Catholic FAQ


We were unable to reach our goal for the summer but we have reached 98%
Please consider donating if you can and keep us in your prayers.


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Eastern Catholicism
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #31  
Old Feb 20, '12, 8:40 pm
Vico's Avatar
Vico Vico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2008
Posts: 7,120
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi View Post
That's definitely not a declaration of a council, nor is it an affirmation that a council cannot be ecumenical without a pope presiding. As it was pointed out earlier in this thread, the First Council of Constantinople eventually reached ecumenical status, even though it was conducted without any involvement of the pope.
The first council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) was ratified by Pope Vigilius when he ratified the second council of Constantinople (~554 A.D.).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old Feb 20, '12, 8:58 pm
Cavaradossi's Avatar
Cavaradossi Cavaradossi is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Posts: 3,385
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vico View Post
The first council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) was ratified by Pope Vigilius when he ratified the second council of Constantinople (~554 A.D.).
But we also see that First Constantinople was declared ecumenical by the Council of Chalcedon, which seemed to incur no protest from the legates of Pope Leo I.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old Feb 20, '12, 10:07 pm
Vico's Avatar
Vico Vico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2008
Posts: 7,120
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi View Post
But we also see that First Constantinople was declared ecumenical by the Council of Chalcedon, which seemed to incur no protest from the legates of Pope Leo I.
I could not find any verification of that. The Catholic Encyclopedia has:

At the close of this council Emperor Theodosius issued an imperial decree (30 July) declaring that the churches should be restored to those bishops who confessed the equal Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who held communion with Nectarius of Constantinople and other important Oriental prelates whom he named. The ecumenical character of this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to Photius (Mansi, III, 596) Pope Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed. In the latter half of the fifth century the successors of Leo the Great are silent as to this council. Its mention in the so-called "Decretum Gelasii", towards the end of the fifth century, is not original but a later insertion in that text (Hefele). Gregory the Great, following the example of Vigilius and Pelagius II, recognized it as one of the four general councils, but only in its dogmatic utterances (P.G., LXXVII, 468, 893).

APA citation. Shahan, T. (1908). First Council of Constantinople. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved February 21, 2012 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old Feb 21, '12, 7:24 pm
Trebor135 Trebor135 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2010
Posts: 2,131
Religion: Orthodox (ACROD)
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi View Post
This argument on whether or not pope Vigilius was excommunicated has come up several times on this board. Here are the facts behind the matter: firstly, pope Vigilius wrote concerning the Three Chapters his Constitutum in which he defended the orthodoxy of the Letter of Ibas and declared that neither Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, or Ibas should be anathematized in person; secondly, the Council anathematized those who "have written or do write in defence of [the Three Chapters or the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia]." It is my opinion that this statement was almost certainly aimed at Pope Vigilius, who defended the orthodoxy of the Letter of Ibas and the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia in his Constitutum. Others may interpret the facts differently, of course, but it seems rather self-evident to me.

For reference, here is the relevant passage from the sentence of the Second Council of Constantinople, which I have quoted above:
Interesting.

What would be the Catholic response to this seemingly... unhelpful information?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old Feb 21, '12, 7:46 pm
Vico's Avatar
Vico Vico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2008
Posts: 7,120
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trebor135 View Post
Interesting.

What would be the Catholic response to this seemingly... unhelpful information?
Catholic:
... Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. ...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.
Shahan, T. (1908). Second Council of Constantinople. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved February 21, 2012 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old Feb 21, '12, 9:50 pm
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trebor135 View Post
Interesting.

What would be the Catholic response to this seemingly... unhelpful information?
Our Eastern Orthodox brother typically does not tell the whole story, or perhaps it is just a matter of his own sources being rather bias in its reporting of the facts: Here are the full and actual facts of the matter:

The letter of Ibas passed before the Council Fathers of Chalcedon and did not receive a condemnation (a mistake of Chalcedon).

Theodoret was regarded as orthodox in his lifetime and was a Father at the Council of Chalcedon and died at peace with the Church. At Chalcedon, he agreed to the condemnation of certain propositions branded as "Nestorianism." However, he had always maintained that Nestorius was wrongly accused of the teachings that were attributed to him (in other words, that Nestorius did not really teach what his enemies claimed he taught).

Theodore was regarded as orthodox in his lifetime and though his teaching was condemned at the Council of Ephesus (after his death), St. Cyril of Alexandria refused to condemn his person.

The Fathers of Chalcedon acted favorably towards Ibas and Theodoret (and by association, Theodore).

Pope Vigilius' actions merely followed those orthodox Fathers that went before him.

Btw, it is a bit of a stretch to claim that Pope Vigilius "defended the orthodoxy of the Letter of Ibas." Pope Vigilius had initially condemned it in his Judicatum, and withdrew it only after all of Western Christendom protested that the condemnation would weaken the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. Pope Vigilius wrote that the Letter could be taken as orthodox if interpreted in the best possible sense. It was not an unmitigated defense of the Letter of Ibas, as our EO brother would like to pretend and have us believe.

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old Feb 21, '12, 10:17 pm
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Here is the Final Sentence of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and its statements on Pope Vigilius (given several months before the Pope finally confirmed the Acts of the Council):
"And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in the royal city was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters, that a suitable definition of the right faith might be set forth by us all."

Gee, no mention of an anathema on Pope Vigilius here. How does a Council posiitively BY NAME appeal to one it supposedly anathematized?

It is also a fact that Patriarchs who were judged to be in opposition to Ecum Councils were DEPOSED (e.g., Nesotorius and Pope St. Dioscorus of Alexandria). Was Pope Vigilius deposed? If he was supposedly anathematized (as some EO like to pretend), why was he not deposed? Brother Trebor, that's a question you have to seriously consider before granting any validity to the non-Catholic rhetoric.

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old Feb 21, '12, 11:05 pm
Cavaradossi's Avatar
Cavaradossi Cavaradossi is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Posts: 3,385
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
Here is the Final Sentence of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and its statements on Pope Vigilius (given several months before the Pope finally confirmed the Acts of the Council):
"And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in the royal city was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters, that a suitable definition of the right faith might be set forth by us all."

Gee, no mention of an anathema on Pope Vigilius here. How does a Council posiitively BY NAME appeal to one it supposedly anathematized?

It is also a fact that Patriarchs who were judged to be in opposition to Ecum Councils were DEPOSED (e.g., Nesotorius and Pope St. Dioscorus of Alexandria). Was Pope Vigilius deposed? If he was supposedly anathematized (as some EO like to pretend), why was he not deposed? Brother Trebor, that's a question you have to seriously consider before granting any validity to the non-Catholic rhetoric.

Blessings,
Marduk
You have omitted the part of the story where Vigilius was struck from the diptychs for his defense of the Three Chapters. From the seventh session of the Council:

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

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.v.html
Now how about a quotation straight from Pope Vigilius' pen after he decided that approving of the council was better than being struck from the diptychs:
Quote:
Therefore we anathematize and condemn the aforesaid impious Three Chapters, to-wit, the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia and his impious writings; And all that Theodoret impiously wrote, as well as the letter said to have been written by Ibas, in which are contained the above mentioned profane blasphemies. We likewise subject to anathema whoever shall at any time believe that these chapters should be received or defended; or shall attempt to subvert this present condemnation.

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

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

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.xii.html
This isn't just a letter in which pope Vigilius approves of the council's actions, this is a full-blown retraction of his prior defense of the Three Chapters. Even he himself admits the possibility that he wrote in defense of the Three Chapters.

Given these things, it is clear that the proof-text which you have pulled from the sentence of the Council does not mean what you want it to mean. It is clear that what the fathers of the council meant by the small passage you have quoted is that they invited pope Vigilius to the council (and history shows of course that he did not show up or participate actively).
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old Feb 21, '12, 11:41 pm
1AugustSon7's Avatar
1AugustSon7 1AugustSon7 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: January 25, 2012
Posts: 1,124
Religion: Catholic Christian
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Quote:
Originally Posted by smad0142 View Post
Someone once told me that one of the early Ecumenical Councils contains a statement that there can not be a Council without the Bishop of Rome. Can anyone provide a quote or tell me which Council? Thanks!
The very first ecumenical council of the Church was held in Saint James' diocese in Jerusalem, which His Holiness Saint Peter presided over. When he spoke all the rest "fell silent"; that is, they talked, he listened and decided.

There is no such thing as a Council without the Pope's approval since the beginning:
[6] And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. [7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them...
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old Feb 21, '12, 11:46 pm
Vico's Avatar
Vico Vico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2008
Posts: 7,120
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi View Post
...

This isn't just a letter in which pope Vigilius approves of the council's actions, this is a full-blown retraction of his prior defense of the Three Chapters. Even he himself admits the possibility that he wrote in defense of the Three Chapters.
....
Not posted yet from that Leter is Pope Vigilius statement that he was always in doctrinal agreement with the prior councils:
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 fulfill 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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old Feb 22, '12, 1:26 am
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi View Post
You have omitted the part of the story where Vigilius was struck from the diptychs for his defense of the Three Chapters. From the seventh session of the Council:
No, I didn't omit it because I knew that this little snippet is the whole basis for the non-Catholic position. Interestingly, there is scholarly dispute whether this portion of the Acts is genuine. I don't know why they dispute it, but I know why I would.

Following the part you quoted about striking the name of the Pope from the diptychs, the Fathers of the Council supposedly wrote this:
"The Holy Synod said: What has seemed good to the most pious emperor is congruent to the labours which he bears for the unity of the churches. Let us preserve unity to the Apostolic See of the most holy Church of ancient Rome, carrying out all things according to the tenor of what has been read."

Let me ask you, Cavaradossi: How does one maintain unity with a See if you have anathematized its legitimate bishop? That goes against the entire ecclesiology of the Catholic Church from the beginning since St. Ignatius of Antioch. A See is ontologically connected to its bishop. If the bishop is heretical, you depose and replace him to preserve the sanctity of the See. But this was never done with Pope Vigilius. And further, you have yet to give a valid reason why they appealed to his name POSITIVELY in their Final Sentence, as one who had often condemned in word and deed the Three Chapters.

You have yet to explain how it is that Pope Vigilius was not deposed if he was anathematized by the Council (as you have claimed). You have yet to explain how the Fathers of the Council could have appealed to Pope Vigilius' name positively in their Final Sentence if they had indeed anathematized him. Now you have another question to answer (bolded in red above). I hope you can answer these three questions, or just drop what is a rather untenable position.

Quote:
Now how about a quotation straight from Pope Vigilius' pen after he decided that approving of the council was better than being struck from the diptychs:

This isn't just a letter in which pope Vigilius approves of the council's actions, this is a full-blown retraction of his prior defense of the Three Chapters. Even he himself admits the possibility that he wrote in defense of the Three Chapters.
Already answered by brother Vico. The snippet you provided don't stand up to the entire context. The entire context demonstrates that what Pope Vigilius meant was that they were at one in the Faith, but there were those who were using his writings to suggest otherwise and cause division. So he annuls his writings that were being misused by those who were sowing disunity in the Church. It was not as if he believed anything differently than the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum and was retracting those previous beliefs.

Quote:
Given these things, it is clear that the proof-text which you have pulled from the sentence of the Council does not mean what you want it to mean. It is clear that what the fathers of the council meant by the small passage you have quoted is that they invited pope Vigilius to the council (and history shows of course that he did not show up or participate actively).
What I quoted specifically states that he was present at all the proceedings, not just invited and "did not show up." It appears you are avoiding the plain text. I think you might be confusing Pope Vigilius' well-known disapproval of the proceedings, and simply presumed he was not present at the proceedings. As the Acts of Session VII indicate, the Fathers regularly reported the proceedings to Pope Vigilius, so he was certainly fully involved.

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old Feb 22, '12, 6:34 am
Cavaradossi's Avatar
Cavaradossi Cavaradossi is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Posts: 3,385
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,


No, I didn't omit it because I knew that this little snippet is the whole basis for the non-Catholic position. Interestingly, there is scholarly dispute whether this portion of the Acts is genuine. I don't know why they dispute it, but I know why I would.

Following the part you quoted about striking the name of the Pope from the diptychs, the Fathers of the Council supposedly wrote this:
"The Holy Synod said: What has seemed good to the most pious emperor is congruent to the labours which he bears for the unity of the churches. Let us preserve unity to the Apostolic See of the most holy Church of ancient Rome, carrying out all things according to the tenor of what has been read."

Let me ask you, Cavaradossi: How does one maintain unity with a See if you have anathematized its legitimate bishop? That goes against the entire ecclesiology of the Catholic Church from the beginning since St. Ignatius of Antioch. A See is ontologically connected to its bishop. If the bishop is heretical, you depose and replace him to preserve the sanctity of the See. But this was never done with Pope Vigilius. And further, you have yet to give a valid reason why they appealed to his name POSITIVELY in their Final Sentence, as one who had often condemned in word and deed the Three Chapters.

You have yet to explain how it is that Pope Vigilius was not deposed if he was anathematized by the Council (as you have claimed). You have yet to explain how the Fathers of the Council could have appealed to Pope Vigilius' name positively in their Final Sentence if they had indeed anathematized him. Now you have another question to answer (bolded in red above). I hope you can answer these three questions, or just drop what is a rather untenable position.


Already answered by brother Vico. The snippet you provided don't stand up to the entire context. The entire context demonstrates that what Pope Vigilius meant was that they were at one in the Faith, but there were those who were using his writings to suggest otherwise and cause division. So he annuls his writings that were being misused by those who were sowing disunity in the Church. It was not as if he believed anything differently than the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum and was retracting those previous beliefs.


What I quoted specifically states that he was present at all the proceedings, not just invited and "did not show up." It appears you are avoiding the plain text. I think you might be confusing Pope Vigilius' well-known disapproval of the proceedings, and simply presumed he was not present at the proceedings. As the Acts of Session VII indicate, the Fathers regularly reported the proceedings to Pope Vigilius, so he was certainly fully involved.

Blessings,
Marduk
Surely what they meant when they said that they were striking Vigilius from the diptychs but maintaining unity with Rome was just that. They would cease to commemorate Vigilius, but not break communion with the other clergy in Rome.

Also, I am almost positive that the passage you quoted out of context refers to Vigilius' original condemnations in his judicatum. What they are saying is that he agreed to show up, but instead published the constitutm and refused to submit to the council, leading to him being struck from the diptychs. All accounts I have read describe Vigilius first giving assent to hold the council, but later withdrawing his assent. Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, says that Vigilius, "refused to participate." The Catholic encyclopedia also supports my statement that Pope Vigilius defended the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia in his Constitutum, any defense of whom was amathematized in the sentence of the council which I produced several posts earlier.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old Feb 22, '12, 9:49 am
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi View Post
Surely what they meant when they said that they were striking Vigilius from the diptychs but maintaining unity with Rome was just that. They would cease to commemorate Vigilius, but not break communion with the other clergy in Rome.
Nice theory, but falls flat on its face, given the fact that Western Christendom (apparently not knowing the theological nuances of the debate according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) refused to condemn the Three Chapters. It is useless for you to claim that the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum were willing to maintain communion with the Apostolic See when all the clergy in that See were on the side of Vigilius. It seems this claim that the Pope was struck from the diptychs must have been an interpolation of someone who did not understand the basic ecclesiology of the Church. You have not yet answered the original question. How do you maintain communion with a See while simultaneously anathemizing its orthodox bishop? Try again.

Quote:
Also, I am almost positive that the passage you quoted out of context refers to Vigilius' original condemnations in his judicatum.
What statements am I taking out of context? Please be specific.

Quote:
What they are saying is that he agreed to show up, but instead published the constitutm and refused to submit to the council, leading to him being struck from the diptychs.
Where does the Final Sentence of the Fifth Council indicate that Pope Vigilius was struck from the diptychs? Please respond. You are depending completely on an excerpt of text that is not contained in the Final Sentence, an excerpt which likewise is not consistently contained in all the sources (i.e., the Emperor's request that Pope Vigilius' name be struck from the diptychs). Aside from that debatable excerpt, there is no indication anywhere else in the Council's Acts that Pope Vigilius was actually anathematized or struck from the diptychs.

Quote:
All accounts I have read describe Vigilius first giving assent to hold the council, but later withdrawing his assent.
To be more precise, he withdrew his assent to the holding of the Council under the terms of the Emperor, since the Council would not be representative of all of Christendom.

Quote:
Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, says that Vigilius, "refused to participate."
Yes, he refused to participate as a protest to the Emperor's heavy-handed tactics which did not give equal representation to Western bishops. But that does not mean that when the ball got rolling, he did not intend to be part of the conciliar proceedings. After all, the council still needed his confirmation. In fact, the Pope gave his own judgment (the first Constitutum) in a collegial manner.

Quote:
The Catholic encyclopedia also supports my statement that Pope Vigilius defended the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia in his Constitutum, any defense of whom was amathematized in the sentence of the council which I produced several posts earlier.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
Pope Vigilius' Constitutum was promulgated before the Final Sentence. It followed very closely the results of the Council of Chalcedon. The only thing different from Chalcedon was the theological condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia's doctrines, information no doubt obtained from the proceedings of the Fifth Council (proof positive that he was working with the Council Fathers, contrary to your claim). It was not until almost three weeks later that the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum promulgated its Final Sentence which gave a detailed analysis of the the doctrinal issues as well as their rationale for condemning persons who died at peace with the Church.

There was no difference between the Faith held by Pope Vigilius and that of the Fifth Ecum, so they had no basis upon which to condemn him. The only real issue was the condemnation of persons who died at peace with the Church. The Final Sentence evinces that this was a keen issue at the Council, probably brought about by Pope Vigilius' own first Constitutum. The Fathers of the Fifth Ecum knew that the issues raised by the first Constitutum were legitimate, so they had to defend their position on the condemnation of the persons by appealing to prior sources.

You also have to remember that Pope Vigilius did not understand Greek. In his final Constitutum, he plainly admits that he was not aware of all the facts, and only after becoming aware of everything did he confirm the Council's Sentence.

There is no basis to believe the claim that Pope Vigilius was anathematized by the Fifth Council. What we have is a case of the body working with their recognized head until consensus was reached.

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old Feb 22, '12, 11:35 am
Cavaradossi's Avatar
Cavaradossi Cavaradossi is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Posts: 3,385
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,


Nice theory, but falls flat on its face, given the fact that Western Christendom (apparently not knowing the theological nuances of the debate according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) refused to condemn the Three Chapters. It is useless for you to claim that the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum were willing to maintain communion with the Apostolic See when all the clergy in that See were on the side of Vigilius. It seems this claim that the Pope was struck from the diptychs must have been an interpolation of someone who did not understand the basic ecclesiology of the Church. You have not yet answered the original question. How do you maintain communion with a See while simultaneously anathemizing its orthodox bishop? Try again.


What statements am I taking out of context? Please be specific.


Where does the Final Sentence of the Fifth Council indicate that Pope Vigilius was struck from the diptychs? Please respond. You are depending completely on an excerpt of text that is not contained in the Final Sentence, an excerpt which likewise is not consistently contained in all the sources (i.e., the Emperor's request that Pope Vigilius' name be struck from the diptychs). Aside from that debatable excerpt, there is no indication anywhere else in the Council's Acts that Pope Vigilius was actually anathematized or struck from the diptychs.


To be more precise, he withdrew his assent to the holding of the Council under the terms of the Emperor, since the Council would not be representative of all of Christendom.


Yes, he refused to participate as a protest to the Emperor's heavy-handed tactics which did not give equal representation to Western bishops. But that does not mean that when the ball got rolling, he did not intend to be part of the conciliar proceedings. After all, the council still needed his confirmation. In fact, the Pope gave his own judgment (the first Constitutum) in a collegial manner.


Pope Vigilius' Constitutum was promulgated before the Final Sentence. It followed very closely the results of the Council of Chalcedon. The only thing different from Chalcedon was the theological condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia's doctrines, information no doubt obtained from the proceedings of the Fifth Council (proof positive that he was working with the Council Fathers, contrary to your claim). It was not until almost three weeks later that the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum promulgated its Final Sentence which gave a detailed analysis of the the doctrinal issues as well as their rationale for condemning persons who died at peace with the Church.

There was no difference between the Faith held by Pope Vigilius and that of the Fifth Ecum, so they had no basis upon which to condemn him. The only real issue was the condemnation of persons who died at peace with the Church. The Final Sentence evinces that this was a keen issue at the Council, probably brought about by Pope Vigilius' own first Constitutum. The Fathers of the Fifth Ecum knew that the issues raised by the first Constitutum were legitimate, so they had to defend their position on the condemnation of the persons by appealing to prior sources.

You also have to remember that Pope Vigilius did not understand Greek. In his final Constitutum, he plainly admits that he was not aware of all the facts, and only after becoming aware of everything did he confirm the Council's Sentence.

There is no basis to believe the claim that Pope Vigilius was anathematized by the Fifth Council. What we have is a case of the body working with their recognized head until consensus was reached.

Blessings,
Marduk
I have provided plenty of scholarly work to support my assertion. I stand by my timeline, which you can find is corroborated by the Catholic Encyclopedia:
  • The emperor had an agreement of some sort with Pope Vigilius to convene a council
  • Pope Vigilius withdraws his assent when it becomes clear that Justinian does not wish to hold the council in the West or invite an even number of Eastern and Western bishops
  • On the fifth of May, Justinian calls a council without Vigilius' assent
  • Vigilius did not participate
  • He "remained faithful" to his decision not to participate (i.e., he did not participate even after the council started)
  • On the 14th of May, he submitted to the Emperor a document, his Constitutum, signed by sixteen other bishops, in which he forbids the condemnation of the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, or Ibas.
  • During the seventh session of the council, Vigilius' name is struck from the diptychs
  • The council releases its own judgment, declaring anathema upon the writings and person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, The writings of Theodoret, and the Letter of Ibas, and all those who would defend them.
  • On the Emperor's orders, Vigilius and other clergy who do not comply are to be banished to either upper Egypt or an island in the Propontis.
  • The people of Rome, having repelled the Goths, request for the return of their bishop, to which Justinian agrees on the condition that Vigilius accept the will of the Council
  • Vigilius agrees, sending on the eighth of December a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople (the letter quoted in my post above), and a second constitutum
  • Vigilius dies before reaching Rome

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

If you disagree with this timeline, then provide some scholarly resource which corroborates your version of events.

By the way, this article from the Catholic encyclopedia mentions that the reason why the acts' authenticity was called into doubt was because some parts seem to be in favor of monothelitism. Nowhere does it call into question that Vigilius was struck from the diptychs.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old Feb 25, '12, 3:46 am
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi View Post
I have provided plenty of scholarly work to support my assertion. I stand by my timeline, which you can find is corroborated by the Catholic Encyclopedia:
  • The emperor had an agreement of some sort with Pope Vigilius to convene a council
  • Pope Vigilius withdraws his assent when it becomes clear that Justinian does not wish to hold the council in the West or invite an even number of Eastern and Western bishops
  • On the fifth of May, Justinian calls a council without Vigilius' assent
  • Vigilius did not participate
  • He "remained faithful" to his decision not to participate (i.e., he did not participate even after the council started)
  • On the 14th of May, he submitted to the Emperor a document, his Constitutum, signed by sixteen other bishops, in which he forbids the condemnation of the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, or Ibas.
  • During the seventh session of the council, Vigilius' name is struck from the diptychs
  • The council releases its own judgment, declaring anathema upon the writings and person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, The writings of Theodoret, and the Letter of Ibas, and all those who would defend them.
  • On the Emperor's orders, Vigilius and other clergy who do not comply are to be banished to either upper Egypt or an island in the Propontis.
  • The people of Rome, having repelled the Goths, request for the return of their bishop, to which Justinian agrees on the condition that Vigilius accept the will of the Council
  • Vigilius agrees, sending on the eighth of December a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople (the letter quoted in my post above), and a second constitutum
  • Vigilius dies before reaching Rome

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

If you disagree with this timeline, then provide some scholarly resource which corroborates your version of events.
I guess you are missing the point. Your timeline is fine. It's your constant claim that Vigilius was anathematized that has no support from the sources. At best, you have a request from the Emperor to have his name removed (an excerpt of text that is conspicuously not contained in ALL the sources), but there is no indication ANYWHERE ELSE in the Acts that the removal was done or that he was anathematized.

Quote:
By the way, this article from the Catholic encyclopedia mentions that the reason why the acts' authenticity was called into doubt was because some parts seem to be in favor of monothelitism.
Stop avoiding the issue. The issue with the Monothelite portions was from a different part of the Acts, not the one we're talking about.

Quote:
Nowhere does it call into question that Vigilius was struck from the diptychs.
I see you still haven't answered my question. Your argument is a fallacy called "appeal to authority." I don't care if the Catholic Encylopedia claims it. Show me something from the Acts of the Fifth that demonstrate that Pope Vigilius was actually anathematized. Where is his name mentioned with anathema in the Final Sentence? Certainly, other Ecum Councils had no problem anathematizing patriarchs by name. That's a fourth question that you should think about, btw. Take all the time you want answering the questions. For now, your non-Catholic theory has no consistent logic behind it and is worthless as an apologetic.

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Eastern Catholicism

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8298Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5063CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4349Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: James_OPL
4034OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Servant31
3849SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3604Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3257Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3210Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3183Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3063For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: ineeda



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:24 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.