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

[Vico]

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.

“Would be” as in “would be anathematized” is future tense.

What does it matter if he defended the Three Chapters, not having understood them yet holding to the faith of the four Synods?

From the fifth: “Moreover, condemnation has been passed by us against the heretics and their impiety, and also against those who have justified or shall justify the so-called “Three Chapters”, and against those who have persisted or will persist in their own error. If anyone should attempt to hand on, or to teach by word or writing, anything contrary to what we have regulated, then if he is a bishop or somebody appointed to the clergy, in so far as he is acting contrary to what befits priests and the ecclesiastical status, let him be stripped of the rank of priest or cleric, and if he is a monk or lay person, let him be anathema.”

Note that Vigilius remained the Pope (clearly not a monk or lay person). Note that he confirmed the council.

 

[Ignatios]

In his letter he states that he always held to the faith, i.e., he was doctrinally correct in his faith.

Okay let me try to narrow it down,
Was Pope Vigilius always correct in the matter of the Three Chapters Doctrine? NO ? or YES? If yes please explain how was he correct in the doctrine of the Three Chapters.

You simply do not accept what he states in his letter.

I do literally, but it seems that you are the one who is trying desperately to interact with the text of Pope Vigilius to make him “always” correct, well my friend, he was not, you confessed that with your own tongue few times already but you keep trying to insinuate that he was not in error, if he was correct in the doctrine of the Three Chapters, he wouldn’t have got excommunicated from the unity of the Holy Church of GOD by the 5th Ecumenical Council,the reason why the RCs try to desperately defend this simply because of the dogma of infallibility.

He confesses that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren.

IOW and in plain AMERICAN English, he is asking to be readmitted back into the communion of the Church.

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).

That is exactly what he thought when he was in error, but he found out later that he was wrong when he thought as thus, he retracted, and he condemned the Three Chapters.

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.”

He repeated everything the Holy Orthodox Fathers said, and he also used the same words as they.

 

[Vico]

Okay let me try to narrow it down,
Was Pope Vigilius always correct in the matter of the Three Chapters Doctrine? NO ? or YES? If yes please explain how was he correct in the doctrine of the Three Chapters.

I do literally, but it seems that you are the one who is trying desperately to interact with the text of Pope Vigilius to make him “always” correct, well my friend, he was not, you confessed that with your own tongue few times already but you keep trying to insinuate that he was not in error, if he was correct in the doctrine of the Three Chapters, he wouldn’t have got excommunicated from the unity of the Holy Church of GOD by the 5th Ecumenical Council,the reason why the RCs try to desperately defend this simply because of the dogma of infallibility.

IOW and in plain AMERICAN English, he is asking to be readmitted back into the communion of the Church.

That is exactly what he thought when he was in error, but he found out later that he was wrong when he thought as thus, he retracted, and he condemned the Three Chapters.

He repeated everything the Holy Orthodox Fathers said, and he also used the same words as they.

Justinian had no ecclesial right to meddle in matters of doctrine, yet he did. Justinian’s view of Christological doctrine was neo-Chalcedonian, and was a refinement, at least partly accepted by Constantinople II and subsequently confirmed by Pope Vigilius.

Seven significant events of Pope Vigilius show that he always held the faith of Chalcedon (and prior councils).

(1) 540 Letter to Menas
(2) 540 Letter to Justinian
(3) 548 Iudicatum
(4) 550 Withdrawal of Iudicatum in deference to a future Council
(5) 553 Consitution
(6) 554 Letter to Eutychius
(7) 554 Constitution

Start with Pope Vigilius standing against Monophysitism with two letters to Menas (1) and Justinian (2) in 540. He expressed support of Chalcedon and Ephesus and Leo I decisions and deposition of Anthimus. Then there was Justinian publishing the edict on the Three Chapters, 543 or 544, which was contrary to Chalcedon, because it condemned two bishops cleared by the council of Chalcedon. The issue of the Three Chapters treatened the status of the council of Chalcedon. So April 11, 548 Vigilius gave his Iudicatum (3) condemning the Three Chapters explicitly without prejudice to Chalcedon. But he then withdrew it (4) Aug 15, 550, after objections were raised, until it could be resolved at a general council. Then May 14, 553 Vigilius issued his Constitution (5), also refusing to condemn Theodoret or Ibas because the testimony of the Council of Chalcedon had removed all suspicion of heresy against them (Justinian refused to read it saying he was out of communion and the council deposed the Pope). So the issue was not confirmed by the Pope until he accepted the council of Constantinople II in December 8, 553 in the letter to Eutychius (6), but later in Feb 26, 554, declared a detail of his judgment in a Constitution (7), both supporting Chalcedon.

 

[Ignatios]

Justinian had no ecclesial right to meddle in matters of doctrine, yet he did.

You are absolutely right there is no ecclesiastical right for him to do what he did, BUT yet he did AAAAND he was right more then the one has all the ecclesiastical right, or rather he was obliged as the first among equal and the one with the highest honor and most influential AAAAND at that time was the most Orthodox Patriarch of all the Patriarchs, to declare a heresy anathema or if he sees it he is to stop it from entering the Church or if it was in the Church he is to throw it out in which Pope Vigilius failed to do so BUT further he defended it and tried to claim it as Orthodox!!! Until he recanted under the pain of Excommunication and Anathema by the Holy Orthodox fathers of the 5th Ecumenical Council.

Justinian’s view of Christological doctrine was neo-Chalcedonian, and was a refinement, at least partly accepted by Constantinople II and subsequently confirmed by Pope Vigilius.

Okay so you admit that Pope Vigilius at the end retracted and accepted The Emperor/Council Doctrine.

Seven significant events of Pope Vigilius show that he always held the faith of Chalcedon (and prior councils).

(1) 540 Letter to Menas
(2) 540 Letter to Justinian
(3) 548 Iudicatum
(4) 550 Withdrawal of Iudicatum in deference to a future Council
(5) 553 Consitution
(6) 554 Letter to Eutychius
(7) 554 Constitution

Start with Pope Vigilius standing against Monophysitism with two letters to Menas (1) and Justinian (2) in 540. He expressed support of Chalcedon and Ephesus and Leo I decisions and deposition of Anthimus. Then there was Justinian publishing the edict on the Three Chapters, 543 or 544, which was contrary to Chalcedon, because it condemned two bishops cleared by the council of Chalcedon. The issue of the Three Chapters treatened the status of the council of Chalcedon. So April 11, 548 Vigilius gave his Iudicatum (3) condemning the Three Chapters explicitly without prejudice to Chalcedon. But he then withdrew it (4) Aug 15, 550, after objections were raised, until it could be resolved at a general council. Then May 14, 553 Vigilius issued his Constitution (5), also refusing to condemn Theodoret or Ibas because the testimony of the Council of Chalcedon had removed all suspicion of heresy against them (Justinian refused to read it saying he was out of communion and the council deposed the Pope). So the issue was not confirmed by the Pope until he accepted the council of Constantinople II in December 8, 553 in the letter to Eutychius (6), but later in Feb 26, 554, declared a detail of his judgment in a Constitution (7), both supporting Chalcedon.

He held the faith of Chalcedon when he thought that Chalcedon accepted Theodore and Ibas’s letter, and again he held the faith of Chalcedon also after he recanted and found out that he was wrong about his first thought and that Chalcedon did not accepted the three chapters as Orthodox.

1)Bottom line line did he or did he not defend the doctrine of the Three Chapters at one time?

1. Did he or did he not retracted from his error in the doctrine of the Three Chapters?
2. Was the doctrine of theThree Chapters in harmony with the Doctrine of the 4th E.C. or any of the previous four Councils?

4)Can you give a direct answer to the above question from the recorded history without interacting with the recorded facts?

I bet you can’t answer the above directly and as recorded, and that is understandable because if you do so, then you know what follows… the theory of the infallibility of your Pope would crumble and fall down, and that is why the RCs are not willing to admit to this and Pope Honorius’s case at any cost, they will keep saying no until the last breath of theirs.

Question to everybody, or maybe if someone would like to make a thread for this, did the infallibility of the Pope existed in the first millennium as something that was acknowledged by all the Church as such OR was there any Canon that would go against the theory of infallibility or that would contradict it?
I am interested in any historical record of this. Thank you greatly and may God bless you all †††

 

[Vico]

You are absolutely right there is no ecclesiastical right for him to do what he did, BUT yet he did AAAAND he was right more then the one has all the ecclesiastical right, or rather he was obliged as the first among equal and the one with the highest honor and most influential AAAAND at that time was the most Orthodox Patriarch of all the Patriarchs, to declare a heresy anathema or if he sees it he is to stop it from entering the Church or if it was in the Church he is to throw it out in which Pope Vigilius failed to do so BUT further he defended it and tried to claim it as Orthodox!!! Until he recanted under the pain of Excommunication and Anathema by the Holy Orthodox fathers of the 5th Ecumenical Council.

Okay so you admit that Pope Vigilius at the end retracted and accepted The Emperor/Council Doctrine.

He held the faith of Chalcedon when he thought that Chalcedon accepted Theodore and Ibas’s letter, and again he held the faith of Chalcedon also after he recanted and found out that he was wrong about his first thought and that Chalcedon did not accepted the three chapters as Orthodox.

1. Bottom line line did he or did he not defend the doctrine of the Three Chapters at one time?
2. Did he or did he not retracted from his error in the doctrine of the Three Chapters?
3. Was the doctrine of theThree Chapters in harmony with the Doctrine of the 4th E.C. or any of the previous four Councils?
4. Can you give a direct answer to the above question from the recorded history without interacting with the recorded facts?

I bet you can’t answer the above directly and as recorded, and that is understandable because if you do so, then you know what follows… the theory of the infallibility of your Pope would crumble and fall down, and that is why the RCs are not willing to admit to this and Pope Honorius’s case at any cost, they will keep saying no until the last breath of theirs.

Question to everybody, or maybe if someone would like to make a thread for this, did the infallibility of the Pope existed in the first millennium as something that was acknowledged by all the Church as such OR was there any Canon that would go against the theory of infallibility or that would contradict it?
I am interested in any historical record of this. Thank you greatly and may God bless you all †††

The Three chapters are propositions anathematizing: (1) the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia; (2) certain writings of Theodoret of Cyrus; (3) the letter of Ibas to Maris. The doctrines means those Christological doctrines in the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret and Ibas.

Answers in reverse order:

1. The extraordinary Magisterium of Constantinople II in union with it’s head Pope Vigilius defined the doctrines, and issued the anathemas for the first time, therefore the doctrines of the Three Chapters were not heretical before that time because a determination had not been made by the Church yet. It was only once the Pope confirmed freely that it became dogma, not when Justinian spoke.
2. The council of Ephesus in 431 anathematized Nestorius and his heretical teachings. Chalcedon did not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, or Ibas. Pope Vigilius held to what Pope St. Leo I had declared, that the Latrocinium (449) was null. So the doctrine in the Three Chapters was in harmony with the prior Synods.
3. Pope Vigilius wrote in this letter to Eutychus: “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.”
4. Pope Vigilius did not freely defend (accept) the doctrines of the Three Chapters at any time. When Justinian pressured him severely to condemn the Three Chapters, he eventually did condemn (with his Iudicatium), but he was not freely acting so it could not have been an example of ex cathedra infallibility. But Vigilius withdrew Iudicatium later, in 550, when he received agreement from Justinian that Justinian would remain silent on the issue of The Three Chapters until a council could decide upon it. (Of course Justinian did not keep this agreement because he issued his edict in 551.)

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Are there any other theological or political causes that created the Great Schism as we know it? If they exist, what are they?

The devil / fallen human nature / the world caused the split

 

[preppyboy6]

Are there any other theological or political causes that created the Great Schism as we know it? If they exist, what are they?/QUOTE

Hello UnityofTrinity, i have been on this forum for some time and have read through the majority of these posts and thought to myself “How to answer this question as nobody has actually answered it so far” I beleive that nobody has stated the root cause so far but only symptoms. The actual problem did not even truly involve the filioque, but instead an issue over who had the authority to implement the doctrine at the time. Some historical background for you here though i am sure you already know this as i have read your posts. The Eastearn empire in Constantinople was embracing certain heresies such as Monophysitism and Arianism, but rarely Nestorianism as Nestorius had insulted the empress Pulcheria. Therefore, the emperors gained a sense of false authority due to the council of Ephesus. which led to some of them namely Justinian who was encouraged by his wifeTheodora a Monophysite, to depose the Pope, she succeeded twice and put an Antipope, named Vigilius on the throne. This pope denied Monophysitism after Silverius one of the popes Theodora had deposed died in captivity.Vigilius became the true pope due to a papal election. This caused an enraged emperor to fight a power struggle with the Pope over who had authority, a Pope who was most definitly infallible in matters of faith and morals or an Emperor who may or may not be heretical in beleif. Therefore, the true reason behind the great schism is most definitly a political power struggle not theological or even really ecclesiastical in nature.

 

[Fox]

the nature of original sin is also contested. I personally believe in the orthodox views of it, it just makes more sense.

 

[Ignatios]

The Three chapters are propositions anathematizing: (1) the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia; (2) certain writings of Theodoret of Cyrus; (3) the letter of Ibas to Maris. The doctrines means those Christological doctrines in the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret and Ibas.

Okay very good.

Answers in reverse order:

1. The extraordinary Magisterium of Constantinople II in union with it’s head Pope Vigilius, defined the doctrines and issued the anathemas for the first time …

Hahahahaha … excuse my laughter, but this is hilarious.

I bet the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Council would have appreciated the above terminology during that tensioned time for the laugh of it only, or on the second thought, they would have exploded looool.

My apology, Okay , your above statement is so laughably false, why?

1. because the “extraordinary Magisterium” is a terminology that it was adopted by the RCC and it was taken from the Roman Kingdom, in the East it was never used nor do they recognize it neither will they acknowledge it, and I am sure your RCC do know this very well they never did nor would they try to attempt to apply it to the East.

1. In order for you to be able to apply the “extraordinary Magisterium”, the Bishops, as you said must be in union with its head!!!
   BUT THE POPE was not in union with the Bishops of Constantinople II because he was excommunicated by them loooool:shrug: remember???

1. the Head of that Council was the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Holy See of CONSTANTINOPLE since he was the one who presided over that council.

1. this Council was convened by the Emperor.

1. the Pope wanted the Council to be convened in Sicily (If I remember right or somewhere in Italy) despite his demand the Council was held in Constantinople and without his will.

6)The Pope didn’t define anything, he followed what the Bishops convened and he simply submit to the outcome of that Council because of the sheer of its Orthodoxy.

1. the Anthema was issued way before Pope Vigilius was in agreement with the Synods, actually when the Orthodox Bishops Issued the Anathema he was still being placed out of communion with the Church and and actually he was under the Anathema of the 5th E.C. for six months until he retracted and joined them and then he was restored back into the communion of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of GOD through the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Holy See of Constantinople.

All the proves for the above are posted in my previous replies at least 3 times each.

… therefore the doctrines

of the Three Chapters were not heretical before that time because a determination had not been made by the Church yet.

The doctrines of the Three Chapters were always heretical, that is why they brought them up , so they can be declared through an ecumenical council as such, in which Pope Vigilius refused to condemned them AND was defending them instead, until he was excommunicated and Anathematized.

Continued…

 

[Ignatios]

…Continued

… It was only once the Pope confirmed freely that it became dogma, not when Justinian spoke.

Your statement is manifestly false, It was neither nor, Only when the Bishops convened and decided together and announced their sentences and issued their Anathema, it became Dogma, AND all this was done when the Pope was on the other side defending the very things the Fathers of the 5th E.C. were fighting against, this is why this whole thing was recorded in History. And i must say thanks for the Emperor and thanks to the Lord Holy Spirit first, HE truly works through whom ever HE wills, because if it wasn’t of him who knows how many faithful would have fallen into heresy.

1. The council of Ephesus in 431 anathematized Nestorius and his heretical teachings. Chalcedon did not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, or Ibas. Pope Vigilius held to what Pope St. Leo I had declared, that the Latrocinium (449) was null.

If the 4th E.C. didn’t condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia this doesn’t mean that the Council accepted him and or approved him nor does it mean that he was permissible, however Pope Vigilius defended the Three Chapters which it includes Theodore.

…So the doctrine in the Three Chapters was in harmony with the prior Synods.

You know I think I am guilty here for pushing you too much to a point that now you are placing yourself under the Anathema of the 5th E.C. you may not take this seriously but it is, for me at least, Pope Vigilius when retracted he condemned along with the fathers of the 5th E.C. those who dare to say so, as you just did above, I think you should retract yourself now and take your Pope Vigilius an example just as Vigilius took Augustine as an example for his retraction.

1. Pope Vigilius wrote in this letter to Eutychus: “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.”

Which it means that he was wrong in the matter of the doctrine of the Three Chapters. contrary to what you, the Catholic Encyc. and Mardukm were saying. thank you very much.

1. Pope Vigilius did not freely defend (accept) the doctrines of the Three Chapters at any time.

You are interacting with the History, Pope vigilius certainly didn’t make such excuses, he simply stated that he defended the Three Chapters and he was in error of doing so as I have proved numerous times in my past posts by posting his confession letter to the Patriarch of the Holy See of Constantinople.

…When Justinian pressured him severely to condemn the Three Chapters, he eventually did condemn (with his Iudicatium), but he was not freely acting so it could not have been an example of ex cathedra

infallibility.But Vigilius withdrew Iudicatium later, in 550, when he received agreement from Justinian that Justinian would remain silent on the issue of The Three Chapters until a council could decide upon it. (Of course Justinian did not keep this agreement because he issued his edict in 551.)

well it seems that the Emperor pressured him only when he did the opposite of what he had said at first, and actually you admitted to this in previous posts of yours when you said that that Pope Vigilius withdrew his Iudicatium under pressure from the Western Bishops because they thought by condemning the Three Chapters would be condemning the 4th E.C.
So the evidences point that his Iudicatium was an ex-cathedra, but then he withdrew it and he issued another ex-cathedra, and he retracted, AGAIN, only to join what the Holy Orthodox fathers of the 5th E.C. had already promulgated six months before.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Vico]

†††

Some important points.

You are aware of the private letters between Pope Vigilius and Justinian, and the lack of trust?

Do you recognize that what was decided at the council was different than what was decided at Chalcedon? There was nothing uncanonical with staying with the view of Chalcedon, which did not condemn the Three Chapters. The Three Chapters edict was composed in a very particular way which was different from the conclusion of Chalcedon. That is why it was seen as against Chalcedon. To deny this is to lack the ability to understand the actions of the western bishops.

I had to comment in the previous post on the infallability of the Church to respond to your wrong conclusion.

The dogma is defined when the conciliar bishops (not in schism) in union with their head, meaning the Pope of Rome are in agreement, not before. So without validitation from Pope Vigilius the council was null.

To be ex cathedra it must be defined, and it must be a dogma, neither of which was the case here with any defense of the Three Chapters. Also if there was a definiton it could be not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church.

Bishop Gasser noted that Papal authority:

1. is not personal: not as the person, but as the role of Supreme Pontiff, not because of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, but due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit when acting in that role as supreme judge in matters of faith and morals.
2. is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.
3. is not absolute since absolute authority belongs to God alone and it is restricted by the subject: what must be accepted or rejected of faith or morals.

See The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pages 44-50. This is the book on the relatio of Vatican I.

 

[Ignatios]

Some important points.

You are aware of the private letters between Pope Vigilius and Justinian, and the lack of trust?

Of course there was lack of trust, and I don’t blame Justinian for not trusting Vigilius, look at how many times The Pope Issued a Decree and then he retracted from it.

Do you recognize that what was decided at the council was different than what was decided at Chalcedon?

Before I rush into giving you an answer to this, and assume wrong about what you mean by this, I will ask you to clarify it further, i.e. what is different in the 5th from the 4th E.C.?

…There was nothing uncanonical with staying with the view of Chalcedon, which did not condemn the Three Chapters. The Three Chapters edict was composed in a very particular way which was different from the conclusion of Chalcedon. That is why it was seen as against Chalcedon. To deny this is to lack the ability to understand the actions of the western bishops.

No one in history tried to defend the Three Chapters (no one credible that is), I think you are reading some very radical RC sites that they would go as far as they have to go in order to defend the Infallibility of the Papacy. your Church and the man that it matters the most in your church concerning the Three Chapters Issue i.e. Pope Vigilius, viewed them as heresy and contrary to the Faith and the Doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon, and as you the RCs say " Rome has spoken the case is closed".

Besides have you forgotten that YOU said before that the reason for the support of the Western Bishops to the Three Chapters was because of language barrier? and now you are saying because it was composed in a very particular way by the Fathers of the 5th e.c. which it was different from the conclusion of Chalcedon!!!

I am sorry my friend but I think you have gone way too far beyond reason to support what the Pope and your church had already settled for.

Remember, you cannot be more Catholic than the Pope.

I had to comment in the previous post on the infallability of the Church to respond to your wrong conclusion.

I don’t conclude anything in the matter of the Papacy, I only present without any interpretation what your church had already put forth and taught.

The dogma is defined when the conciliar bishops (not in schism) in union with their head, meaning the Pope of Rome are in agreement, not before. So without validitation from Pope Vigilius the council was null.

Sorry Vico, but this is not “going back to the future”, IOW, you are trying to apply a dogma to the 5th Ecumenical Council (6th century when the Church was still one) that had no existence and it only came to be some 1300 years later( 19th century) AND only in the RCC, where it remain unknown until now and forever in the other 4 other Churches that is the Holy See of Jerusalem, the Holy See of Antioch, the Holy See of Alexandria and the Holy See of Constantinople.

Your reasoning above is invalid and lacks the reality.

besides what we saw from the recorded facts that the council sentences went through and was valid in all the Holy Sees except one, Rome, until Pope Vigilius retracted when he saw that he came under the Anathema of the 5th E.C. so IOW the Council was valid and EFFECTIVE since it convinced Vigilius to retract, and he further ask to be reunited back into the communion of the Church, so he recognized the sentences of the 5th E.C. and he further also recognized that there sentence against him was effective that he asked to be reunited back to them.
And maybe you should note that the Western Churches did not accept the council and they were in schism with the RCC AND some did not allow the RCC back into communion with them until some 2 centuries later, so your assertion above is nonexistent according to history.

To be ex cathedra it must be defined, and it must be a dogma, neither of which was the case here with any defense of the Three Chapters. Also if there was a definiton it could be not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church.

According to you and to Pope Vigilius it was defined by the 4th E.C., so it must have been an ex-cathedra because he had in mind the definition of the 4th E.C.

Bishop Gasser noted that Papal authority:

1. is not personal: not as the person, but as the role of Supreme Pontiff, not because of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, but due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit when acting in that role as supreme judge in matters of faith and morals.
2. is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.
3. is not absolute since absolute authority belongs to God alone and it is restricted by the subject: what must be accepted or rejected of faith or morals.

See The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pages 44-50. This is the book on the relatio of Vatican I.

Okay that is ONLY what the modern RCC says, but the other 4 Churches don’t recognize the Vatican Council nor its dogmas neither its Decree … to those other four Holy Churches who are remain if full communion with one another and who compose the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of GOD, such things do not exist and are strange and foreign to the Church from its early days up until now.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[dcointin]

I gave up on this thread PAGES ago.

 

[Vico]

†††

Q. What is different in the 5th from the 4th E.C.?

Many changes occurred to refine the Christology in those seven councils.

1 - Nicaea in 325 - The Son is God is consubstantial with the Father
2 - Const. I - 381 - The Holy Ghost is God
Three distinct schools of thought: the term homoousios (the Son is of the same substance as the Father), the term homoiousios (the Son is of like/similar substance to the Father), the term anomoiousios (the Son is of a substance dissimilar to the Father).
3 - Ephesus in 431 - deposed Nestorius and declared that it was appropriate to use Theotokos to describe the Virgin Mary.
4 - Chalcedon 451 - two natures of Christ
5 - Const. II, 544 - Monophysite direction: Council accepted henosis kath’hypostasin (hypostatic union), rejecting henosis kata physin (a union of natures), which was different than Chalcedon. kenosis = self-emptying (Cyril of Alexandria) – “One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh”, was established. (Used Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius, not admitted at Chalcedon) ** Thomas Aquinas also ** but terminology became later, strict Chalcedonian while respecting the mia physis forumula.
6 - Const. III, 680, there are two wills of Christ
7 - Const. IIII, true humanity of Christ affirmed

“…go in order to defend the Infallibility of the Papacy.”

I am saying that this is not an issue of infallibility. What I have shown is that in the modern definition of the infallibility of the Church from Vatican I, what happened at the time of Vigilius would not be a case of infallibility. You are the one that brought up infallibility so I thought I needed to post something on it to correct your misunderstanding of what it means.

This statement of yours is untrue, since that is not what I posted: “Besides have you forgotten that YOU said before that the reason for the support of the Western Bishops to the Three Chapters was because of language barrier?”

Go back and read it in post #44: “2. Catholic theologians decided that some of the writings conclusions were based upon language misunderstandings.”
You wrote that now I say: “…that the reason for the support of the Western Bishops to the Three Chapters was …because it was composed in a very particular way by the Fathers of the 5th e.c. which it was different from the conclusion of Chalcedon!”

Yes, and before also, as stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Both Ibas and Theodoret had been deprived of their bishoprics by heretics, and had been restored by the Holy See and the Council of Chalcedon on anathematizing Nestorius. Yet the council had their writings before it, and, in the case of the epistle of Ibas, things were said which could easily be construed into an approval of it. All this made the condemnation look like an oblique blow at St. Leo and Chalcedon. The matter was further complicated by the fact that the Latins, Vigilius among them, were for the most part ignorant of Greek and therefore unable to judge the incriminated writings for themselves. Pelagius II in his third epistle to Elias, probably drawn up by St. Gregory the Great, ascribes all the trouble to this ignorance. All they had to go upon was the general attitude of the Fathers of Chalcedon.”
Regarding: “To be ex cathedra it must be defined, and it must be a dogma, neither of which was the case here with any defense of the Three Chapters. Also if there was a definiton it could be not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church.”

You wrote: “… According to you and to Pope Vigilius it was defined by the 4th E.C., so it must have been an ex-cathedra because he had in mind the definition of the 4th E.C.”

It was not a dogma to not condemn the Three Chapters; Chalcedon did not do so either. Nestorianism was rejected at Ephesus, and Vigilius always stated the he had the faith of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

It seems that you do not understand how to apply the current definition to a historical situation. It is not to be assumed that the dogma of infallibility was defined back then. Not condemning the Three Chapters is not the same matter as a definition of dogma.

 

[preppyboy6]

I think that our lack of trust between Jistinian and Vigilus is warranted as Justinian and Theodora were attempting to depose Vigilus throughout the beginning of his reign as pope.

 

[Ignatios]

Q. What is different in the 5th from the 4th E.C.?

Many changes occurred to refine the Christology in those seven councils.

1 - Nicaea in 325 - The Son is God is consubstantial with the Father
2 - Const. I - 381 - The Holy Ghost is God
Three distinct schools of thought: the term homoousios (the Son is of the same substance as the Father), the term homoiousios (the Son is of like/similar substance to the Father), the term anomoiousios (the Son is of a substance dissimilar to the Father).
3 - Ephesus in 431 - deposed Nestorius and declared that it was appropriate to use Theotokos to describe the Virgin Mary.
4 - Chalcedon 451 - two natures of Christ
5 - Const. II, 544 - Monophysite direction: Council accepted henosis kath’hypostasin (hypostatic union), rejecting henosis kata physin (a union of natures), which was different than Chalcedon. kenosis = self-emptying (Cyril of Alexandria) – “One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh”, was established. (Used Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius, not admitted at Chalcedon) ** Thomas Aquinas also ** but terminology became later, strict Chalcedonian while respecting the mia physis forumula.
6 - Const. III, 680, there are two wills of Christ
7 - Const. IIII, true humanity of Christ affirmed

???, what all the above has to do with the Three Chapters? your past comment were in relation to the Three Chapters and I needed you to clarify what you meant when you suggested that the decision of Chalcedon was different than the Decision of Constantinople II, keeping in m,ind that the subject matter was the Three Chapters, I don’t see anything in the above that would relate to our discussion.

“…go in order to defend the Infallibility of the Papacy.”

I lost you on this one also, what do you mean by this? did you paste the above by mistake?

I am saying that this is not an issue of infallibility. What I have shown is that in the modern definition of the infallibility of the Church from Vatican I, what happened at the time of Vigilius would not be a case of infallibility. You are the one that brought up infallibility so I thought I needed to post something on it to correct your misunderstanding of what it means.

True, I did brought it up as a side comment, to show that the RCs when they defend Pope vigilius they do so with the infallibility in the back of their mind. and I responded to show that this matter relates to faith and morals.

This statement of yours is untrue, since that is not what I posted: “Besides have you forgotten that YOU said before that the reason for the support of the Western Bishops to the Three Chapters was because of language barrier?”

Go back and read it in post #44: “2. Catholic theologians decided that some of the writings conclusions were based upon language misunderstandings.”

here it is,

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

1. Emperor Justinian I edicted an anathematization of the Three Chapters. (543)
2. Catholic theologans decided that some of the writings conclusions were based upon language misunderstandings.
3. Many eastern bishops were coerced to agree with Justinian I, with punishments to those that did not.
4. Vigilius could not decide upon the matter since he did not understand Greek well, and he and the entire West, deemed were in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites, if he agreed."*

AND also here is what you said in Post#81 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8262598&postcount=81
"Pope Vigilius was slow to reject the Three Chapters, and admitted not understanding what was written in the Three Chapters."

So I was not wrong with what I said

continued

 

[Ignatios]

You wrote that now I say: “…that the reason for the support of the Western Bishops to the Three Chapters was …because it was composed in a very particular way by the Fathers of the 5th e.c. which it was different from the conclusion of Chalcedon!”

Yes, and before also, as stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Both Ibas and Theodoret had been deprived of their bishoprics by heretics, and had been restored by the Holy See and the Council of Chalcedon on anathematizing Nestorius. Yet the council had their writings before it, and, in the case of the epistle of Ibas, things were said which could easily be construed into an approval of it. All this made the condemnation look like an oblique blow at St. Leo and Chalcedon. The matter was further complicated by the fact that the Latins, Vigilius among them, were for the most part ignorant of Greek and therefore unable to judge the incriminated writings for themselves. Pelagius II in his third epistle to Elias, probably drawn up by St. Gregory the Great, ascribes all the trouble to this ignorance. All they had to go upon was the general attitude of the Fathers of Chalcedon.”
Regarding: “To be ex cathedra it must be defined, and it must be a dogma, neither of which was the case here with any defense of the Three Chapters. Also if there was a definiton it could be not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church.”

You wrote: “… According to you and to Pope Vigilius it was defined by the 4th E.C., so it must have been an ex-cathedra because he had in mind the definition of the 4th E.C.”

Okay I think we both know what we wrote, My apology, but what is your point I am loosing you, I don’t understand what is your argument in the above.

It was not a dogma to not condemn the Three Chapters; Chalcedon did not do so either. Nestorianism was rejected at Ephesus, and Vigilius always stated the he had the faith of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

It was a dogma to reject the doctrine and the theology and the understanding of the Three Chapters, anything else the 4thE.C. and the 5th E.C. would have been contradicting each others but they were not they were in full harmony with one another.

OH by the way do you know what the was the doctrine of the Three Chapters??? read them and then tell me if you agree with them and if YOU see them as being in line with the Teaching fo the 4th E.C.

It seems that you do not understand how to apply the current definition to a historical situation.

Me??? …loooool …okay looool

It is not to be assumed that the dogma of infallibility was defined back then.

It didn’t exist, the infallibility of the Pope that is as it is explained by the Modern RCC, but if it was the positions in this controversy were reverse then this by all means the RCs would have made out of it the biggest proof of the infallibility of the Pope, but thanks to GOD that it was not.lool

Not condemning the Three Chapters is not the same matter as a definition of dogma.

Vico if he didn’t JUST not condemn the Three Chapters maybe things wouldn’t have been as bad, but not only he was reluctant from condemning them, but also he “DEFENDED” the Three Chapters.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Ignatios]

I think that our lack of trust between Jistinian and Vigilus is warranted as Justinian and Theodora were attempting to depose Vigilus throughout the beginning of his reign as pope.

Yes and prior to that it was Theodora who sent a byzantine general and made him a Pope after he agreed with Theodora to disallow the 4th E.C. and reject the Tome of Pope Leo plus that he received lots of money, but when he became a Pope he rejected all this so she became suspicious with him and she tried to get rid of him, and hence the story of Pope Viglius was back and forth on everything:

" ***Here Vigilius met Empress Theodora and the two began to conspire with each other. Theodora was anxious to get revenge for the setbascks suffered by supporters of the monophysite heresy and Vigilius was anxious to eventually become pope. Theodora promised to support his bid to become pope and to provide large sums of money if, in exchange, Vigilius promised to support Theodora’s doctrinal causes.

After Agapetus died, Vigilius headed to Rome to take what he believed was rightfully his. During this time Silverius had been elected pope due to the influence of the Goths. However, once in Rome, Vigilius and the Byzantine commander Belisarius received letters from Theodora explaining the situation and Belisarius proceeded to use his military forces to depose Silverius. After that, military and Byzantine pressure caused Vigilius to be elected pope. Unfortuantely for Silverius, he was put into Vigilius’ care and died due to the harsh treatment he had to endure - but it was only after Silverius’ death that Vigilius was universally acknowledged as pope by the Christian clergy.

Unfortunately, Vigilius was faced with a problem. He had promised Theodora to support the Monophysites, but Theodras husband - emperor Justinian - opposed the Monophysites. At different times Vigilius expressed his sympathy and support for both sides, but he couldn’t maintain his balancing act forever. Over time, he ended up doing more to deepen the divisions within the Church rather than heal them as he tried so hard to do***"atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_vigilius.htm

The above is just a portion of the whole.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Vico]

†††

The difference in the doctrines between Chalcedon and Constantinople II are mentioned in the previous post and you said the meaning was not clear. The councils kept refining the Christological understanding. It was possible to hold more different beliefs without being heretical, prior to the definitions given at each council.

Ephesus, 431 – condemned the writings of Nestorius that Christ had two natures divine and human (dyophysite), and accepting instead that “divinity and humanity together made perfect for us one Lord and one Christ, together marvelously and mysteriously combining to form a unity” – from the second letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius.

Chalcedon, 451 – reaffirmed that Christ has two natures in one hypostasis, but did not condemn the persons of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. The Christological heresies condemned were:

• Docetist that Christ was “perfect in manness,”
• Paul of Samosata that the Logos was ‘begotten of the Father before the ages’ and had a “personal subsistence,”
• Sabellians that the Son and the Father are distinct persons,
• Arians that the Lord was “perfect deity, truly God, and consubstantial with the Father,”
• Apollinarius “that Jesus had a rational soul that is a spirit,”
• Nestorius that Mary was Christotokos, not Theotokos, and Christ is one divine person “not parted or divided” and “whose natures are in union,”
• Eutychians that “in Christ were two natures without confusion and without change, the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person.”

Constantinople II, 544 – The Council refined the doctrine in the Monophysite direction. The Council accepted hypostatic union (henosis kath’hypostasin) and rejected a union of natures (henosis kata physin), which was more specific than Chalcedon. (Note that kenosis means self-emptying.) It was established firmly that “One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh”. They used St. Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius.The Council proclaimed the Cyrillian expression “one incarnate nature” must be understood only as a synonym of one hypostasis.
And you wrote: “and now you are saying because it was composed in a very particular way by the Fathers of the 5th e.c. which it was different from the conclusion of Chalcedon!”

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

I said that the decisions of Constantinople II are a refinement of the doctrine of Chalcedon, that council did not condemn the person of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas, (which Justinian’s two edicts demanded by 545 and again in 551) although Chalcedon did condemn the writings of Theodore. Since Pope Vigilius states that he always holds the faith of Chalcedon, we know that he does not believe in the heretical dyophysite teachings of Theodore.
Your statement was omitted by mistake: “Besides have you forgotten that YOU said before that the reason for the support of the Western Bishops to the Three Chapters was because of language barrier?”

As you mentioned, I posted these:

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

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

Why?

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

 

[Ignatios]

The difference in the doctrines between Chalcedon and Constantinople II are mentioned in the previous post and you said the meaning was not clear. The councils kept refining the Christological understanding. It was possible to hold more different beliefs without being heretical, prior to the definitions given at each council.
Ephesus, 431 – condemned the writings of Nestorius that Christ had two natures divine and human (dyophysite), and accepting instead that “divinity and humanity together made perfect for us one Lord and one Christ, together marvelously and mysteriously combining to form a unity” – from the second letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius.

Chalcedon, 451 – reaffirmed that Christ has two natures in one hypostasis, but did not condemn the persons of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. The Christological heresies condemned were:

• Docetist that Christ was “perfect in manness,”
• Paul of Samosata that the Logos was ‘begotten of the Father before the ages’ and had a “personal subsistence,”
• Sabellians that the Son and the Father are distinct persons,
• Arians that the Lord was “perfect deity, truly God, and consubstantial with the Father,”
• Apollinarius “that Jesus had a rational soul that is a spirit,”
• Nestorius that Mary was Christotokos, not Theotokos, and Christ is one divine person “not parted or divided” and “whose natures are in union,”
• Eutychians that “in Christ were two natures without confusion and without change, the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person.”

Constantinople II, 544 – The Council refined the doctrine in the Monophysite direction. The Council accepted hypostatic union (henosis kath’hypostasin) and rejected a union of natures (henosis kata physin), which was more specific than Chalcedon. (Note that kenosis means self-emptying.) It was established firmly that “One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh”. They used St. Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius.The Council proclaimed the Cyrillian expression “one incarnate nature” must be understood only as a synonym of one hypostasis.

for the third time, here is what you said and I questioned a clarification so I can answer properly:
" *** Do you recognize that what was decided at the council was different** than what was decided at Chalcedon? There was nothing uncanonical with staying with the view of Chalcedon, which did not condemn the Three Chapters…*."

However, let me give you my answer for that,
Both Approaches of the Third( Cyrillic ) and the Chalcedonian, were the same Theology that leads to the same Teaching, if the approach was different that does not make the “DECISION” of the Council was different, they both taught the same thing, here allow me to put in this simple example:

1)The third E.C. (Cyrillic) taught: Christ has one nature and that nature is Fully Man and Fully GOD…

1. The fourth (Chalcedon) taught: Christ has twoNatures, Fully Man and Fully GOD …

So it is something like this: 2+2=4 and 2x2=4, the approach is different but the conclusion is the same, there is no different teaching here.

Now you cant deny that Christ the Word was incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, and was made man, and then say that a mere man was born of her, and this man it styles a temple, so from this we are given to understand that God the Word is one [Person] and Christ another [Person]. -----> this some of what Ibas had declared in his letter which is part of the three chapters and it is as anyone can easily recognize the heresy in it AAAAND it is indeed beyond being canonical, it is anti-canonical.

continued…