how Pope Eugene IV convened Florence because there was an opposing council attempting to depose him, and he saw union with the Greeks as essentially a way to hedge his bets against the Magisterium? How about you tell me why if the Latins considered the union to be enacted and binding that they did not send any military support to their newly reunited Christian brethren, instead allowing them to be overrun by Muslims? Is that what union with the Roman Catholic Church looks like, first she takes advantage of politically disadvantaged Churches, forces them to accept her heterodox dogmata and then throws them under the bus after a union is signed? Perhaps allowing for the explanation that the council was repudiated makes the RCC looks much better in the history books, doesn’t it?

Oh, and as for your claims that the Sultan installed an anti-unionist patriarch, that’s only a half-truth. The unionist Patriarch Gregory III was deposed in 1450 in favor of the anti-unionist Patriarch Athanasius II, three years before the fall of Constantinople. Athanasius II died in 1453, Gennadios Scholarios was enthroned in 1454 after the fall of Constantinople. So what was that about the Sultan deposing the rightful unionist Patriarch? It was his own Byzantine people who did that.

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Ignatios,

But he was not guilty of Nestorianism.

For the humpteen times we never said he was !!!

And that is your error.

You are pretending that I said so, so you can have something to refute me with.
Mardukm, you are so desperate to win a debate to a point that you are now pretending that someone said something wrong so you can refute him, I would have been in error if I said so.

Are you willing to retract it?

loooool, you have to prove that I said so first my dear friend.

On the matter of the letter of Ibas, he had already affirmed in his Constitutum that everything that was contrary to the Faith in that letter must be condemned (a fact to which you have conveniently failed to respond). He merely stated that it had the possibility of being interpreted in an orthodox manner, not that it was actually orthodox.(emphasis mine=Ignatios)

First you keep drifting with your positions, you say one thing and then, you restate it by switching the words around in a way that it would be closer, well Mardukm, you are not there yet with your words switching around game, you still have a long way to go before you state it right if you keep going at the same pace, as you have state it above you still in contradiction of what had been recorded in History here it is again( sheesh I keep re-posting things for you over and you just totally pretend that it wasn’t there) :

" While the Council is sitting at Constantinople he publishes his “Constitutum,” in which he condemns certain propositions of Theodore, but spares his person; the same respecting Theodoret; but with respect to Ibas, he declares that his letter was pronounced orthodox by the Council of Chalcedon"
Mrdukm, So accroding to the history wich is a “Recorded facts” you are balnatly and straight out WRONG, because again history states that he did say it was Orthodox and that it was blaemless.

You are in a denial stage after a shock because you got it fixed in your head that the Pope just CANNOT be wrong. which is according to your terminology it is an “absolutist” but you are against this so now you have a conflict in your head.

continued

 

[Ignatios]

continue from previous post:

So why did they not mention him by name as a supporter of the Three Chapters later on?

One can only conclude that maybe they wanted to leave a come back way for him to reconsider their advice.
Let me ask you this how come his name was not among the fathers of the 5th E.C. AND why his name was struck from the diptych and that was so in the seventh session and why was the anathema against those who supported the letter of Ibas actually we read from the Council that one of the reason why Pope Vigillius name got struck from the diptych is that he supported the letter of Ibas and said that it was correct or blameless:

**" 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. …

[The letter was then read.]

The holy Synod said: What has seemed good to the most pious Emperor is congruous to the labours which he bears for the unity of the churches. Let us preserve unity to (ad) the Apostolic See of the most holy Church of ancient Rome, carrying out all things according to the tenor of what has been read. De proposita vero quæstione quod jam promisimus procedat.

Notes.

Hefele understands that the Council heard and approved this letter of the Emperor’s, but that the “Emperor did not mean entirely to break off communion with the Apostolic see, neither did he wish the Synod to do so” (Hist. Councils, Vol. IV., p. 326), as indeed he says in his letter.

The Ballerini consider this letter of the Emperor’s to be spurious, but (says Hefele) “on insufficient grounds” (l. c., p. 326, note 3). The expressions used by the Emperor may not unnaturally be somewhat startling to those holding the theological position of the Ballerini: “We will not endure to receive the spotless communion from him nor from any one else who does not condemn this impiety…lest we be found thus communicating with the impiety of Nestorius and Theodore.” It is noteworthy that the Fifth Ecumenical Council should strike the name of the reigning Pope from the diptychs as a father of heresy; and that the Sixth Ecumenical Synod should anathematize another Pope as a heretic!"** [Extracts from the Acts.Session VII.]

Thus was the decree of the 5th E.C., That was not me Mardukm nor was it my interpretation it was a RECORDED HISTORY, I mean why would they strike the name of Pope Vigilius from the diptych? because he didn’t eat his cereal maybe?

you must understand that Pope Vigilius kept switching his position back and forth in the matter of the Three Chapter in which the Three Chapter is a faith issue, otherwise why would they anathematize him.

you keep trying to give the impression that everything was fine and dandy with Pope Vigilius and the Council needed him BECAUSE of his right view concerning the matter of Three Chapter which is a matter that it relates to faith, Now if it was as you stated than there is no problem to be mentioned, otherwise why is it that all historians RCs, Orthodox both Eastern and Orientals and protestants, ALL say that he was wrong and he had to consider the advice of the 5th E.C. in which he did and he was reconciled back to the unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of GOD and the fact that he did come back to this unity and lined himself correctly with the decision of the 5th E.C. that it was set forth by the Holy Orthodox Fathers, that many of the Western Sees excommunicated him and some did not accept the Church of Rome back in communion for almost 2 centuries, NOW WHY is that I ask you or better off ask yourlsef this question.

No it doesn’t. It is a general statement that the Council itself must not neglect its duty.

Your problem here is that it wasn’t me who said this sentence** (This, of course, refers to Pope Vigilius)** it was a Scholar, respectful one too in which he cited it from the Catholic Encyclopedia in the same way, so it is you against all the scholars and theologians and history, I mean for one to stand and say no to such well known and universally agreed on a matter, one has to have a serious problem with fallacy.

If you take it to mean anything beyond that, then it must necessarily be a condemnation not only of Pope Vigilius, but also of the Fourth Ecum, since the Fourth Ecum had those letters before them, and had the opportunity to try Theodore. Are you willing to do this, or rather, are you willing to retract your inconsistency?

Actually it is not my idea, as it is obvious that you have not noticed yet that in such matters I don’t interact with the text I am not willing to do it simply because it is not what I stated nor it is what that I believe what you are trying to imply or to setup a strawman, it won’t work Marduk.

And we have explained to you before many time myself and brother cavaradosi? that it is not so as you stated it the 4th Orthodoxy was not touched, besides the 5th completed the work of the 4thn just as every other E.C. before such as the 2nd E.C. completed the work of the 1st E.C. concerning the Holy Spirit, I think you are waaaaaaaay of base on this one.

continue

 

[Ignatios]

continued from previous post:

Nah. You are applying a misinterpretation, while conveniently refusing to admit that your misinterpretation would be taken as a condemnation of the Fourth Ecumenical Council itself. There is no Truth inspiring your comments, but only an unworthy prejudice against the Papacy.

Againg your problem that I didn’t interpret anything, I have been giving citation of recorded facts by a great scholars and theologians and historians from all sides in which all of them disagree with your interpretations simply because your interpretation is just plain fallacy in which it draws from an extreme blind prejudice against those who disagree with the Papacy on certain issues, namely the Orthodox.

Sure. It doesn’t mitigate your inconsistencies however. So I hope you are yourself willing to retract your inconsistent misinterpretations.

Blessings,
Marduk

you must prove it first dear Mardukm, for I can’t retract from something that it didn’t take place .

Please accept my apology for not being able to reply to the rest of your responds now, the rest would have to wait for till tomorrow or so if GOD is willing
GOD bless you all †††

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Ignatios,

You and brother Cavaradossi both said he was THEOLOGICALLY in error. What other theological matter was being adderssed by the Fifth other than Nestorianism? If you say he was in theological error in the context of the Fifth Ecum, then you are accusing him of adhering to Nestorianism.

Mardukm, your redundant accusation lacks the facts, The most that I said concerning this it would be that Pope Vigilius was wrong in his view/judgement concerning the Three Chapter which is a faith related, this is far from being theologically in error.

And this was the same reason proposed by Vigilius. As I stated previously, any defense you can imagine for the 4th Ecum automatically redounds to Vigilius. You cannot keep impugning Pope Vigilius without impugning the 4th Ecum, which is why your position is inconsistent.

Sorry Mardukm it is your position that is inconsistent on the ground that Pope Vigilius assumed and was wrong in assessing what had happened in the 4th E.C. as we see from the examination of this particular matter by the 5th E.C. and also that the Fathers of the 5th also provided that death is no reason for one not to be declared heretic and contrary to the faith and to be anathemtized,:
"and since after all these things the defenders of his impiety, glorying in the injuries uttered by him against his Creator, said that it was not right to anathematize him after death, although we knew the ecclesiastical tradition concerning the impious, that even after death, heretics are anathematized; nevertheless we thought it necessary concerning this also to make examination, and there were found in the acts how divers heretics had been anathematized after death; and in many ways it was manifest to us that those who were saying this cared nothing for the judgment of God, nor for the Apostolic announcements, nor for the tradition of the Fathers." [The Sentence of the Synod.(From the Acts. Collation VIII., L. and C., Conc., Tom. V., col. 562.)]

He was also wrong by not aligning himself with the Fathers of the 5th E.C. in concerning their Orthodox view and action of this matter UNTIL 6 months aftewards and as Brother Cavaradossi explained to you previously that the Orthodoxy of the 4th E.C. was not touched because the 5th anathematized the person of theodore and his his writings along with Theodoret’ and Ibas’s writings, in which the 4th did not issue any judgement, and here where your problem is , you are assuming if they didn’t issue a judgement on this matter you are assuming that it was okay, but it is not, is it me who is saying this? NO, it is the judgement of the 5th E.C., Now as I asked you before are you willing right now and here to denounce the judgement of the 5th E.C. concerning this? if you say No then the debate has ended, and if you YES, then you excommunicate yourself from your RCC simply because the RCC accepted those Council and abide by them, I think your argument had reached the end right here.

on the minds of the non-Chalcedonians at that time was indeed the exoneration of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas, as well as a lack of condemnation of their writings (as well as that of Theodore), which the Fathers of the Fourth Ecum had the opportunity to examine, yet did not condemn.

Mardukm says The Fathers of the 4th E.C.did not condemn

The Fathers of the 5th E.C. says that the Fathers of the 4th E.C. DID NOT APPROVE:

"Then the holy Council declared: “It is plain, from what has been recited, in what manner the holy Councils are wont to approve what is brought before them. For great as was the dignity of those holy men who wrote the letters recited, yet they did not approve their letters simply or without inquiry, nor without taking cognizance that they were in all things agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers, with which they were compared.” But the Acts proved that this course was not pursued in the case of the letter of Ibas; they inferred, therefore, most justly, that that letter had not been approved. " [Bossuet, Def. Cleri Gall., Lib. vii., cap. xix. Abridged. Translation by Allies.]

hhhmmmm who’s saying should I consider ? Mardukm or the Fathers of the 5th E.C.?

He did not want to confirm (officially) the condemnation of the Three Chapters, due to pressure from numerous Latin bishops. That would have been sufficient for the way they acted towards him.

Okay I understand his reason, but shouldn’t he acted differently despite all this, being the Pope and all the lofty titles and attribute and characteristic that goes along with his office, but we the Orthodox understand he is a man and a man can err or get persuaded under certain circumstances even in a matter so important to the faith and the teaching of the Holy Church of GOD such as the Three Chapters.

continued

 

[Ignatios]

But you have no proof that Pope Vigilius was treated in that way because he gave in to the heresy of Nestorianism.Think about it.

If I was relying on my interpretation then I would have to think about it but I rely on the information that I get, and I didn’t see any credible source anywhere where he was referred to as he had been given in to the Nestorianism heresy, so therefore I couldn’t say that he was nor did I say that he was it is only your wishful thought getting in the way again.

Though you seem to be an advocate of the Low Petrine view which I oppose, both the High Petrine and Low Petrine positions admit that a Pope in heresy is no Pope at all.

Low Petrine view…No, I submit to Peter in whom it happened to be his grace Bishop Nikon and when I go to Lebanon I submit to the Metropolitan of Beirut who occupy the Chair of Peter in that Apostolic City, just as the Apostolic Canon say.
Besides your statement above says that the Pope can err in the matter of faith…

If the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum actually believed the Pope to be a heretic, why did they bother to throw him in prison in the hope of goading him for his confirmation?

I don’t know if they brand him as such, but I know that they anathematized him on backing off from what he had said in the very beginning and then he lacked to give his opinion on the matter since it was very important for all the Pentarchy to be present or by person or legates or an epistle so the teaching would be universal but on the contrary he declined and he claimed that Ibas’s letter to be orthodox and not to anathematise the person of theodore.

In fact, the Acts of the Council show that they pleaded with Pope Vigilius for his confirmation.

looool his confirmation is just like every other Patriarchate is necessary for the teaching to be universal, so his Orthodox opinion is very important to the Council especially since he covers the great deal of the Western Church at that time and the only Patriarchate in that region.

Why would they do this if they believed he was a heretic?

Actually they shouldn’t have to do this if he had done his duty as he is ought to, especially being the first among the bishop of all the pentarchy, but he lacked and at some point it was mentioned exactly that.

Face reality, brother. Divest yourself of your unhealthy prejudice against the papacy.

If giving in to all the innovation that the Papacy been collecting through the centuries and that it is alien to the Tradition of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of GOD is a prejudice, then, let the whole world know that I am the worst prejudice can history record.
But as for me I don’t hate the Papacy I hate the excessive that is destroying that venerable See especially after one read the history of how Orthodox that Church used to be, actually it is hurt not hate that I have within me concerning the the Church of Rome.

Pope Vigilius never gave in to the Nestorian heresy and thus never fell under the Anathema of the Fifth Ecum.

I think I’ve said enough concerning this.

This is very disappointing. You have the quote before you, but you only focus on a little snippet to support your opinion. The fact is, the Pope did not say “it was blameless” without qualification. He said it was “blameless” ONLY if “understood in the best and most pious sense.” As I have repeatedly stated, the Pope did not say the letter was orthodox - only that it had the possibility of being understood that way.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I did not notice this previous post of yours before I wrote my prior response. I did not know you had actually attempted to address what the Constitutum had to say. Forgive me for stating you had not addressed it.

It is sad that you see only the things that you wanna see after you distort them, the questionis 1) did he see it blameless or not? yes he did. 2) where did he say IF I don’t sse it on my text nor on the recorded history’text…:tsktsk: nice try, I think you are all done.

GOD bless you all†††

 

[mardukm]

For the humpteen times we never said he was !!!

For the umpteenth time, then why do you accuse him of theological error when the only theological matter addressed by the Three Chapters was Nestorianism?

You are pretending that I said so, so you can have something to refute me with.
Mardukm, you are so desperate to win a debate to a point that you are now pretending that someone said something wrong so you can refute him, I would have been in error if I said so.

I’m not pretending. You are just being illogical. That can happen when your mind is not inspired by Truth, but rather but by blind prejudice (in this instance, against the papacy).

First you keep drifting with your positions, you say one thing and then, you restate it by switching the words around in a way that it would be closer, well Mardukm, you are not there yet with your words switching around game,

Oh, you mean like when you claim he was in theological error on a matter related to Nestorianism, then simultaneously claim that you did not accuse him of Nestorianism? You are very proficient in sophistry, brother.

**" While the Council is sitting at Constantinople he publishes his “Constitutum,” **in which he condemns certain propositions of Theodore, but spares his person; the same respecting Theodoret; but with respect to Ibas, he declares that his letter was pronounced orthodox by the Council of Chalcedon"
Mrdukm, So accroding to the history wich is a “Recorded facts” you are balnatly and straight out WRONG, because again history states that he did say it was Orthodox and that it was blaemless.

You are seriously blinded by prejudice, sir. Your “recorded facts” state merely that he claimed that the FOURTH ECUM pronounced it orthodox. There is no record anywhere that he himself said it was in fact orthodox. In fact, we have record that affirms Pope Vigilius condemned everything in the Three Chapters that was contrary to the Faith of the Church (a fact that you have not sufficiently addressed).

You are in a denial stage after a shock because you got it fixed in your head that the Pope just CANNOT be wrong.

Really? Can you point out any time I ever claimed that a Pope can never be in error? The only denial going on here is your own denial that you were wrong for stating that the Pope was in error theologically. You are obviously ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches about the papacy (as usual). “Papal infallibility” is not an active principle during an Ecumenical Council. As the old Catholic Encyclopedia affirms: “An infallible organ may be constituted by the head and members of a corporate body acting jointly although neither taken separately is infallible.”

One can only conclude that maybe they wanted to leave a come back way for him to reconsider their advice.

That’s a silly reason. The Church can lift an anathema from a person. Naming him in the anathema would have been more effective for that purpose. I guess the Fifth were being negligent.

Let me ask you this how come his name was not among the fathers of the 5th E.C.

Really. That’s strange. He confirmed the Council. How could his name not be on the records? You do understand that his letter of confirmation is PART of the Council records, right?

AND why his name was struck from the diptych

We discussed this before. At that time you had claimed that striking a person’s name from the diptychs was the same thing as an anathema. I asked you to give me proof. All you did was give the definitino of an anathema from orthodoxinfo, but it didn’t mention anything about striking a person’s name from the diptychs. When I pointed this out to you, instead of admitting your error, you simply never responded. You appear to be a very prideful person that cannot admit error.

and that was so in the seventh session and why was the anathema against those who supported the letter of Ibas actually we read from the Council that one of the reason why Pope Vigillius name got struck from the diptych is that he supported the letter of Ibas and said that it was correct or blameless

It is noteworthy that the Fifth Ecumenical Council should strike the name of the reigning Pope from the diptychs as a father of heresy; and that the Sixth Ecumenical Synod should anathematize another Pope as a heretic!"

Thus was the decree of the 5th E.C., That was not me Mardukm nor was it my interpretation it was a RECORDED HISTORY, I mean why would they strike the name of Pope Vigilius from the diptych? because he didn’t eat his cereal maybe?

I guess you didn’t eat your cereal this morning because your logic is running on low energy. The “historical record” does not accuse him of heresy. The Emperor wanted his name struck from the diptychs for some vague “impiety” that is not explicitly defined or explained. The “impiety” was obviously in regards to the 3 chapters, but was it because he gave in to Nestorianism (or, according to you and brother Cavaradossi, “theological error” ), or simply because he would not condemn the person of Theodore and the Letter of Ibas, which it was popularly believed the 4th Ecum had judged and exonerated.

Btw, the portion of your quote I retained above (in red), in case you did not know, is not part of the “historical record.” It is the interpretation provided by the NPNF commentator.

CONTINUED

 

[Ignatios]

For the umpteenth time, then why do you accuse him of theological error when the only theological matter addressed by the Three Chapters was Nestorianism?

However much you try to connect what I said to what you are trying to attach to my mouth it will not work, it is called strawman, and you are very bad at it too, try again something else MAYBE you will succeed, that IF you think so.

Mardukm, your comprehension is either sub-zero or you are desperate to setup a strawman, knowing that this is your only way out of this insensibility of yours.

Pope Viglius was struck from the diptychs/accursed/anathemetized/excommunicated because he had sided with the Letter of Ibas in which it was faith related issue, to say that he was theologically in error then he would have to have somehow interpret some theological issue falsely which he did not do but he said that the letter of Ibas was orthodox mistakenly when his reason for this was to save the authority of the 4th E.C. when he thought apparently that the same council had okayed it, in which he showed an ignorance of what he was defending in which it was a faith related issue in which the 5th E.C. had examined it and the finding was that the 4th did not approve this Letter of Ibas but on the contrary they all saw it to be heretical.

Now, on who’s side are you on the side of Pope Vigilius PRIOR to his retraction from his error, OR are you on the side of Pope Vigilius AFTER his submission to the Decree of the Holy Orthodox Fathers of the 5th E.C.?

So, Now to put an end for this and if you are truthful then by all means present your evidence, so far and after numerous posts you haven’t given not even once and evidence to give your fallacious wishful thought accusation some weight.

I’m not pretending. You are just being illogical. That can happen when your mind is not inspired by Truth, but rather but by blind prejudice (in this instance, against the papacy).

Mardukm, save my person from your comment and try to focus on the subject at hand, although I know that it is a hard task for you to do so but I figured I’ll ask anyhow.

Oh, you mean like when you claim he was in theological error on a matter related to Nestorianism, then simultaneously claim that you did not accuse him of Nestorianism? You are very proficient in sophistry, brother.

Nope, that is not what I mean, but as I explained to you repeatedly almost in every post, refer back to top of this post.

You are seriously blinded by prejudice, sir.

Please save us from your dullness sermons and the fiddling around talk.

… Your “recorded facts” state merely that he claimed that the FOURTH ECUM pronounced it orthodox.

EXACTLY, silly, and mistakenly did he thought so, so did you, and this is what you keep trying to defend him with, however, afterwards he retracted and admit his error, UNLIKE YOU MARDUKM.

There is no record anywhere that he himself said it was in fact orthodox.

:banghead: looooooooooooooooool, are you for real, well then you are calling the Fathers of teh 5th E.C. a liers, or at least you mistrust them … okay I think I know where you stand now. huh talking about blind prejudice.

In fact, we have record that affirms Pope Vigilius condemned everything in the Three Chapters that was contrary to the Faith of the Church (a fact that you have not sufficiently addressed).

I have done and gave forth evidence ( unlike you) from valid sources from both Orthodox and RCs AND Protestant… but apparently the only sufficient evidence for you whenever the name of a Pope is involved would be an evidence that is in your favor however much ridicules it is, well sir. that kind, I ran out of when I came back Home from Rome.

Really? Can you point out any time I ever claimed that a Pope can never be in error?

When he is speaking ex-cathedra.

The only denial going on here is your own denial that you were wrong for stating that the Pope was in error theologically.

proof?

You are obviously ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches about the papacy (as usual).

only in your version of RCatholicism

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

“Papal infallibility” is not an active principle during an Ecumenical Council.

Are you suggesting that ( may GOD forgive us from such saying for I say it to clarify and not that I believe in such things †††) the Lord Holy Spirit † IS not active at the E.C. to protect the Pope from error?

As the old Catholic Encyclopedia affirms: “An infallible organ may be constituted by the head and members of a corporate body acting jointly although neither taken separately is infallible.”

hhmmm … so the neither taken separately is infallible. includes the Pope , this I would like to see an answer for it.

That’s a silly reason. The Church can lift an anathema from a person. Naming him in the anathema would have been more effective for that purpose. I guess the Fifth were being negligent.

Well it surely seems that it worked what they did,got him to retract and rather quickly , all I can say thanks GOD that you weren’t there and convinced them otherwise.

Really. That’s strange. He confirmed the Council. How could his name not be on the records? You do understand that his letter of confirmation is PART of the Council records, right?

Yes he did, ONLY six month after the Council, thanks GOD for the wisdom of the Orthodox Fathers of that Council that they corrected him with an anathema.

We discussed this before. At that time you had claimed that striking a person’s name from the diptychs was the same thing as an anathema. I asked you to give me proof. All you did was give the definitino of an anathema from orthodoxinfo, but it didn’t mention anything about striking a person’s name from the diptychs. When I pointed this out to you, instead of admitting your error, you simply never responded. You appear to be a very prideful person that cannot admit error.

Your have a good trend in not seeing all the Orthodox matters, it presented to you, but you refused to see it just like in every post you write not only to me but just about to everybody. and they all say the same thing about you.

striking a person’s name from the diptychs is a result of an Anathema. IOW they anathematize/accurse him and…cut him off from the Communion of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of GOD. and that is what happened to Vigilius.

I guess you didn’t eat your cereal this morning because your logic is running on low energy.

Loooooooooool you are wrong again Mardukm, as usual. I did, and I ate plenty, but I wont bother asking you if you did or not simply because your case waaaaaaaay beyond eating cereal. lighten-up, jokin’wid ya, I thought it was funny.

The “historical record” does not accuse him of heresy.

I can’t say that it did named him as such, but it surely gave him all the characteristic of a heretic until he retracted.

The Emperor wanted his name struck from the diptychs for some vague “impiety” that is not explicitly defined or explained.

Actually they did if you read the Acts.

The “impiety” was obviously in regards to the 3 chapters, but was it because he gave in to Nestorianism (or, according to you and brother Cavaradossi, “theological error” ), or simply because he would not condemn the person of Theodore and the Letter of Ibas, which it was popularly believed the 4th Ecum had judged and exonerated.

the only source that it keep mentioning Nestorianism is you, I never said such a thing, if I did put forth you prove and stop the false accusation.

It is the second of your guessings, if you had read the Acts you wouldn’t be asking.

Btw, the portion of your quote I retained above (in red), in case you did not know, is not part of the “historical record.” It is the interpretation provided by the NPNF commentator.

CONTINUED

I know, but thanks for bringing this up, I put it up so you can see the extreme and the mild view of him, in which none suggest what you are trying to imply about Pope Vigilius.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED (sorry i was sidetracked and a bit late in submitting this continuation)

you must understand that Pope Vigilius kept switching his position back and forth in the matter of the Three Chapter in which the Three Chapter is a faith issue,

The Three Chapters had 2 concerns: (1) the condemnation of Nestorianism; (2) the condemnation of the person of Theodore. (1) is the faith issue. (2) is a disciplinary matter. Pope Vigilius is irreproachable as far as the issue of faith is concerned. It was (2) that he had the greatest problem with (as stated, in his Constitutum he had already condemned anything and everything in the Letter of Ibas that was contrary to the Faith, and he never retracted his statements from the Constitutum).

otherwise why would they anathematize him.

You haven’t demonstrated anywhere that he was anathematized. I don’t see anywhere in the Acts that says “Anathema to the heretic Vigilius!” Why are you trying to inject “facts” into history which aren’t there?

you keep trying to give the impression that everything was fine and dandy with Pope Vigilius and the Council needed him BECAUSE of his right view concerning the matter of Three Chapter which is a matter that it relates to faith, Now if it was as you stated than there is no problem to be mentioned, otherwise why is it that all historians RCs, Orthodox both Eastern and Orientals and protestants, ALL say that he was wrong and he had to consider the advice of the 5th E.C. in which he did and he was reconciled back to the unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of GOD and the fact that he did come back to this unity and lined himself correctly with the decision of the 5th E.C. that it was set forth by the Holy Orthodox Fathers, that many of the Western Sees excommunicated him and some did not accept the Church of Rome back in communion for almost 2 centuries, NOW WHY is that I ask you or better off ask yourlsef this question.

That’s a great load of nothing. I never claimed any of the things of which you attempt to accuse me. Straw man.

Your problem here is that it wasn’t me who said this sentence** (This, of course, refers to Pope Vigilius)** it was a Scholar, respectful one too in which he cited it from the Catholic Encyclopedia in the same way, so it is you against all the scholars and theologians and history, I mean for one to stand and say no to such well known and universally agreed on a matter, one has to have a serious problem with fallacy.

Can you please cite the specific place where the Catholic Encyclopedia claims that “*this, of course, refers to Pope Vigilius[/p]?” I know that the Protestant NPNF makes that assumption, but it doesn’t provide any explicit evidence for it – what do you expect from anti-papal Protestant “scholarship”? So, yes, I agree with you that I have a serious problem with fallacy – in this case, they are the fallacies of (1) “proving too much” (since any pretense that the 5th Ecum anathematized Pope Vigilius would automatically redound to the 4th Ecum) and (2) eisegesis (imposing a personal interpretation on the facts that is not actually explicitly supported by the facts). Your claim that it is “universally agreed” that Pope Vigilius was anathematized by the Fathers of the 5th Ecum (while simultaneously begging for his confirmation!!!) is utterly spurious.

And we have explained to you before many time myself and brother cavaradosi? that it is not so as you stated it the 4th Orthodoxy was not touched, besides the 5th completed the work of the 4thn just as every other E.C. before such as the 2nd E.C. completed the work of the 1st E.C. concerning the Holy Spirit, I think you are waaaaaaaay of base on this one.

This is true, just as it is true that the 5th Ecum never anathematized Pope Vigilius. But if you keep pretending that the 5th Ecum did anathematize Vigilius, I don’t know how you can simultaneously pretend that it did not anathematize the 4th Ecum. I suggest we just stay with the facts which are: (1) the 5th Ecum did not anathematize the 4th Ecum; and (2) the 5th Ecum did not anathematize Pope Vigilius.

Mardukm, your redundant accusation lacks the facts, The most that I said concerning this it would be that Pope Vigilius was wrong in his view

/judgement concerning the Three Chapter which is a faith related, this is far from being theologically in error.
Here’s what you wrote exactly:

Pope Vigilius at first was in error concerning a sound judgement in the matter of faith

You didn’t say that he was in error on a matter that was “faith related.” That statement I can accept because the Three chapters was a mixture of faith and disciplinary issues, and the Pope merely erred on the disciplinary portion of the Three Chapters. Instead, you specifically stated he was in error concerning a matter of faith - period.

And before this you wrote:

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.
You explicitly challenged the Catholic Encyclopedia’s statement that Pope Vigilius was “always doctrinally correct.” What more do we need? Will you retract your statements that I directly quoted from you? Or maybe you already did since you have slightly changed your original statement to pretend that you said nothing wrong? Kind of exposes your inability to admit error. So much for supposed humility.

CONTINUED*

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Sorry Mardukm it is your position that is inconsistent on the ground that Pope Vigilius assumed and was wrong in assessing what had happened in the 4th E.C. as we see from the examination of this particular matter by the 5th E.C. and also that the Fathers of the 5th also provided that death is no reason for one not to be declared heretic and contrary to the faith and to be anathemtized,:

As I stated at the start of our conversation, Pope Vigilius was in error regarding the condemnation of the person of Theodore (well, I stated it also involved the persons of Ibas and Theodoret, but my memory was off when I said that ). So where is this inconsistency of which you are accusing me? Rather, it seems we have an example of a person who doesn’t pay attention to the conversation, but only focuses on certain portions that help him pretend that he has won a losing argument.

He was also wrong by not aligning himself with the Fathers of the 5th E.C.

True, but both you and brother Cavaradossi are wrong that the Pope was in error theologically. At best, he failed to align himself with the disciplinary portion of the Three Chapters.

Mardukm says The Fathers of the 4th E.C.did not condemn

The Fathers of the 5th E.C. says that the Fathers of the 4th E.C. DID NOT APPROVE:

"Then the holy Council declared: “It is plain, from what has been recited, in what manner the holy Councils are wont to approve what is brought before them. For great as was the dignity of those holy men who wrote the letters recited, yet they did not approve their letters simply or without inquiry, nor without taking cognizance that they were in all things agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers, with which they were compared.” But the Acts proved that this course was not pursued in the case of the letter of Ibas; they inferred, therefore, most justly, that that letter had not been approved."

hhhmmmm who’s saying should I consider ? Mardukm or the Fathers of the 5th E.C.?

Perhaps you missed the most relevant part of your own quote. I highlighted it for you. The reason that the it was concluded that the 4th Ecum did not approve Ibas’ letter was because it did not follow its usual procedure of “* [not approving] letters simply or without inquiry, nor without taking cognizance that they were in all things agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers, with which they were compared.*.” Having been remiss in doing this, to say that the 4th Ecum “did not approve” is perfectly equivalent to saying that the 4th Ecum “did not condemn.”

Okay I understand his reason, but shouldn’t he acted differently despite all this, being the Pope and all the lofty titles and attribute and characteristic that goes along with his office, but we the Orthodox understand he is a man and a man can err or get persuaded under certain circumstances even in a matter so important to the faith and the teaching of the Holy Church of GOD such as the Three Chapters.

True to his office as the primary defender of Sacred Tradition, he was very cautious about acting in a way that would seem to throw the authority of the Fourth Ecum into question. Yes, he did err (which the High Petrine view has no problem admitting), but it was merely an error on the side of caution. He did not err theologically, as you and brother Cavaradossi have claimed (though you have changed your tune somewhat as the discussion progressed, for which I’m thankful, and Cavaradossi by his silence, I assume, no longer is of the opinion that Vigilius actually fell into heresy).

If I was relying on my interpretation then I would have to think about it but I rely on the information that I get, and I didn’t see any credible source anywhere where he was referred to as he had been given in to the Nestorianism heresy, so therefore I couldn’t say that he was nor did I say that he was it is only your wishful thought getting in the way again.

Yes, none of your sources can credibly claim nor demonstrate that Pope Vigilius was in theological error. So why did you claim otherwise in the earlier part of this thread? But I can see you have backed away from your original position. It may very well be that you were simply not expressing yourself very well in your earlier posts (that I quoted above), since English does not seem to be your first language. If that is the case, just say so.

Low Petrine view…No, I submit to Peter in whom it happened to be his grace Bishop Nikon and when I go to Lebanon I submit to the Metropolitan of Beirut who occupy the Chair of Peter in that Apostolic City, just as the Apostolic Canon say.

I don’t know what possible relevance this has for the conversation.

Besides your statement above says that the Pope can err in the matter of faith…

Sure. That you exhibit surprise only demonstrates your typical ignorance of the Catholic teaching on the papacy. The dogma of infallibility merely asserts that the Pope in his official capacity as successor of St. Peter’s primacy can never FORMALLY TEACH heresy as the PUBLIC Faith of the Church. It is theoretically possible that he is or can become a heretic. The Church’s dogma only asserts that God will protect the Church’s public teaching (i.e., doctrine).

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

I don’t know if they brand him as such, but I know that they anathematized him

You’ve offered no proof for this, except an interpretation of a Protestant source. Being struck from the diptychs is not equivalent to an anathema, and you are in error for insisting so. Bishops can be taken off diptychs as a form of discpline, not because they are anathematized. That he was never deposed is more telling that Pope Vigilius was never anathematized.

looool his confirmation is just like every other Patriarchate is necessary for the teaching to be universal, so his Orthodox opinion is very important to the Council especially since he covers the great deal of the Western Church at that time and the only Patriarchate in that region.

The problem with your argument is that Councils in the past always deposed even Patriarchs who were accused of heresy and anathematized (e.g., Nestorius, and Pope St. Dioscorus). So all your rationalizations are invalid. The onus is on you (and other anti-papal detractors of the papacy) to show why a Council would not depose someone who they supposedly (according to you, and other non-Catholics such as the authors of the NPNF series) anathematized, and – further – why a Council would beg for the confirmation of one who they supposedly (according to you and your non-Catholic sources) anathematized. The whole situation of the 5th Ecum breathes of the High Petrine reality of the early Church, and supports neither the Absolutist Petrine innovations of certain Catholics, nor the Low Petrine innovations of certain Eastern Orthodox.

Actually they shouldn’t have to do this if he had done his duty as he is ought to, especially being the first among the bishop of all the pentarchy, but he lacked and at some point it was mentioned exactly that.

Such “deep-pocket” accusations don’t advance your position. One could just as well say, “Well, if the 4th Ecum had done its duty and condemned Theodore and the Letters of Ibas and Theodoret in the first place, this whole event would never have happened.” As stated, any defense you can assign to the 4th Ecum automatically redounds to Pope Vigilius, and any criticism of Pope Vigilius you may offer can easily redound to the 4th Ecum. Please cease your inconsistent arguments.

If giving in to all the innovation that the Papacy been collecting through the centuries and that it is alien to the Tradition of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of GOD is a prejudice, then, let the whole world know that I am the worst prejudice can history record.
But as for me I don’t hate the Papacy I hate the excessive that is destroying that venerable See especially after one read the history of how Orthodox that Church used to be, actually it is hurt not hate that I have within me concerning the the Church of Rome.

Yes, the Absolutist Petrine innovations cannot be supported by Sacred Tradition. But neither can your Low Petrine innovations.

It is sad that you see only the things that you wanna see after you distort them, the questionis 1) did he see it blameless or not? yes he did. 2) where did he say IF I don’t sse it on my text nor on the recorded history’text…:tsktsk: nice try, I think you are all done.

I guess language and composition is not your strong suit. The clause “Understood in the best and most pious sense” is known as a subjunctive clause. Subjunctive clauses help define the primary clause, which is “it is blameless.” Subjunctive clauses are INHERENTLY conditional because they help define the primary clause. In other words, the “IF” word is not necessary to understand that subjunctive clauses place a condition on the primary clause. For example, in the sentence, “Going to the theatre today, I noticed that the sky was gray.” The phrase “going to the theatre today” is the subjunctive clause. It is inherently conditional even without the “IF” word. To put it another way, I would not have noticed the sky was gray IF I did not go to the theatre. I hope that helps you understand it better, and I also hope it helps you understand that your interpretation is wrong…

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatios]

CONTINUED (sorry i was sidetracked and a bit late in submitting this continuation)

That is okay, no need to apologize, we all do this all the time, thanks for replying.

The Three Chapters had 2 concerns: (1) the condemnation of Nestorianism; (2) the condemnation of the person of Theodore. (1) is the faith issue. (2) is a disciplinary matter. Pope Vigilius is irreproachable as far as the issue of faith is concerned.

You left out the Letter of Ibas and Theodoret, Pope Vigilius defended Ibas letter also, as I have proved before and as I will do so later in this post.
However, looking at it from the perspective that his business/duty/obligation as an overseer ( Bishop), he failed, on the ground that he didn’t block this heresy when it was censured, not only so but he defended the letter of Ibas ( at least ) which it was heretical, and in which it had to be rejected and declared as such in which he both failed to do so and he defended it instead, until after the Holy Orthodox Fathers of that Council pressed him to do so through Anathema and excommunication.

It was (2) that he had the greatest problem with (as stated, in his Constitutum he had already condemned anything and everything in the Letter of Ibas that was contrary to the Faith, and he never retracted his statements from the Constitutum).

1)Your problem is that the letter was heretical as was identified by the Holy orthodox fathers, 2)according to your statement above it seems like you are implying that he didn’t condemned the whole Letter.3)He codemened anything and everything at one point but then he kept going back an forth, that is why the Councils and the Emperor kept sending people to him to get him to attend the Council so he can give his word officially in the presence of the whole CHURCH and so they can receive it by the council but he was reluctant of doing so .4) in His confession to the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch of The Most Holy See of Constantinople he surely assured that he annulled all of his previous decree. So I a word you are wrong Mardukm.
Your insistence on attempting to make Pope Vigilius as having done nothing wrong and as if he was in no error concerning his judgment in the matter of faith issues, is in desperate need for the historical evidence to back it up in which you cannot provide without changing the history as recorded by the numerous great scholars, theologians and historians.
No one( no one credible i.e.) defended Pope Vigilius in this matter.

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

continued

You haven’t demonstrated anywhere that he was anathematized. I don’t see anywhere in the Acts that says “Anathema to the heretic Vigilius!” Why are you trying to inject “facts” into history which aren’t there?

OOOO okay, you are looking for specific words then,…looool is there any more words you would like to add so you can make the whole controversy non-existence…
If the Council anathematized the things Pope Vigilius was defending, he falls under Anathema.
Actually some the language that it was used in the Anathemas of the 5th council was made to force Pope Vigilius to come back from his error.
Today if Mardukm defend Pope Vigilius position prior to his retraction, such as tying Pope Vigilius’s defense to the 4th E.C., Mardukm would be Anathematized according to the 5th E.C. as I’m going to show down below later.

The Council Anathematized all those who defended the Letter of Ibas as being “Blameless” or “Orthodox” also they Anathematized all those who would not do the same as they did and follow their lead by condemning the three chapters along with all those who tries to defend the Person of Theodore and the heretical writings of Theodoret and the Letter of Ibas falsely on the ground that it would hurt the authority of the 4th E.C. AND or was accepted by the 4th E.C.
Pope Vigilius was guilty with all the above.

That’s a great load of nothing. I never claimed any of the things of which you attempt to accuse me. Straw man.

All one has to do is read your post to know your implication

Can you please cite the specific place where the Catholic Encyclopedia claims that “this, of course, refers to Pope Vigilius[/p]?” I know that the Protestant NPNF makes that assumption, but it doesn’t provide any explicit evidence for it – what do you expect from anti-papal Protestant “scholarship”? So, yes, I agree with you that I have a serious problem with fallacy – in this case, they are the fallacies of (1) “proving too much” (since any pretense that the 5th Ecum anathematized Pope Vigilius would automatically redound to the 4th Ecum) and (2) eisegesis (imposing a personal interpretation on the facts that is not actually explicitly supported by the facts). Your claim that it is “universally agreed” that Pope Vigilius was anathematized by the Fathers of the 5th Ecum (while simultaneously begging for his confirmation!!!) is utterly spurious.
Maybe you should ask Vico, forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8188665&postcount=41
You are wrong as usual, open your eyes and stop being prejudice, another Catholic site recorded the same thing: fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp so it is not Protestant assumption, it is a historical record that it doesn’t agree with your wishful thoughts, the Protestant Scholar in this case was only publishing what was found in some Library in France so did the Fordham (Catholic) site.
So now, since they are not what you describe them to be as “ they are the fallacies of proving too much” as you have stated above, that would leave one thing, that you remain the fallacious one here.
“begging” loooool you making it sound like they were kissing his hands and feet, hardly, they advised him and finally forced him (not physically) through anathema in a way that if he doesn’t align himself with the Orthodox Fathers he would be under the Anathema and his name will be struck from Diptychs ( excommunication), and he was until he retracted after the council had issued the Anathemas and was finished, and through Pope Vigilius’s letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople he was restored back to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of GOD.

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

continued

This is true, just as it is true that the 5th Ecum never anathematized Pope Vigilius. But if you keep pretending that the 5th Ecum did anathematize Vigilius, I don’t know how you can simultaneously pretend that it did not anathematize the 4th Ecum. I suggest we just stay with the facts which are: (1) the 5th Ecum did not anathematize the 4th Ecum; and (2) the 5th Ecum did not anathematize Pope Vigilius.

This is your Fallacious strive, but it never was as such, here it is for the 6th times maybe, I will list it in a way that any 10yrs old would be able to see it clearly, I hope you do this time :

Among the most zealous defenders ofTheodore and the Three Chapters, besides Pope Vigilius (until 533), were the African Facundus ofHermiana (“Pro defensione trium capitulorum libri XII”, in P.L., LXVII, 527 sqq.) and the bishops,Paulinus of Aquileia and Vitalis of Milan.

According to the above documents Pope Vigilius was a defender of the Three Chapters.

Before long Vigilius altered his position in the most surprising manner. How this happened is not fully known. What is certain is, that the Emperor had frequent personal intercourse with him, and also repeatedly sent officers of State and bishops to him, to induce him to agree with Mennas and the rest.6 The vehement Facundus (I.e. p. 814, a and b) maintains that no violence was done to him, but that he was led astray by ambition and by bribery.books.google.com/books?id=_b9lAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=Before+long+Vigilius+altered+his+position+in+the+most+surprising+manner+%22Before+long+Vigilius+altered+his+position+in+the+most+surprising+manner%22&source=bl&ots=Y9lAuSZTOB&sig=UKvTjToztX5VLBcUVEAxCPAq0oY&hl=en&ei=c6xNTvvRHYfx0gHvmsTqBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

hhhmmmm makes you think doesn’t it?

Constantine, the most glorious Quaestor, 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.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp

(From the Acts. Collation VIII., L. and C., Conc., Tom. V., col. 562.)
Our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, as we learn from the parable in the Gospel, … And if he to whom but one talent has been committed is condemned because he has not worked with it but only kept it without loss, to how much greater and more horrible judgment must he be subject who not only is negligent concerning himself, but even places a stumbling-block and cause of offence in the way of others? 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.(1)
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, …

 

[Ignatios]

continued

THE SENTENCE OF THE SYNOD.
(From the Acts. Collation VIII., L. and C., Conc., Tom. V., col. 562.)
But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the most glorious judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor, he promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters (sententiam proferre): And when we heard this answer, having the Apostle’s admonition in mind, that “each one must, give an account of himself to God” and fearing the judgment that hangs over those who scandalize one, even of the least important,…

** But because the defenders of these impious ones, Theodore and Nestorius, were scheming in some way or other to confirm these persons and their impiety, and were saying that this impious letter, which praised and defended Theodore and Nestorius and their impiety, had been received by the holy Council of Chalcedon we thought it necessary to shew that the holy synod was free of the impiety which was contained in that letter, that it might be clear that they who say such things do not do so with the favour of this holy council, but that through its name they may confirm their own impiety.**

how could anyone presume to say that that impious letter was received by the holy council of Chalcedon and that the holy council of Chalcedon agreed with it throughout?newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm

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. [CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)]](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm]) fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp

**At length the Pope publicly withdraws his “Judicatum.” While the Council is sitting at Constantinople he publishes his “Constitutum,” in which he condemns certain propositions of Theodore, but spares his person; the same respecting Theodoret; but with respect to Ibas, he declares that his letter was pronounced orthodox by the Council of Chalcedon. However this may be, so much is clear, that Vigilius, though invited, declined being present at the council: that nevertheless the council was held without him; that he published a “Constitutum,” in which he disapproved of what Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas were said to have written against the Faith; but decreed that their names should be spared because they were considered to have been received by the fourth Council, or to have died in the communion of the Church, and to be reserved to the judgment of God. Concerning the letter of Ibas, he published the following, that, “understood in the best and most pious sense,” it was blameless; and concerning the three Chapters generally, he ordered that after his present declaration ecclesiastics should move no further question. **fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp

continued