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

[Ignatios]

continued

XII.(Anathemas of the 5th ecumenical council)
If, then, anyone shall defend this most impious Theodore and his impious writings, in which he vomits the blasphemies mentioned above, and countless others besides against our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and if anyone does not anathematize him or his impious writings, as well as all those who protect or defend him, or who assert that his exegesis is orthodox, or who write in favour of him and of his impious works, or those who share the same opinions, or those who have shared them and still continue unto the end in this heresy: let him be anathema.

XIII.
** if anyone admits them or their impiety, or shall give the name of impious to the doctors of the Church who profess the hypostatic union of God the Word; and if anyone does not anathematize these impious writings and those who have held or who hold these sentiments, and all those who have written contrary to the true faith or against St. Cyril and his XII. Chapters, and who die in their impiety: let him be anathema.
**

XIV.
If anyone therefore shall defend the aforementioned epistle and shall not anathematize it and those who defend it and say that it is right or that a part of it is right, or if anyone shall defend those who have written or shall write in its favour, or in defence of the impieties which are contained in it, as well as those who shall presume to defend it or the impieties which it contains in the name of the Holy Fathers or of the Holy Synod of Chalcedon, and shall remain in these offences unto the end: let him be anathema.

newadvent.org/cathen/07614a.htm
** In the eighth session (2 June, 553) the council declared: “If anyone defends the aforesaid letter and does not anathematize it, it and him who defends it and who says that it is wholly or at least in part correct. . .let him beanathematized.” Pope Virgilius, who had at first expressed a contrary opinion, and for that reason was attacked by Justinian, …
**

THE DECRETAL LETTER OF POPE VIGILIUS.(The manuscript from which this letter was printed was found in the Royal Library of Paris by Peter de Marca and…Both of these with the Greek text are found in Labbe and Cossart’s Con-cilia, Tom. V., col. 596 et seqq.; also in Migne’s Patr. Lat., Tom. LXIX., col. 121 et seqq. …)
…**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 defense of the aforesaid Three Chapters
**

And like I said before Mardukm anything more than this it will be Pope Vigilius throwing something at ya.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[TEX]

continued

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, .

That’s just messed up!

 

[Vico]

continued

…

newadvent.org/cathen/07614a.htm

In the eighth session (2 June, 553) the council declared: “If anyone defends the aforesaid letter and does not anathematize it, it and him who defends it and who says that it is wholly or at least in part correct. . .let him be anathematized.” Pope Virgilius, who had at first expressed a contrary opinion, and for that reason was attacked by Justinian, …

THE DECRETAL LETTER OF POPE VIGILIUS. (The manuscript from which this letter was printed was found in the Royal Library of Paris by Peter de Marca and…Both of these with the Greek text are found in Labbe and Cossart’s Con-cilia, Tom. V., col. 596 et seqq.; also in Migne’s Patr. Lat., Tom. LXIX., col. 121 et seqq. …)
…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 defense of the aforesaid Three Chapters

And like I said before Mardukm anything more than this it will be Pope Vigilius throwing something at ya.

GOD bless you all †††

Pope Vigilius was slow to reject the Three Chapters, and admitted not understanding what was written in the Three Chapters.

Also from Catholic Encyclopedia:

“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.”

As your source states:

“Pope Virgilius, who had at first expressed a contrary opinion, and for that reason was attacked by Justinian,** ended by sanctioning the decisions of the council.*** It is to be remarked that it was not the person of Ibas, but only his letter to Maris, that was condemned on this occasion.”

• December 553, six months after the second council of Constantinople was May to June 553. Purpose: confirm Justinian edict of 551.

As stated in some of my previous posts to you:

…

…

…

 

[Ignatios]

CONTINUED
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?..

You have such an imaginative mind looool … however I can’t say that you don’t pay attention to the conversation (at times) but you always try to blend things smoothly together in order to make things what they are not…in your post#53 “….He was in error for not condemning the PERSONS of Theodore,… and for defending an ORTHODOX understanding of their writings” and in your post #63 “…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.” and then in #69 “…we have record that affirms Pope Vigilius condemned everything in the Three Chapters that was contrary to the Faith of the Church”

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.

I don’t know why you keep repeating that we said that Pope Vigilius was in error theologically???I have explained what the circumstances would be for one to be in error theologically and you ignored it and you keep repeating it, I also noticed few people saying the same thing to you in other threads??? you sound more like you are begging us to accept your fallacies so you can declare a victory, strange thinking indeed.

At one point yes he did just that, at another, according to his decree (pope Vigilius’s decree i.e.) he defended the Three Chapters, but I see that you always pick one of his decrees and you ignore the rest, depends which of his decrees serve your situation better to declare a victory and not to show the truth.

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.”

HOW could they condemn something that they didn’t examine? Not condemning does not mean that it is Orthodox nor that it is partially orthodox neither that if understood in the most pious sense it is blameless as you tried to suggest the text was reading in your later reply.
It is only so in your fallacious world, the above is another example of you, how you try to infuse words or switch them around in order to make it what it is not.

You put the magnifier on the three words “snippet” of yours, and you ignored the the context of the whole statement…" not approved" is not equivalent to “not condemned” why? Because it is clear that they didn’t approve it because it was “HERETICAL” as founding was by the Fathers of the 5th E.C.

It is clear from the statement of the 5thE.C. that anything to be approved that is received, it must go through the examination, if it didn’t go through the examination then it was not approved, unlike what you are trying to infuse here when you interacted with the text and said that it was “not condemned” instead of “not approved” and you did so in order to give the impression that it was approved…we are used to your ways by now O Mardukm, and here where your Pope Vigilius was wrong, that is by assuming falsely (one can just wonder why did he “assume” such thing or where did he get it from if any) that the letter was received and approved as an orthodox by the 4th E.C. and then he defended it as blameless or Orthodox and here where his judgment in the matter of the Orthodox faith was wrong the least to say.

From the acts

"** If therefore they were willing to allow the reception of Ibas in no other manner unless he condemned the impiety which was contained in his letters, and subscribed the definition of faith adopted by the Council, how can they attempt to make out that this impious letter was received by the same holy council? For we are taught, “What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with **idols.”ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.vi.html

Also here:

**"The holy Fathers proceed to do what the Bishops at Chalcedon would have done, had they undertaken the examination of Ibas’s letter. They compare the letter with the Acts of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Which done, the holy Council declared- “The comparison made proves, beyond a doubt, that the letter which Ibas is said to have written is, in all respects, opposed to the definition of the right Faith, which the Council of Chalcedon set forth.” All the Bishops cried out. “We all say this; the letter is heretical.” **fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp
Note not partially heretical or partially orthodox or understood in the molst pious sense it is blameless as Pope Vigilius was saying.

True to his office as the primary defender of Sacred Tradition,

Primary defender of sacred Tradition I would have stayed away from this comment if I were you,at least in the case of Pope Vigilius because if anything he proved just the opposite looooool, what a silly goose.

 

[Ignatios]

continued…

he was very cautious about acting in a way that would seem to throw the authority of the Fourth Ecum into question.

What an innovations you come up with!!!..looool

Why being bashful? Say it, he was in error in a matter so important as this in which it pertains to the determination of what is the true faith, regardless how you slice it.

nothing in the history suggest that he was cautious, you may say that he swayed his position under pressure from the Latin Bishops or if you wanna be honest you may say that he compromised the faith under pressure although that was not his view of it, not even in his(pope Vigilius’s) decrees did he point out to that, all we have is that he was in error for defending the Three chapters as he confessed in his letter to the Orthodox Patriarch of the Holy See of Constantinople. . OOOO except the Catholic Encyclopedia

Yes, he did err (which the High Petrine view has no problem admitting), but it was merely an error on the side of caution.

In his letter he confessed that he was in error in defending the Three Chapter and that he after he looked at it and examine it he changed his view of it, now one might ask how could he make a such a mistake as important as this in the matter of faith, or what had happened to the theory that a divine intervention will restrict him from doing such a mistake, or maybe the divine intervention came to him through the Holy Orthodox Fathers.

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).

You know what after reading further, my new founding that is, one “MAY” build a good debate on this after examining his Decretal letter:
"THE DECRETAL LETTER OF POPE VIGILIUS.(The manuscript from which this letter was printed was found in the Royal Library of Paris by Peter de Marca and…Both of these with the Greek text are found in Labbe and Cossart’s Con-cilia, Tom. V., col. 596 et seqq.; also in Migne’s Patr. Lat., Tom. LXIX., col. 121 et seqq. …)
…**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 defense of the aforesaid Three Chapters
**

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.

No it was not so, Loooool are you begging me to comply with your fallacy?

You know in the future after I give this Decretal Letter of Pope Viglius more study and examine it I may very well tell you just that, but I won’t rush it yet, but as of yet you still didn’t present a proof that I said such a thing, until then your statements are nothing but wishful thought.

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,he was about to incorporate falsely those heresies into the teaching of the Church if it was not of the Holy Fathers of the 5th EC. Where is the infallibility that you are talking about.
Here is some of the condition that it describe when the Pope is infallible:
o The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
o Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
o Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
Now the question would be is there anything in the recorded history of this controversy of Pope Vigilius that would suggest that he was speaking EX-CATHEDRA? Read all of his statements carefully.

 

[Ignatios]

Pope Vigilius was slow to reject the Three Chapters, and admitted not understanding what was written in the Three Chapters.

Also from Catholic Encyclopedia:

“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.”

As your source states:

“Pope Virgilius, who had at first expressed a contrary opinion, and for that reason was attacked by Justinian,** ended by sanctioning the decisions of the council.*** It is to be remarked that it was not the person of Ibas, but only his letter to Maris, that was condemned on this occasion.”

• December 553, six months after the second council of Constantinople was May to June 553. Purpose: confirm Justinian edict of 551.

As stated in some of my previous posts to you:

Vico,
You didn’t come up with anything new my friend, we went through this before, my contention was that the Catholic Ecy. said that Pope Vigilius was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and I contested this on the ground that he confessed that he was in error IOW he was not always correct.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Vico]

Vico,
You didn’t come up with anything new my friend, we went through this before, my contention was that the Catholic Ecy. said that Pope Vigilius was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and I contested this on the ground that he confessed that he was in error IOW he was not always correct.

GOD bless you all †††

You ignored post 54 that I made to you.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:
*“The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved.” *
That is what Vigilius 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 by Vigilius in his letter:

“… 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.”

More complete text.

Vigilius to his beloved brother Eutychius.

No one is ignorant of the scandals which the enemy of the human race has stirred up in all the world: so that he made each one with a wicked object in view, striving in some way to fulfil his wish to destroy the Church of God spread over the whole world, not only in his own name but even in ours and in those of others to compose diverse things as well in words as in writing; in so much that he attempted to divide us who, together with our brethren and fellow bishops, are stopping in this royal city, and who defend with equal reverence the four synods, and sincerely persist in the one and the same faith of those four synods, by his sophistries and machinations he tried to part from them; 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. [321] 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.

christianbookshelf.org/schaff/the_seven_ecumenical_councils/the_decretal_letter_of_pope.htm

 

[Ignatios]

You ignored post 54 that I made to you.

not at all, but all things you put forth are the same without anything that would make the Catholic Enc. and your approval of it valid.

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

And he wrongly thought so, since the Three Chapters are heretical in which he defended and that is why he later retracted per his confession letter to the patriarch of Constantinople.

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

Vico, come on my friend, the above is totally out of context!!! here it is within context in which it shows just the opposite of what you are trying to prove:

"Vigilius to his beloved brother Eutychius.
No one is ignorant of the scandals which the enemy of the human race has stirred up in all the world: so that he made each one with a wicked object in view, striving in some way to fulfil his wish to destroy the Church of God spread over the whole world, not only in his own name but even in ours and in those of others to compose diverse things as well in words as in writing; in so much that he attempted to divide us who, together with our brethren and fellow bishops, are stopping in this royal city, and who defend with equal reverence the four synods, and sincerely persist in the one and the same faith of those four synods, by his sophistries and machinations he tried to part from them; 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."

In another words, he had fallen into the scandals which the enemy of the human race has stirred up, and the part you posted above is only a part of a sentence in which he continues that he went apart into discord…

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 by Vigilius in his letter:

“… 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.”
​

(the highlighted red was done by me Ignatios)

Nothing in the above shows what you are suggesting, there it is he said that Christ hath removed all “confusion” from his mind, how could he be aware of what is right when admiting that he was confused, or rather how could he be right when he is admitting he retracted, for when one is confused he does things wrong, and he only did so through the investigation of the truth as he profoundly admits and not for the sake of peace, I mean everything is there in black and white, the only way for one to miss this is to convince himself that the text is not what it is ​

 

[Vico]

…

1. To “The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved.”

You wrote: “And he wrongly thought so, since the Three Chapters are heretical in which he defended and that is why he later retracted per his confession letter to the patriarch of Constantinople.”

1. To the letter and remark,

You wrote: “Vico, come on my friend, the above is totally out of context!!! here it is within context in which it shows just the opposite of what you are trying to prove: …”

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

You wote: "Nothing in the above shows what you are suggesting, there it is he said that Christ hath removed all “confusion” from his mind, how could he be aware of what is right when admiting that he was confused, or rather how could he be right when he is admitting he retracted, for when one is confused he does things wrong, and he only did so through the investigation of the truth as he profoundly admits and not for the sake of peace, I mean everything is there in black and white, the only way for one to miss this is to convince himself that the text is not what it is "

My comments:

So you do not accept his statement from his letter!

He admitted to confusion on the Three Chapters, but not on the doctrine from the Councils (four synods). He said he always held to the doctrine.: “…so that we ourselves who were and are of the same opinion as they touching the faith, …”

You said “for when one is confused he does things wrong” and we see that he did not condemn the Three Chapters until late.

As he says in his letter, it was an admission of discord not heresy: “… 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.”

 

[mardukm]

As he says in his letter, “… 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.”

Great quote. I don’t know where our brother Ignatios is getting the idea that Pope Vigilius admitted to being in theological error in his confirmatory epistle.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatios]

1. To “The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved.”

You wrote: “And he wrongly thought so, since the Three Chapters are heretical in which he defended and that is why he later retracted per his confession letter to the patriarch of Constantinople.”

VICO, you are taking all my responds out of context, But I will advise everyone to track back and read the answers within context, however, I will comment only on the first one, my respond was not ONLY for the “The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved.” but also to the part that you left out:

You wrote the following:

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

The red is what you left out, and I responded to the above the following:

"And he wrongly thought so, since the Three Chapters are heretical in which he defended and that is why he later retracted per his confession letter to the patriarch of Constantinople."

( I must apologize for not answering each point singularly, for the lack of time, but my answer below should cover all your points.)

Nothing in the historical record suggest that pope Vigilius was always correct, on the contrary he admitted that he was in error that he was confused and that he retracted and he used Augustine to justify his retraction from error and that he was in error when he defended the Three Chapters.
In the beginning he was in error when he thought that the Council of Chalcedon admitted the letter of Ibas to be Orthodox (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.) and he said that he is of the same opinion as the 4th EC when in reality the 4th EC did not admit the letter of Ibus nor allowed Theordoret or Ibas back into the communion of the Holy Catholic Church of GOD until they rejected all the heresies they proclaimed in their writings ( 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 saving 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? ) , Further, Pope Vigilius according to the recorded facts he went as far as to defend the Three Chapter ( 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.) and he refused to Anathematize it because he falsely thought that by anathematizing the letter of ibas which he falsely thought it was believed to be Orthodox per the 4th E.C. he would be anathematizing the Council of Chalcedon thus he was wrong when he thought he was of the same opinion as the 4thEC.

Now later on and after the council struck the name of Pope Vigilius from the Diptychs and had issued their anathema and the E.C. was ended, ONLY THEN(six months later i.e.) that Pope Vigilius retracted and said again that he hold to the teaching of the Holy E.Cs all 4 of them, only this time he write in his letter that the council did not admit the impious letters or the 4th was against it ( Now this time his claim was correct about the 4th E.C. unlike the previous times) in which it is the contrary of what he said and thought previously, and that he hold to the teaching of the Holy Councils as the Orthodox Fathers did and that he is with them on the same opinion.

You are not distinguishing the various positions of Pope Vigilius what he said in the beginning concerning the 4th Council is not the same understanding as to what he meant later on, and even yet, different position/understanding afterwards.

If you are not aware of the various positions the pope held as things moved on and progressed further, then it is imperative that you are bound to commit such misunderstanding that would lead you into such conclusions, because to his understanding the 4th EC meant one thing prior to his retraction letter and something else when all confusion has cleared up from his mind, to say it in plain American English, the guy did not know himself whether he was coming or going, the bottom line he was not Always Correct as the Catholic Ency. Claimed him to be, if so then why did he retracted and admit his error, If you going to tell me that he was correct in the matter of Doctrine then tell me how can you separate the faith from doctrine, The Doctrine is to teach the faith, his confession of his error and his retraction from his error concerning his defense for the Three Chapter which it hits the core of the Faith is very clear to see, whoever is searching the truth will see all that ONLY IF he reads without any prejudice and with an open mind AND with love for the Christian Faith.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Ignatios]

Great quote. I don’t know where our brother Ignatios is getting the idea that Pope Vigilius admitted to being in theological error in his confirmatory epistle.

Blessings,
Marduk

Mardukm you remind me of a 7years old boy, who keep repeating the same things over and over without comprehending why is he saying this, nor what it has been said to him, BUT I will ask you again for the maybe the 6th times and just for the record not that I expect anything of value out of you, your accusations are false prove them right, I challenged you numerous times to prove them right but not once you did.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Vico]

…(Please click her to read, it is too long)

It is vary simple, his faith was always in the teachings of the first four Synods, as he said.

From what I have read on the topic, he understood the first four Synods, but since the Three Chapters was written in Greek, and the translations were not clear, it was also not clear as to what the Three Chapters taught. So he said he always held to the teaching of the four Synods, he admits to not understanding the Three Chapters, so of course he would not condemn them as he would not see the difference clearly.

“Pope Vigilius would resist signing the emperor’s tract, for fear that it would repudiate Chalcedon or at least compromise its authority and that of the papacy which led it.Objectively, the content of the “Three Chapters” was clearly Nestorian in places, but the question of whether the writings or even the authors themselves ought to be condemned raised serious issues of prudence and justice. The emperor had little patience for such scruples, and brazenly kidnapped the Pope in 545, finally bringing him to Constantinople in 547. There Pope Vigilius was persuaded that it was possible to condemn the Chapters without affecting Chalcedon, and therefore agreed to anathematize these writings.”

arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/councils/comment05.htm

 

[Ignatios]

It is vary simple, his faith was always in the teachings of the first four Synods, as he said.

From what I have read on the topic, he understood the first four Synods, but since the Three Chapters was written in Greek, and the translations were not clear, it was also not clear as to what the Three Chapters taught. So he said he always held to the teaching of the four Synods, he admits to not understanding the Three Chapters, so of course he would not condemn them as he would not see the difference clearly.

“Pope Vigilius would resist signing the emperor’s tract, for fear that it would repudiate Chalcedon or at least compromise its authority and that of the papacy which led it.Objectively, the content of the “Three Chapters” was clearly Nestorian in places, but the question of whether the writings or even the authors themselves ought to be condemned raised serious issues of prudence and justice. The emperor had little patience for such scruples, and brazenly kidnapped the Pope in 545, finally bringing him to Constantinople in 547. There Pope Vigilius was persuaded that it was possible to condemn the Chapters without affecting Chalcedon, and therefore agreed to anathematize these writings.”

arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/councils/comment05.htm

Many things were taught in the first four Synods and they were all Orthodox Teachings, the subject matter is the Three Chapters, which it was not taught by any of the first four Synods, on the contrary all four Synods taught just the opposite of the Three Chapters, the bottom line my friend is, Vigilius was not always correct.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Vico]

Many things were taught in the first four Synods and they were all Orthodox Teachings, the subject matter is the Three Chapters, which it was not taught by any of the first four Synods, on the contrary all four Synods taught just the opposite of the Three Chapters, the bottom line my friend is, Vigilius was not always correct.

GOD bless you all †††

Vigilus was not a heretic; in his Constitutum he condemned 60 propositions of Theodore of Mopsuestia, but did not anathematize him as a person since he had not been condemned at Ephesus (431) nor at Chalcedon (451) since it was not the custom of the Church to condemn the dead. Theodore, the friend and defender of Nestorius, had been restored to his see by the Council of Chalcedon, and that the epistle of Ibas had even been treated as harmless by the Council of Chalcedon.

From the 14 anathemas of the Council of Constantinople II (553), twelve were mainly against Theodore of Mopsuestia, one against Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and one against Ibas.

 

[Ignatios]

Vigilus was not a heretic;

I don’t believe that I labeled him as such nor do I think that the Holy Council name him as such either, so I don’t know what is the point of you trying to prove that he was not a heretic.

in his Constitutum he condemned 60 propositions of Theodore of Mopsuestia, but did not anathematize him as a person since he had not been condemned at Ephesus (431) nor at Chalcedon (451) since it was not the custom of the Church to condemn the dead.

He should have anathematized him when the Holy Fathers did in the Council and not six months later.
To recognize a heresy and not doing anything about it would seem as if you are allowing it.

Theodore, the friend and defender of Nestorius, had been restored to his see by the Council of Chalcedon, and that the epistle of Ibas had even been treated as harmless by the Council of Chalcedon.

I believe you made a mistake here, it is “Theodoret” not “Theodore” unless you insist that it is not, then by all means, please give us the history record of that.
However, your statement above was what the Heretics suggested, and what Pope Vigilius retracted from it later as an error, I also recited numerous times the history record of this in my previous replies.

From the 14 anathemas of the Council of Constantinople II (553), twelve were mainly against Theodore of Mopsuestia, one against Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and one against Ibas.

You left out that the anathema also came upon those who defend them and their writings and who would say that the Letter of Ibas was correct or partially correct, in which Pope Vigilius’s Opinion was at certain times:

Portion of the XII Anathema
"…If, then, anyone shall defend this most impious Theodore and his impious writings, in which he vomits the blasphemies mentioned above, and countless others besides against our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and if anyone does not anathematize him or his impious writings, as well as all those who protect or defend him, or who assert that his exegesis is orthodox, or who write in favour of him and of his impious works, or those who share the same opinions, or those who have shared them and still continue unto the end in this heresy: let him be anathema."

Pope vigilius was in error in trying to protect the person of Theodore when wrongly thinking that the 4th accepted him, Pope Vigilius retracted from this six months after the council was ended.

Now a Portion of the XIII Anathema:

“IF anyone shall defend the impious writings of Theodoret, … and [defends] that which he has written in defence of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, if anyone admits them or their impiety, …and if anyone does not anathematize these impious writings and those who have held or who hold these sentiments, and all those who have written contrary to the true faith or against St. Cyril and his XII. Chapters, and who die in their impiety: let him be anathema.”
Pope Vigilius was in error in some parts of the above, again he retracted later after the Council was ended.

Now a portion of the XIV Anathema:
**“IF anyone shall defend that letter which Ibas …in which he denies that the Word of God incarnate of Mary, the Holy Mother of God and ever-virgin, was made man, but says that a mere man was born of her, whom he styles a Temple, as though the Word of God was one Person and the man another person; in which letter also he reprehends St. Cyril as a heretic, when he teaches the right faith of Christians, and charges him with writing things like to the wicked Apollinaris. In addition to this he vituperates the First Holy Council of Ephesus, affirming that it deposed Nestorius without discrimination and without examination. The aforesaid impious epistle styles the XII. Chapters of Cyril of blessed memory, impious and contrary to the right faith and defends Theodore and Nestorius and their impious teachings and writings. If anyone therefore shall defend the aforementioned epistle and shall not anathematize it and those who defend it and say that it is right or that a part of it is right, or if anyone shall defend those who have written or shall write in its favour, or in defence of the impieties which are contained in it, as well as those who shall presume to defend it or the impieties which it contains in the name of the Holy Fathers or of the Holy Synod of Chalcedon, and shall remain in these offences unto the end: let him be anathema.”
**

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Vico]

I don’t believe that I labeled him as such nor do I think that the Holy Council name him as such either, so I don’t know what is the point of you trying to prove that he was not a heretic.

He should have anathematized him when the Holy Fathers did in the Council and not six months later.
To recognize a heresy and not doing anything about it would seem as if you are allowing it.

I believe you made a mistake here, it is “Theodoret” not “Theodore” unless you insist that it is not, then by all means, please give us the history record of that.
However, your statement above was what the Heretics suggested, and what Pope Vigilius retracted from it later as an error, I also recited numerous times the history record of this in my previous replies.

You left out that the anathema also came upon those who defend them and their writings and who would say that the Letter of Ibas was correct or partially correct, in which Pope Vigilius’s Opinion was at certain times:

Portion of the XII Anathema
"…If, then, anyone shall defend this most impious Theodore and his impious writings, in which he vomits the blasphemies mentioned above, and countless others besides against our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and if anyone does not anathematize him or his impious writings, as well as all those who protect or defend him, or who assert that his exegesis is orthodox, or who write in favour of him and of his impious works, or those who share the same opinions, or those who have shared them and still continue unto the end in this heresy: let him be anathema."

Pope vigilius was in error in trying to protect the person of Theodore when wrongly thinking that the 4th accepted him, Pope Vigilius retracted from this six months after the council was ended.

Now a Portion of the XIII Anathema:

“IF anyone shall defend the impious writings of Theodoret, … and [defends] that which he has written in defence of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, if anyone admits them or their impiety, …and if anyone does not anathematize these impious writings and those who have held or who hold these sentiments, and all those who have written contrary to the true faith or against St. Cyril and his XII. Chapters, and who die in their impiety: let him be anathema.”
Pope Vigilius was in error in some parts of the above, again he retracted later after the Council was ended.

Now a portion of the XIV Anathema:
"IF anyone shall defend that letter which Ibas …in which he denies that the Word of God incarnate of Mary, the Holy Mother of God and ever-virgin, was made man, but says that a mere man was born of her, whom he styles a Temple, as though the Word of God was one Person and the man another person; in which letter also he reprehends St. Cyril as a heretic, when he teaches the right faith of Christians, and charges him with writing things like to the wicked Apollinaris. In addition to this he vituperates the First Holy Council of Ephesus, affirming that it deposed Nestorius without discrimination and without examination. The aforesaid impious epistle styles the XII. Chapters of Cyril of blessed memory, impious and contrary to the right faith and defends Theodore and Nestorius and their impious teachings and writings. If anyone therefore shall defend the aforementioned epistle and shall not anathematize it and those who defend it and say that it is right or that a part of it is right, or if anyone shall defend those who have written or shall write in its favour, or in defence of the impieties which are contained in it, as well as those who shall presume to defend it or the impieties which it contains in the name of the Holy Fathers or of the Holy Synod of Chalcedon, and shall remain in these offences unto the end: let him be anathema."

GOD bless you all †††

My point is the same as the first postings, 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.”

 

[Ignatios]

My point is the same as the first postings, 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.”

And my point is that he was not correct according to his own letter and his own confession when he retracted from defending the Three Chapters as it is written in his Decretal Letter which it carries his own name and his own actions.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Cavaradossi]

My point is the same as the first postings, 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.”

Why does it matter if he was doctrinally correct? He defended the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the letter of Ibas to Maris in defiance of the anathemas, which stated that anybody who did not anathematize the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Letter of Ibas to Maris and the writings of Theodoret would be anathematized. Until he recanted of his error, he was anathematized. I don’t see how it’s debatable whether or not he was excommunicated. He was struck from the diptychs until he consented to the will of the council. Whether or not he was “doctrinally correct” is a secondary issue.

 

[Vico]

And my point is that he was not correct according to his own letter and his own confession when he retracted from defending the Three Chapters as it is written in his Decretal Letter which it carries his own name and his own actions.

GOD bless you all †††

In his letter he states that he always held to the faith, i.e., he was doctrinally correct in his faith. You simply do not accept what he states in his letter. He confesses that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren. Not condemning the Three Chapters is a different matter than that of his always holding to the faith of the Four Synods (Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon).

He condemned the Three Chapters in his Ludicatum, 548.
He retracted his condemnation in his Constitutum, 553.

He condemned the writings of the three chapters but not the writers in 553, six months after the fifth council, and said:

“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.”