OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 08:27:06 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Formula of Pope Hormisdas  (Read 5540 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« on: February 15, 2008, 01:36:50 AM »

The Roman Catholic church seems to use the Formula of Pope Hormisdas as evidence to assert their claim that at one time, the Eastern Church recognized that the RC is supreme. Does anyone care to answer as to why the Eastern Church would sign such a document that seems to prove the RC position?

The Formula states that, “... in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate.”; it anathematizes Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Acacius and other heretics and, “... whoever embraces the communion of (such) individuals receives a similar judgment... ”; it says, “... we receive and approve all the letters of the blessed Pope Leo, which he wrote concerning the true faith.”; it states that it is necessary to follow, “... in all things the Apostolic See... ” and to preach, “... whatever has been decreed by it...”; it states that, “...  those who do not agree in every respect with the Apostolic See” are not to be cited, “... during the celebration of the sacred mysteries...”; and ends with, “This profession of faith I [bishop, emperor, priest, etc.] have signed with my own hand, and offered it to you, Hormisdas, holy and venerable pope of the city of Rome.” [CSEL 35: 520-22]
« Last Edit: February 15, 2008, 01:39:27 AM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2008, 01:55:59 AM »

"And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides."

At the time, ie pre-schism, this was not an issue.....it might be moreso now.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2008, 02:21:44 AM »

"And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides."

At the time, ie pre-schism, this was not an issue.....it might be moreso now.

Thank you for your reply. God bless you.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2008, 06:43:29 AM »

I'd have to look up the info (and unfortunately my time is gettig sparse lately), the EP signed the formula only after writing a preface where he stated the equality of Old and New Rome.  The bishop of Thessalonika (not yet fully transferred from Rome to Constantinople) tore it in two.  In Antioch and elsewhere, the bishops refused to sign.

So Rome ended up with a modified agreement signed by those that the emperor could strong arm.

Rome is rather inconsistent in condeming "caesaro-papism." Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: February 15, 2008, 06:44:12 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2008, 11:49:44 AM »

I'd have to look up the info (and unfortunately my time is gettig sparse lately), the EP signed the formula only after writing a preface where he stated the equality of Old and New Rome.  The bishop of Thessalonika (not yet fully transferred from Rome to Constantinople) tore it in two.  In Antioch and elsewhere, the bishops refused to sign.

So Rome ended up with a modified agreement signed by those that the emperor could strong arm.

Rome is rather inconsistent in condeming "caesaro-papism." Roll Eyes

What does "EP" mean?

Thank you for the reply. God be with you.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2008, 12:13:27 PM »

"Ecumenical Patriarch" - Patriarch of Constantinople
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2008, 01:36:57 PM »

Actually EP here is an anachronism: the bishop didn't get that title for a century after the period we are talking of.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2008, 03:19:55 PM »

"And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides."

At the time, ie pre-schism, this was not an issue.....it might be moreso now.

I was going to ask this elsewhere, but will start here:

How do we know the official Orthodox positions on these issues? For not everything they believe are found in the councils. Elsewhere, I have read that the Orthodox do not believe Peter a bishop. Is there any mention of this in the first 8 councils? I am beginning to wonder where to look for official Orthodox teaching. Is there an official catechism like the RC have?

Thank you and God Bless.

Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2008, 03:42:25 PM »

I was going to ask this elsewhere, but will start here:

How do we know the official Orthodox positions on these issues? For not everything they believe are found in the councils. Elsewhere, I have read that the Orthodox do not believe Peter a bishop. Is there any mention of this in the first 8 councils? I am beginning to wonder where to look for official Orthodox teaching. Is there an official catechism like the RC have?



No, but remember the RC one is less than two decades old.  There are a number of them for us.  Philoret's longer catechism is a good bet.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2008, 04:19:36 PM »

No, but remember the RC one is less than two decades old.  There are a number of them for us.  Philoret's longer catechism is a good bet.

Are you saying that Philoret's longer catechism has the Orthodox's official teaching?
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2008, 05:53:45 PM »

Are you saying that Philoret's longer catechism has the Orthodox's official teaching?

It has the stamp of usage by generations of Orthodox.   You would be hard pressed to argue against it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2008, 09:27:30 PM »

It has the stamp of usage by generations of Orthodox.   You would be hard pressed to argue against it.

I will try to get a hold of it. Thanks for the info!

God Bless you!
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2008, 10:01:23 AM »

St. Philaret's Catechism may be read here:

http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2009, 01:32:39 PM »

On another forum  police Roll Eyes police there is a thread on the OP here, on the "Eastern Catholicism Forum":Eastern Catholic opinion wanted on Formula of Hormisdas."  Mardukm, of course, is busy there.   I thought we might get to the truth here.

The thread there was started on this:
http://energeticprocession.com/2009/02/16/some-notes-on-the-acacian-schism/

where he makes the interesting observation:
Quote
It is also noteworthy that not all of the eastern churches subscribed to the Formula. The Church of Jerussalem would not do so even under threat of imperial force. And it is important to recall that Justinian designated the church of Jerusalem as “the Mother of the Christian name, from which no one dares to separate.” (PL 63, 503) This is important to keep in mind, say during the monothelite controversy under the patriarch of Jersualem Sophronius  as opposed to Pope Honorius of Rome.

As I've posted, Patriarch John wrote an introduction:
The patriarch of Constantinople, John II of Cappadocia (518-20), signed only after affixing his own preamble to the text: “Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see.”


Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica, tore the Formula of Hormisdas in two in front of the people. He was brought to Constantinople for trial, exiled to Heraclea while his case was being considered, but then restored to his see in Thessalonica without ever signing the Formula. The emperor Justin wrote to Hormisdas that many found it difficult to sign the libellus: they “esteem life harder than death, if they should condemn those, when dead, whose life, when they were alive, was the glory of their people.” In reply, Pope Hormisdas urged the emperor to use force to compel them to sign.

According to Denny’s Papalism (referenced in Moss’s The Old Catholic Movement) the other patriarchates of the East refused to sign this statement, and were reconciled through a different agreement. Patriarch John was succeeded by Epiphanius in 520. Patriarch Epiphanius (520-35) wrote to the pope to explain that "very many of the holy bishops of Pontus and Asia and, above all, those referred to as of the Orient, found it to be difficult and even impossible to expunge the names of their former bishops … they were prepared to brave any danger rather than commit such a deed.” Pope Hormisdas wrote to Patriarch Epiphanius and gave him authority to act on his behalf in the East. In this letter, Hormisdas made restoration of communion dependent on agreeing to a declaration of faith that left unmentioned the claimed prerogatives of the bishop of Rome.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chron6.htm

The Vatican's present the Ecumenical Council (869:Only promoted as such when the Vatican, embroiled in its own investiture contraversy dug up an anti-Photian treatise (the fragmentary record of the 869 Council only survives in this) and its canons. This was post 1054) required the members to sign on to the Formula of Hormisdas, which is odd as the apologists of the Vatican claim it showed papal supremacy in the sixth century. The 869 was dealing with the fact that as many bishops as the emperor couldn't strong arm (Pope Hormisdas told him to use force), refused to sign, included bishops under Rome.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 01:53:58 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2009, 02:59:17 PM »

http://books.google.com/books?id=tsE9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=Hormisdas+Epiphanius+Dorotheus&source=bl&ots=M8hMT4fq-z&sig=kjanGS3WQvFV8rYFW-LafylN2sQ&hl=en&ei=kBIoSoODPKPYMKSc4IoF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#PPA108,M1
has a few interesting things to say on this issue.  Bottom line, Pope Hormisdas' supremacy wasn't recognized in the East, even by his own sufragans.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2009, 04:00:47 PM »

The Apologist for the Vatican's view of the Formula of Hormidas says that even in the shortened formula, the reference to Rome's unsullied faith remains.  So Pope Hormisdas makes big claims for his see in the formula he wrote. Who would have guessed? Roll Eyes  That doesn't explain away Justinian (the emperor Pope Hormisdas told to use force to get the signatures)'s reference to Jerusalem as the see from which none dared to seperate, quoted above.

The "fellow-minister" reference by EP John is dismissed by saying even the Vatican claims the pope is fellow minister to the other bishops.  Unfortunately, the Vatican doesn't claim this consistently, only when its ultramontanism is questioned.  And it still doesn't explain why the fellow minister reference wasn't in Pope Hormisdas' original, and why EP John wouldn't sign without the addition.

A good comparison has been made to the Henoticon: many bishops signed that, but that means nothing, except that emperors could exert undue pressure on hierarchs, as the case with the Formula of Hormisdas.  As has been pointed out, the Formula of Hormisdas remains no more authoritative than the Henoticon.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2011, 11:34:02 PM »

This topic has come up on another thread, that I'll answer here, Lord willing.

In the meantime, it might do well to have the actual text to deal with:
Quote
The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ["the Cat"] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter ["the Fuller"] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wkbPPvYe5KEJ:www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/122063/The%2520Formula%2520of%2520Pope%2520St%2520Hormisd+formula+of+hormisdas+text&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

This source has a few cogent comments (though I do not agree with all the particulars in detail).
Quote
The answer is that the "Formula" was imposed on the Eastern Churches by the Emperor Justin I as a means of ending the Acacian Schism and therefore open the way to the reestablishment of Byzantine jurisdiction over Italy (which was accomplished by Justin's successor Justinian the Great). When the document was ratified by the Church of Constantinople, the Patriarch signed his name with a caveat, that "Constantinople, being 'New Rome', is one with and equal to 'Old Rome'". There was never on the part of the Eastern Churches any interpretation of the Formula of Hormosidas as making them "subordinate" to the Church of Rome, let alone the notion that Rome had any sort of jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches. Going beyond the immediate facts around the signing of the Formula, one must look at how the Eastern Churches actually lived their relationship with the Church of Rome in order to see what interpretation must be given to the Formula itself. And there, we see that the Eastern Churches acted as full and independent, neither subordinate to or under the jurisdiction of Rome. In effect, everything stayed as it was, and in the three centuries after the signing of the Formula, it remains an historical fact that the Bishop of Rome had to have his election ratified by the Emperor of New Rome, and had to submit a synodicon to the imperial exarch at Ravenna. In other words, the Formula of Hormosidas had absolutely NO effect on the inner or outer lives of either the Western or Eastern Churches, and therefore has no bearing on relations between the Eastern and Western Churches today--except in the minds of people like Jim Likoudis.
Quote
it would be more accurate to say that Rome, being both an intellectual backwater and lacking a theological "school" of its own on par with Alexandria and Antioch, and later Constantinople (the real "superstars" of the patristic era Churches), and being inately conservative in outlook, tended to stand aloof from the various controversies of the day and so served as a benchmark of Christian orthodoxy against which new concepts were measured. Rome did very little innovative thinking in the first millennium, and Leo the Great's Tome to Flavian remains very much the exception that proves the rule (and at Chalcedon, it was not blindly accepted, but tested against the gold standard Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, and then modified before being incorporated into the "Chalcedonian Formula."
Quote
This is a term which is much misunderstood in contemporary society, which is not based on the two bedrocks of late classical society--status and auctoritas. Being primus inter pares has nothing to do with juridical rank, but with prestige, charisma. It was something that had to be earned and maintained, and which could not be defined in advance. In the case of Rome, it came initially because Rome was the center of the Empire, and the early Church believed that ecclesial structures should parallel those of the secular power. It also came from the prestige and auctoritas of the Church of Rome's size, wealth and above all, the witness of her martyrs. That she could number among these both Peter and Paul gave Rome an extra dash of dignitas and auctoritas, but its primacy in the first half of the first millennium was never based on "apostolicity". In fact, the apotolic argument (that Rome was founded by Peter AND Paul, later that Rome was founded by Peter, and later still, that the Bishop of Rome was Peter's heir and inherited Peter's special place) begins to emerge only as the social and political prestige of the city of Rome begins to decline in the fourth century.
Quote
Those for whom the entire issue of Catholicity is centered around acceptance of certain propositions regarding the Bishop of Rome, as opposed to understanding and reception of the entirety of the Catholic Tradition as maintained by all the Apostolic Churches--to which the issue of universal primacy is tangential at best.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2011, 11:44:29 PM »

Since the Formula of Hormisdas was formulated in response to the Henotikon decree, its text might be helpful
Quote
THE emperor Caesar Zeno, pious, victorious, triumphant, supreme, ever worshipful Augustus, to the most reverent bishops and clergy, and to the monks and laity throughout Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. Being assured that the origin and constitution, the might and invincible defence of our sovereignty is the only right and true faith, which, through divine inspiration, the three hundred holy fathers assembled at Nicaea set forth, and the hundred and fifty holy fathers, who in like manner met at Constantinople, confirmed; we night and day employ every means of prayer, of zealous pains and of laws, that the holy Catholic and apostolic church in every place may be multiplied, the uncorruptible and immortal mother of our sceptre; and that the pious laity, continuing in peace and unanimity with respect to God, may, together with the bishops, highly beloved of God, the most pious clergy, the archimandrites and monks, offer up acceptably their supplications in behalf of our sovereignty. So long as our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who was incarnate and born of Mary, the Holy Virgin, and Mother of God, approves and readily accepts our concordant glorification and service, the power of our enemies will be crushed and swept away, and peace with its blessings, kindly temperature, abundant produce, and whatever is beneficial to man, will be liberally bestowed. Since, then, the irreprehensible faith is the preserver both of ourselves and the Roman weal, petitions have been offered to us from pious archimandrites and hermits, and other venerable persons, imploring us with tears that unity should be procured for the churches, and the limbs should be knit together, which the enemy of all good has of old time been eagerly bent upon severing, under a consciousness that defeat will befall him whenever he assails the body while in an entire condition. For since it happens, that of the unnumbered generations which during the lapse of so many years time has withdrawn from life, some have departed, deprived of the laver of regeneration, and others have been borne away on the inevitable journey of man, without having partaken in the divine communion; and innumerable murders have also been perpetrated; and not only the earth, but the very air has been defiled by a multitude of blood-sheddings; that this state of things might be transformed into good, who would not pray? For this reason, we were anxious that you should be informed, that we and the churches in every quarter neither have held, nor do we or shall we hold, nor are we aware of persons who hold, any other symbol or lesson or definition of faith or creed than the before-mentioned holy symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers, which the aforesaid hundred and fifty holy fathers confirmed; and if any person does hold such, we deem him an alien: for we are confident that this symbol alone is, as we said, the preserver of our sovereignty, and on their reception of this alone are all the people baptised when desirous of the saving illumination: which symbol all the holy fathers assembled at Ephesus also followed; who further passed sentence of deposition on the impious Nestorius and those who subsequently held his sentiments: which Nestorius we also anathematise, together with Eutyches and all who entertain opinions contrary to those above-mentioned, receiving at the same time the twelve chapters of Cyril, of holy memory, formerly archbishop of the holy Catholic church of the Alexandrians. We moreover confess, that the only begotten Son of God, himself God, who truly assumed manhood, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is con-substantial with the Father in respect of the Godhead, and con-substantial with ourselves as respects the manhood; that He, having descended, and become incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Mary, the Virgin and Mother of God, is one and not two; for we affirm that both his miracles, and the sufferings which he voluntarily endured in the flesh, are those of a single person: for we do in no degree admit those who either make a division or a confusion, or introduce a phantom; inasmuch as his truly sinless incarnation from the Mother of God did not produce an addition of a son, because the Trinity continued a Trinity even when one member of the Trinity, the God Word, became incarnate. Knowing, then, that neither the holy orthodox churches of God in all parts, nor the priests, highly beloved of God, who are at their head, nor our own sovereignty, have allowed or do allow any other symbol or definition of faith than the before-mentioned holy lesson, we have united ourselves thereto without hesitation. And these things we write not as setting forth a new form of faith, but for your assurance : and every one who has held or holds any other opinion, either at the present or another time, whether at Chalcedon or in any synod whatever, we anathematise; and specially the before-mentioned Nestorius and Eutyches, and those who maintain their doctrines. Link yourselves, therefore, to the spiritual mother, the church, and in her enjoy the same communion with us, according to the aforesaid one and only definition of the faith, namely, that of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers. For your all holy mother, the church, waits to embrace you as true children, and longs to hear your loved voice, so long withheld. Speed yourselves, therefore, for by so doing you will both draw towards yourselves the favor of our Master and Saviour and God, Jesus Christ, and be commended by our sovereignty."

When this had been read, all the Alexandrians united themselves to the holy catholic and apostolic church.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/evagrius_3_book3.htm

Quote
Thw Henoticon (“act of union”) was a document issued by the Eastern Roman Emperor Zeno in 482 in an attempt to reconcile the differences between the Chalcedon and non-Chalcedon supporters in the aftermath of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. The document was prepared by Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople...The items that the Henoticon endorsed included:

  • the faith defined at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils;

  • the condemnations of Eutyches and Nestorius that had been issued at Chalcedon;

  • an explicit approval of the twelve anathemas of Cyril of Alexandria; and

  • avoidance of any statement whether Christ had one or two natures, in an attempt to appease both non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian Christians.

The document failed to satisfy either side. All church leaders took offense at the emperor's open dictate of church policy. After two years of prevarication and temporializing by Acacius, the Pope of Rome, Felix III, in 484, condemned the document and excommunicated Acacius. Acacius in turn removed the name of Pope Felix from the diptychs, effectively beginning the Acacian Schism. The excommunication was largely ignored in Constantinople, even after the death of Acacius in 489.

Zeno died in 491. His successor Anastasius I, as emperor, was sympathetic to the non-Chalcedonians, but he accepted the Henoticon. However, Anastasius was unpopular because of his Miaphysite beliefs, and Vitalian, a Chalcedonian general, attempted to overthrow him in 514, but failed. Anastasius attempted to heal the schism with Pope Hormisdas of Rome, but this failed when Anastasius refused to recognize the excommunication of the now deceased Acacius.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Henoticon
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 11:46:20 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2011, 10:42:21 AM »

Since in reality the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and not the Formula of Hormisdas, healed the Acacian Schism (and hopefully will finally heal the OO-EO split), its definition can be compared with the Henoticon and the Formula of Hormisdas:
Quote
Sentence against the "Three Chapters"

Our great God and saviour Jesus Christ, as we are told in the parable in the gospel, gives talents to each one according to his ability, and at the proper time asks for an account of what has been done by each one. If the person to whom only one talent has been given is condemned because he has not worked and increased it, but has only preserved it without diminishment, how much more serious and more frightening must be the condemnation to which the person is subjected who not only fails to look after himself but scandalizes others and is a cause of offence to them ? It is clear to all believers that when a problem about the faith comes up it is not only the heretical person who is condemned but also the person who is in a position to correct the heresy of others and fails to do so. To those of us to whom the task has been given of governing the church of the Lord, there comes a fear of the condemnation which threatens those who neglect to do the Lord's work. We hurry to take care of the good seed of faith protecting it from the weeds of heresy which have been planted by the enemy. We observed that the pupils of Nestorius were trying to bring their heresy into the church of God by means of the heretical Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia and his books as also by the writings of the heretical Theodoret and the disgraceful letter which is alleged to have been sent by Ibas to Mari the Persian. Our observations prompted us to correct what was happening. We assembled in this imperial city, summoned here by the will of God and the command of the most religious emperor.

The most religious Vigilius happened to be present in this imperial city and took part in all the criticisms against the three chapters. He had frequently condemned them by word of mouth and in his writings. Later he gave a written agreement to take part in our council and to study with us the three chapters so that we could all issue an appropriate definition of the true faith. The most pious emperor, prompted by what was acceptable to us, encouraged a meeting between Vigilius and ourselves because it is proper that the priesthood should impose a common conclusion to matters of common concern. Consequently we asked his reverence to carry out his written undertakings. It did not seem right that the scandal over these three chapters should continue and that the church of God should be further disturbed. In order to persuade him, we reminded him of the great example left us by the apostles and of the traditions of the fathers. Even though the grace of the holy Spirit was abundant in each of the apostles, so that none of them required the advice of another in order to do his work, nevertheless they were loathe to come to a decision on the issue of the circumcision of gentiles until they had met together to test their various opinions against the witness of the holy scriptures.

In this way they unanimously reached the conclusion which they wrote to the gentiles: It has seemed good to the holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.

The holy fathers, who have gathered at intervals in the four holy councils, have followed the examples of antiquity. They dealt with heresies and current problems by debate in common, since it was established as certain that when the disputed question is set out by each side in communal discussions, the light of truth drives out the shadows of lying.

The truth cannot be made clear in any other way when there are debates about questions of faith, since everyone requires the assistance of his neighbour. As Solomon says in his proverbs: A brother who helps a brother shall be exalted like a strong city; he shall be as strong as a well-established kingdom. Again in Ecclesiastes he says: Two are better than one, for they have a good reward for their toil. And the Lord himself says: Amen I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Vigilius was frequently invited by us all, and most distinguished judges were sent to him by the most pious emperor. Eventually he promised to give judgment personally on the three chapters. When we heard this promise, we remembered the warning of the Apostle that each of us shall give an account of himself to God. We were afraid of the condemnation which threatens those who scandalize one of the least important, and of the much more serious one which threatens those who scandalize so very Christian an emperor, the people and all the churches. We also remembered what was said by God to Paul: Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not be silent; for I am with you, and nobody shall be able to harm you. When we met together, therefore, we first of all briefly made a confession of the faith which our lord Jesus Christ true God, handed down to his holy apostles and by means of them to the holy churches, the same faith which those who afterwards were holy fathers and doctors handed down to the people entrusted to them. We confessed that we believe, protect and preach to the holy churches that confession of faith which was set out at greater length by the 318 holy fathers who met in council at Nicaea and handed down the holy doctrine or creed. The 150 who met in council at Constantinople also set out the same faith and made a confession of it and explained it. The 200 holy fathers who met in the first council of Ephesus agreed to the same faith. We follow also the definitions of the 630 who met in council at Chalcedon, regarding the same faith which they both followed and preached. We confessed that we held to be condemned and anathematized all those who had been previously condemned and anathematized by the catholic church and by the aforesaid four councils. When we had made this confession in this way, we made a start on the examination of the three chapters. First, we considered Theodore of Mopsuestia. When all the blasphemies in his works were exposed, we were astonished at God's patience, that the tongue and mind which had formed such blasphemies were not straightaway burned up by divine fire. We would not even have allowed the official reader of these blasphemies to continue, such was our fear of the anger of God at even a rehearsal of them (since each blasphemy was worse than the one before in the extent of its heresy and shook to their foundation the minds of their listeners), if it had not been the case that those who revelled in these blasphemies seemed to us to require the humiliation which their exposure would bring upon them. All of us, angered by the blasphemies against God, burst into attacks and anathemas against Theodore, during and after the reading, as if he had been living and present there. We said: Lord, be favourable to us; not even the demons themselves have dared to speak such things against you.

O his intolerable tongue! O the wickedness of the man ! O the proud hand he raised against his creator! This disgraceful man, who had made a promise to understand the scriptures, did not remember the words of the prophet Hosea: Woe to them, for they have strayed from me! They have become notorious because of their impiety towards me. They spoke evil things about me, and after they had considered them, they spoke even worse things against me. They will fall into a trap because of the depravity of their tongues. Their contempt will be turned inwards on themselves, because they have broken my covenant and acted impiously against my law. The impious Theodore deserves to come under these curses. He dismissed the prophecies about Christ and he vilified, as far as he could, the great mystery of the arrangements that have been made for our salvation. In many ways he tried to demonstrate that the divine word was nothing but fables composed for the amusement of the gentiles. He ridiculed the other condemnations of the impious made by the prophets, especially the one in which holy Habakkuk says of those who teach false doctrines: Woe to him who makes his neighbours drink of the cup of his wrath, and makes them drunk, to gaze on their caverns. This refers to their teachings which are full of darkness and quite separate from the light.

Why ought we to add anything more? Anyone who wishes can consult the volumes of the heretical Theodore or the heretical chapters from his heretical books which have been included in our acts. Anyone can see his unbelievable folly and the disgraceful utterances made by him. We fear to continue and to rehearse again those shameful things. The writings of the holy fathers against him were also read out to us. We heard what had been written against his folly which was more than all the other heretics, and the historical records and imperial laws which set out his heresy from its beginning. Despite all this, those who defended his heresy, delighting in the insults offered by him to his creator, declared that it was improper to anathematize him after his death. Although we were aware of the ecclesiastical tradition concerning heretics, that they are anathematized even after death, we deemed it necessary to go into this matter as well and it can be found in the acts how several heretics were anathematized after they were dead. In many ways it has become clear to us that those who put forward this argument have no concern for God's judgments, nor for the pronouncements of the apostles, nor for the traditions of the fathers. We would willingly question them concerning what they would say about the Lord, who said of himself: He who believes in him is not condemned, he who does not believe in him is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. And about that claim of the Apostle: Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, let him be accursed. As we said earlier, I repeat once more: If anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, let him be accursed.

Since the Lord declares that the person is judged already, and the Apostle curses even the angels if they instruct in anything different from what we have preached, how is it possible even for the most presumptuous to assert that these condemnations apply only to those who are still alive? Are they unaware, or rather pretending to be unaware, that to be judged anathematized is just the same as to be separated from God? The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

It was in the spirit of this text that Cyril of holy memory, in the books which he wrote against Theodore, declared as follows: "Whether or not they are alive, we ought to keep clear of those who are in the grip of such dreadful errors. It is necessary always to avoid what is harmful, and not to be worried about public opinion but rather to consider what is pleasing to God". The same Cyril of holy memory, writing to bishop John of Antioch and to the synod which met there about Theodore who was condemned with Nestorius, says, "It was necessary that a brilliant festival should be kept since all those who had expressed opinions in accordance with Nestorius had been rejected, whoever they were. Action was taken against all those who believed, or had at any time believed, in these mistaken views. This is exactly what we and your holiness pronounced: 'We anathematize those who assert that there exist two sons and two Christs. He who is preached by you and us is, as was said, the single Christ, both Son and Lord, the only-begotten as man, as learned Paul says'". Moreover in his letter to the priests and fathers of monks, Alexander, Martinian, John, Paregorious and Maximus, and to those who were living as solitaries along with them, he says: "The holy synod of Ephesus, meeting in accordance with the will of God, has pronounced sentence against the heresy of Nestorius and has condemned according to justice and with accuracy both Nestorius himself and all those who might later, in inane fashion, adopt the same opinions as he held, and those who had previously adhered to the same opinions and who were bold enough to put them in writing, placing upon them all an equal condemnation. It was quite logical that when a condemnation was issued against one person for such stupidity in what he said, then that condemnation should apply not only to that person alone but also, so to speak, against all those who spread the heresies and untruths. They express these falsehoods against the true dogmas of the church, offering worship to two sons, trying to divide what cannot be divided, and introducing to both heaven and earth the offence of the worship of man. But the sacred band of heavenly spirits worship along with us only one lord Jesus Christ". Moreover, several letters of Augustine of sacred memory, who was particularly outstanding among the African bishops, were read in which he indicates that it is correct to condemn heretics even after their death. Other most reverend bishops of Africa have also observed this church custom; moreover the holy church of Rome has issued anathemas against certain bishops even after they were dead, although they had not been accused on matters of faith while they were alive; the acts of our deliberations bear witness to both these cases. Since the followers of Theodore and his heresy, who are plainly opposed to the truth, have tried to adduce some sections of the writings of Cyril and Proclus of holy memory, as though these were in favour of Theodore, it is appropriate to apply to these attempts the observation of the prophet when he writes: The ways of the Lord are right, and the upright walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them. These followers have willfully misunderstood what the holy fathers wrote, even though it was true and appropriate; they have quoted these writings, dissembling excuses for their own iniquities. It seems that the fathers did not lift the anathema against Theodore but rather used the language of concession in order to lead away from their mistake those who offered some defence of Nestorius and his heresy; their aim was to lead them to perfection and to instruct them that not only was Nestorius, the disciple of heresy, condemned but also his teacher Theodore. The fathers indicate their intention in this matter despite the conciliatory forms used: Theodore was to be anathematized. This has been very clearly shown to be the case by us in our acts from the works of Cyril and Proclus of blessed memory in respect of the condemnation of Theodore and his heresy. This conciliatory attitude is also to be found in the holy scriptures. The apostle Paul employed this tactic at the start of his ministry when he was dealing with those who had been Jews; he circumcised Timothy so that by this conciliation and concession he might lead them to perfection. Afterwards, however, he ruled against circumcision, writing on the subject to the Galatians: Now I Paul say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. We found that the defenders of Theodore have done exactly what the heretics were accustomed to do. They have tried to lift the anathema on the said heretical Theodore by omitting some of the things which the holy fathers had written, by including certain confusing falsehoods of their own, and by quoting a letter of Cyril of blessed memory, as if all this were the evidence of the fathers. The passages which they quoted made the truth absolutely clear once the omitted sections were put back in their proper place. The falsehoods were quite apparent when the true writings were collated. In this matter those who issued these empty statements are those who, in the words of scripture, rely on lies, they make empty pleas; they conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity, they weave the spider's web.

After we had investigated in this way Theodore and his heresy, we took the trouble to quote and include in our acts a few of Theodoret's heretical writings against true faith, against the twelve chapters of holy Cyril and against the first synod of Ephesus. We also included some of Theodoret's writings on the side of the heretical Theodore and Nestorius so that it would be made clear, to the satisfaction of anyone reading our acts, that these opinions had been properly rejected and anathematized.

Thirdly, the letter which is alleged to have been written by Ibas to Mari the Persian was brought under scrutiny and we discovered that it too ought to be officially read out. When the letter was read out, its heretical character was immediately apparent to everyone. Until this time there had been some dispute as to whether the aforesaid three chapters ought to be condemned and anathematized. Since the supporters of the heretics Theodore and Nestorius were conspiring to strengthen in another way the case of these men and their heresy, and were alleging that this heretical letter, which approves and defends Theodore and Nestorius, had been accepted by the holy council of Chalcedon, it was therefore necessary for us to demonstrate that that holy synod was unaffected by the heresy which is present in that letter, and that clearly those who make such allegations are doing so not with the assistance of the holy council but so as to give some support to their own heresy by associating it with the name of Chalcedon. It was demonstrated in our acts that Ibas was previously accused of the same heresy which is contained in this letter. This accusation was levelled first by Proclus of holy memory, bishop of Constantinople, and afterwards by Theodosius of blessed memory and Flavian, the bishop there after Proclus, both of whom gave the task of examining the whole matter to Photius, bishop of Tyre, and to Eustathius, bishop of the city of Beirut. When Ibas was later found to be blameworthy, he was deposed from the episcopate. This being the state of affairs, how could anyone be so bold as to allege that that heretical letter was accepted by the holy council of Chalcedon or that the holy council of Chalcedon agreed with it in its entirety? So as to prevent those who misrepresent the holy council of Chalcedon in this way from having any further opportunity to do so we instructed that there should be a formal reading of the official pronouncements of the holy synods, namely the first of Ephesus and that of Chalcedon, on the subject of the letters of Cyril of holy memory and of Leo of blessed memory, formerly pope of older Rome. We gathered from these authorities that nothing which has been written by anyone ought to be accepted unless it has been shown conclusively that it is in accord with the true faith of the holy fathers. Therefore we broke off from our deliberations so as to reiterate in a formal declaration the definition of faith which was promulgated by the holy council of Chalcedon. We compared what was written in the letter with this official statement. When this comparison was made, it was quite apparent that the contents of the letter were quite contradictory to those of the definition of faith. The definition was in accord with the unique, permanent faith set out by the 318 holy fathers, and by the 150, and by those who gathered for the first council at Ephesus. The heretical letter, on the other hand, included the blasphemies of the heretical Theodore and Nestorius and even gave support to them and describes them as doctors, while it condemns the holy fathers as heretics. We make it quite clear to everyone that we do not intend to omit what the fathers had to say in the first and second investigations, which are adduced by the supporters of Theodore and Nestorius in support of their case. Rather these statements and all the others were formally read out and what they contained was submitted to official scrutiny, and we found that they had not allowed the said Ibas to be accepted until they had obliged him to anathematize Nestorius and his heretical doctrines which were affirmed in that letter. This was the view not only of the two bishops whose interventions some have tried to misapply but also of the other religious bishops of that holy council. They also acted thus in the case of Theodoret and insisted that he anathematize those opinions about which he was accused. If they would permit the acceptance of Ibas only if he condemned the heresy which was to be found in his letter, and on condition that he subscribed to a definition of faith set out by the council, how can an attempt be made to allege that this heretical letter was accepted by the same holy council? We are rightly told: What partnership has righteousness with iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What participation has the temple of God with idols?

Now that we have given the details of what our council has achieved, we repeat our formal confession that we accept the four holy synods, that is, of Nicaea, of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and of Chalcedon. Our teaching is and has been all that they have defined concerning the one faith. We consider those who do not respect these things as foreign to the catholic church. Furthermore, we condemn and anathematize, along with all other heretics who have been condemned and anathematized by the same four holy councils and by the holy, catholic and apostolic church, Theodore, formerly bishop of Mopsuestia, and his heretical writings, and also what Theodoret heretically wrote against the true faith, against the twelve chapters of holy Cyril and against the first synod of Ephesus, and we condemn also what he wrote defending Theodore and Nestorius. Additionally, we anathematize the heretical letter which Ibas is alleged to have written to Mari the Persian. This letter denies that God the Word was made incarnate of the ever virgin Mary, the holy mother of God, and that he was made man. It also condemns as a heretic Cyril of holy memory, who taught the truth, and suggests that he held the same opinions as Apollinarius. The letter condemns the first synod of Ephesus for deposing Nestorius without proper process and investigation. It calls the twelve chapters of holy Cyril heretical and contrary to the orthodox faith, while it supports Theodore and Nestorius and their heretical teachings and writings. Consequently we anathematize the aforesaid three chapters, that is, the heretical Theodore of Mopsuestia along with his detestable writings, and the heretical writings of Theodoret, and the heretical letter which Ibas is alleged to have written. We anathematize the supporters of these works and those who write or have written in defence of them, or who are bold enough to claim that they are orthodox, or who have defended or tried to defend their heresy in the names of holy fathers or of the holy council of Chalcedon.

These matters having been treated with thorough-going exactness, we bear in mind what was promised about the holy church and him who said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics); we also bear in mind what was prophesied about the church by Hosea when he said, I shall betroth you to me in faithfulness and you shall know the Lord; and we count along with the devil, the father of lies, the uncontrolled tongues of heretics and their heretical writings, together with the heretics themselves who have persisted in their heresy even to death. So we declare to them: Behold all you who kindle a fire, who set brands alight! Walk by the light of your fire, and by the brands which you have kindled! Since we are under command to encourage the people with orthodox teaching and to speak to the heart of Jerusalem, that is the church of God, we very properly hurry to sow in righteousness and to reap the fruit of life. In doing this we are lighting for ourselves the lamp of knowledge from the scriptures and the teachings of the fathers. It has therefore seemed necessary to us to sum up in certain statements both our declarations of the truth and our condemnations of heretics and their heretical teachings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anathemas against the "Three Chapters"

1. If anyone will not confess that the Father, Son and holy Spirit have one nature or substance, that they have one power and authority, that there is a consubstantial Trinity, one Deity to be adored in three subsistences or persons: let him be anathema. There is only one God and Father, from whom all things come, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one holy Spirit, in whom all things are.

2. If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.

3. If anyone declares that the [Word] of God who works miracles is not identical with the Christ who suffered, or alleges that God the Word was with the Christ who was born of woman, or was in him in the way that one might be in another, but that our lord Jesus Christ was not one and the same, the Word of God incarnate and made man, and that the miracles and the sufferings which he voluntarily underwent in the flesh were not of the same person: let him be anathema.

4. If anyone declares that it was only in respect of grace, or of principle of action, or of dignity or in respect of equality of honour, or in respect of authority, or of some relation, or of some affection or power that there was a unity made between the Word of God and the man, or if anyone alleges that it is in respect of good will, as if God the Word was pleased with the man, because he was well and properly disposed to God, as Theodore claims in his madness; or if anyone says that this union is only a sort of synonymity, as the Nestorians allege, who call the Word of God Jesus and Christ, and even designate the human separately by the names "Christ" and "Son", discussing quite obviously two different persons, and only pretending to speak of one person and one Christ when the reference is to his title, honour, dignity or adoration; finally if anyone does not accept the teaching of the holy fathers that the union occurred of the Word of God with human flesh which is possessed by a rational and intellectual soul, and that this union is by synthesis or by person, and that therefore there is only one person, namely the lord Jesus Christ, one member of the holy Trinity: let him be anathema. The notion of "union" can be understood in many different ways. The supporters of the wickedness of Apollinarius and Eutyches have asserted that the union is produced by a confusing of the uniting elements, as they advocate the disappearance of the elements that unite. Those who follow Theodore and Nestorius, rejoicing in the division, have brought in a union which is only by affection. The holy church of God, rejecting the wickedness of both sorts of heresy, states her belief in a union between the Word of God and human flesh which is by synthesis, that is by a union of subsistence. In the mystery of Christ the union of synthesis not only conserves without confusing the elements that come together but also allows no division.

5. If anyone understands by the single subsistence of our lord Jesus Christ that it covers the meaning of many subsistences, and by this argument tries to introduce into the mystery of Christ two subsistences or two persons, and having brought in two persons then talks of one person only in respect of dignity, honour or adoration, as both Theodore and Nestorius have written in their madness; if anyone falsely represents the holy synod of Chalcedon, making out that it accepted this heretical view by its terminology of "one subsistence", and if he does not acknowledge that the Word of God is united with human flesh by subsistence, and that on account of this there is only one subsistence or one person, and that the holy synod of Chalcedon thus made a formal statement of belief in the single subsistence of our lord Jesus Christ: let him be anathema. There has been no addition of person or subsistence to the holy Trinity even after one of its members, God the Word, becoming human flesh.

6. If anyone declares that it can be only inexactly and not truly said that the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary is the mother of God, or says that she is so only in some relative way, considering that she bore a mere man and that God the Word was not made into human flesh in her, holding rather that the nativity of a man from her was referred, as they say, to God the Word as he was with the man who came into being; if anyone misrepresents the holy synod of Chalcedon, alleging that it claimed that the virgin was the mother of God only according to that heretical understanding which the blasphemous Theodore put forward; or if anyone says that she is the mother of a man or the Christ-bearer, that is the mother of Christ, suggesting that Christ is not God; and does not formally confess that she is properly and truly the mother of God, because he who before all ages was born of the Father, God the Word, has been made into human flesh in these latter days and has been born to her, and it was in this religious understanding that the holy synod of Chalcedon formally stated its belief that she was the mother of God: let him be anathema.

7. If anyone, when speaking about the two natures, does not confess a belief in our one lord Jesus Christ, understood in both his divinity and his humanity, so as by this to signify a difference of natures of which an ineffable union has been made without confusion, in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into the nature of human flesh, nor was the nature of human flesh changed into that of the Word (each remained what it was by nature, even after the union, as this had been made in respect of subsistence); and if anyone understands the two natures in the mystery of Christ in the sense of a division into parts, or if he expresses his belief in the plural natures in the same lord Jesus Christ, God the Word made flesh, but does not consider the difference of those natures, of which he is composed, to be only in the onlooker's mind, a difference which is not compromised by the union (for he is one from both and the two exist through the one) but uses the plurality to suggest that each nature is possessed separately and has a subsistence of its own: let him be anathema.

8. If anyone confesses a belief that a union has been made out of the two natures divinity and humanity, or speaks about the one nature of God the Word made flesh, but does not understand these things according to what the fathers have taught, namely that from the divine and human natures a union was made according to subsistence, and that one Christ was formed, and from these expressions tries to introduce one nature or substance made of the deity and human flesh of Christ: let him be anathema. In saying that it was in respect of subsistence that the only-begotten God the Word was united, we are not alleging that there was a confusion made of each of the natures into one another, but rather that each of the two remained what it was, and in this way we understand that the Word was united to human flesh. So there is only one Christ, God and man, the same being consubstantial with the Father in respect of his divinity, and also consubstantial with us in respect of our humanity. Both those who divide or split up the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ and those who introduce into that mystery some confusion are equally rejected and anathematized by the church of God.

9. If anyone says that Christ is to be worshipped in his two natures, and by that wishes to introduce two adorations, a separate one for God the Word and another for the man; or if anyone, so as to remove the human flesh or to mix up the divinity and the humanity, monstrously invents one nature or substance brought together from the two, and so worships Christ, but not by a single adoration God the Word in human flesh along with his human flesh, as has been the tradition of the church from the beginning: let him be anathema.

10. If anyone does not confess his belief that our lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in his human flesh, is truly God and the Lord of glory and one of the members of the holy Trinity: let him be anathema.

11. If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema.

12. If anyone defends the heretical Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that God the Word is one, while quite another is Christ, who was troubled by the passions of the soul and the desires of human flesh, was gradually separated from that which is inferior, and became better by his progress in good works, and could not be faulted in his way of life, and as a mere man was baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, and through this baptism received the grace of the holy Spirit and came to deserve sonship and to be adored, in the way that one adores a statue of the emperor, as if he were God the Word, and that he became after his resurrection immutable in his thoughts and entirely without sin. Furthermore this heretical Theodore claimed that the union of God the Word to Christ is rather like that which, according to the teaching of the Apostle, is between a man and his wife: The two shall become one. Among innumerable other blasphemies he dared to allege that, when after his resurrection the Lord breathed on his disciples and said, Receive the holy Spirit, he was not truly giving them the holy Spirit, but he breathed on them only as a sign. Similarly he claimed that Thomas's profession of faith made when, after his resurrection, he touched the hands and side of the Lord, namely My Lord and my God, was not said about Christ, but that Thomas was in this way extolling God for raising up Christ and expressing his astonishment at the miracle of the resurrection. This Theodore makes a comparison which is even worse than this when, writing about the acts of the Apostles, he says that Christ was like Plato, Manichaeus, Epicurus and Marcion, alleging that just as each of these men arrived at his own teaching and then had his disciples called after him Platonists, Manichaeans, Epicureans and Marcionites, so Christ found his teaching and then had disciples who were called Christians. If anyone offers a defence for this more heretical Theodore, and his heretical books in which he throws up the aforesaid blasphemies and many other additional blasphemies against our great God and saviour Jesus Christ, and if anyone fails to anathematize him and his heretical books as well as all those who offer acceptance or defence to him, or who allege that his interpretation is correct, or who write on his behalf or on that of his heretical teachings, or who are or have been of the same way of thinking and persist until death in this error: let him be anathema.

13. If anyone defends the heretical writings of Theodoret which were composed against the true faith, against the first holy synod of Ephesus and against holy Cyril and his Twelve Chapters, and also defends what Theodoret wrote to support the heretical Theodore and Nestorius and others who think in the same way as the aforesaid Theodore and Nestorius and accept them or their heresy and if anyone, because of them, shall accuse of being heretical the doctors of the church who have stated their belief in the union according to subsistence of God the Word; and if anyone does not anathematize these heretical books and those who have thought or now think in this way, and all those who have written against the true faith or against holy Cyril and his twelve chapters, and who persist in such heresy until they die: let him be anathema.

14. If anyone defends the letter which Ibas is said to have written to Mari the Persian, which denies that God the Word, who became incarnate of Mary the holy mother of God and ever virgin, became man, but alleges that he was only a man born to her, whom it describes as a temple, as if God the Word was one and the man someone quite different; which condemns holy Cyril as if he were a heretic, when he gives the true teaching of Christians, and accuses holy Cyril of writing opinions like those of the heretical Apollinarius ;which rebukes the first holy synod of Ephesus, alleging that it condemned Nestorius without going into the matter by a formal examination; which claims that the twelve chapters of holy Cyril are heretical and opposed to the true faith; and which defends Theodore and Nestorius and their heretical teachings and books. If anyone defends the said letter and does not anathematize it and all those who offer a defence for it and allege that it or a part of it is correct, or if anyone defends those who have written or shall write in support of it or the heresies contained in it, or supports those who are bold enough to defend it or its heresies in the name of the holy fathers of the holy synod of Chalcedon, and persists in these errors until his death: let him be anathema.

Such then are the assertions we confess. We have received them from

1. holy Scripture, from
2. the teaching of the holy fathers, and from
3. the definitions about the one and the same faith made by the aforesaid four holy synods.

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.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM05.HTM
The acts of the Council of Chalcedon By Council of Chalcedon, Richard Price, Michael Gaddis
http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=RA1-PA271&dq=acts+of+the+council+of+chalcedon+553&cd=1#v=onepage&q=acts%20of%20the%20council%20of%20chalcedon%20553&f=false
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 10:53:31 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2011, 12:44:13 PM »

And now a load of disinformation on the Tome of Leo, Pope Gelesius, EP Acacius, the Henotikon, the Formula of Hormisdas and the Fifth Ecumenical Council-its contradictory testimony actually, as Lord willing I will point out, corroborating the true, i.e. Orthodox, state of affairs:
The Consequences of Chalcedon From The Eastern Churches and the Papacy by the Rev. S. Herbert Scott, (published in 1928) pp. 207-225
http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/conseq.html
Quote
The archimandrites of Constantinople appealed to the Pope Simplicius. Their letter is not extant, but the Pope's replies to them and the Emperor are. Pope Simplicius counsels the Emperor to imitate his predecessors Marcian and Leo, and maintain the Council of Chalcedon and the letters of S. Leo. "For the rule of apostolic doctrine abides always unaltered with the successor of him to whom the Lord entrusted all the flock and promised His perpetual assistance to the end of time, against whom He has promised that the gates of hell shall never prevail, and to the sentence of whom He has declared that what has been bound on earth cannot be unbound even in heaven itself." [Mansi, vii, 974. Simplicii ep., 4,5,6,7.] To the archimandrites Simplicius writes that there is no need, after the letters of S. Leo, for any further explanation of the Faith.

And now comes the Acacian Schism.

Acacius, the founder of a schism that lasted thirty-five years, is to be remembered as he "qui, le premier, apprit a l'Eglise grecque a vivre separee de la Chaire de saint Pierre." ["who first taught the Greek Church to live separated from St Peter's chair"--quoting French writer A. Roux.]

The key to the troublous situation is to be found in the XXVIIIth Canon of Chalcedon, though this famous canon was never placed in any Eastern Code of Canon Law till Photius did so. I may remark en passant, that even judged by the test of "universal consent," it can never be looked upon as a judgment and decree of the "Catholic" Church. Rejected by the West, like the IIIrd Canon of Constantinople, how can it be looked upon as of ecumenical validity?

Acacius, however, was determined to make it the means of fostering his ambition--though, as we have seen, even the Easterns had, anyhow in appearance, renounced it. This is the only hypothesis one has by which to account for his changes and vacillations.

Acacius at first had merited by his zeal the praise of Pope Simplicius, to whom he had denounced Peter Mongos, suspected both of Eutychianism and of having had some part in the murder of Proterius. And when Basiliscus issued his daring encyclical, alone of all the Oriental bishops, Acacius had the courage to resist him.

The Pope, Simplicius, urges Acacius to influence the Emperor in the Catholic direction, to join the monks in opposing the Cat, and assures him that there is no need of a council, the error of Eutyches having already been thoroughly dealt with. As the result, the Patriarch stirred up the monks against the usurprer, and Basiliscus fled. Evidently Acacius was at the time a whole-hearted supporter of the Apostolic See...

Zeno, since Egypt and Syria, the two most populous rich and powerful provinces of the empire, were specially affected by Monophysitism, and with the Monophysitism was mixed up a good deal of anti-imperialist feeling, embarked on a policy of compromise and "comprehensiveness"--a policy which would be continued for many weary years and bring nothing but dissatisfaction in trying to conciliate the Monophysites. Hence the genesis of the decree Henoticon, which consisted of:

1. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol.
2. Cyril's XII Anathemas.
3. The decrees of Ephesus.
4. The Condemnations of Nestorius and Eutyches.

Christ is "one not two" and "two natures" is avoided. But there was nothing said about the Tome of Leo or about Chalcedon except aversely. "Whoever thinks or has thought otherwise, whether at Chalcedon or at any other synod, is excommunicate," gives the text of the Henoticon. The men really responsible for this Henoticon were Acacius and Peter Mongos. The Emperor judged that this decree, which would be acceptable to the Monophysites, could also be signed by the orthodox, as, so far as it went (apart from the clause about Chalcedon), it was patient of a Catholic interpretation. But of course it really satisfied nobody.

John Talaia was driven from his see of Alexandria and Mongos took his place, intruded by the Emperor. The ejected patriarch fled, like Athanasius, to Rome to the Pope, to denounce both Acacius and Peter to him as heretics...

Simplicius, in spite of a letter from Zeno accusing Talaia of perjury, hesitated to give the consent of the Apostolic See to Mongos, and Acacius kept silence when information was sought.

The next pope, Felix II, wanted Acacius to come to Rome to a council, to have the charges against him investigated. But his legates to Constantinople were imprisoned and then cajoled, with the result that they communicated [i.e. communed] with Acacius and betrayed their mission.

When Felix had heard from John Talaia about all that had happened in the East, he excommunicated Acacius as the author of the Henoticon, and for being responsible for the presence of Peter Mongos at Alexandria and for Peter the Fuller at Antioch. To be in communion with Mongos, an out-and-out Monophysite, was to cease to be Catholic. And, as Hormisdas later wrote, "To receive the Tome of Leo and to maintain in the diptychs the name of Acacius are contradictory things." Felix excommunicated his treacherous legates too, while Acacius, for his part, removed the name of the pope from his diptychs.

Some monk dared to pin the document of excommunication to the vestments of Acacius as he went to Liturgy in S. Sophia, but although Talaia was recognized by the Roman Council as the lawful Patriarch of Alexandria, he was never able to take possession of his see, but, spending the rest of his life in Italy, became the friend and helper of Pope Gelasius I...

Felix II still protested his desire for reconciliation of "this unfortunate" Acacius. But his hopes were not realized. A few years, and Peter the Fuller, Acacius, Mongos, and Felix II were all dead. But the schism still went on, though Euphemius, who after Flavita became Patriarch of Constantinople, desired communion with the Holy See, stipulating however, that the name of Acacius should not be removed from the diptychs.

The really great pope, Gelasius I, ascended the chair of Peter in 492, and the affairs of the East claimed a great deal of his attention. Out of forty-three of his letters which are extant eleven are devoted to these questions.

The chief thesis of the letters is that the rehabilitation of the name of Acacius is impossible, since this prelate is dead without any sign of repentance, condemned by a sentence just from every point of view, and all the excuses alleged by his supporters are ridiculous. And the complaints he makes against Acacius are that he upset in the East the discipline established by the Council of Nicea; though a mere suffragan of Heraclea, he exalted himself above the patriarchal sees of Alexandria and Antioch; arrogating to himself the power which belongs only to the pope, he took upon himself to settle the question between two claimants for the second see. When he was summoned to Rome to the papal council he took no notice of the citation; he encouraged and harboured notorious heretics, and, worst of all, he corrupted the papal legates in favour of Mongos, and gave a blow, in the mind of the weak, to the fundamental dogma of Catholic unity, the indefectibility of the Apostolic See in the purity of Faith

All this, whatever one says of it in itself, shows what the relation was in which Rome claimed to stand towards the East, at the end of the fifth century. And Gelasius bases his contentions on Scripture and traditions and the most famous Eastern prelates:

"It is the canons themselves which have willed that the appeals of all the Church should be referred to this see, but that from its sentence no appeal could be made. It is the see which the words of Jesus Christ, the traditions of our Fathers, and the authority of the canons support, in order that it may have authority to judge all the Church." [Ep. xxvi.]

Again he writes: "The Universal Church well knows that what has been bound by whatever pontiff, the See of the Blessed Apostle Peter has the right of loosing, because to it has been given to judge all the Churches, and no one has the right of judging what has been once decided." [as cited in Robertson, J.C., vol.ii, _History of the Christian Church_, p. 285.]...

Ep. 12 to the Emperor Anastasius furnishes us with one example of many which occur in the writings of Gelasius--of instances of the Pope's teaching on the distinction between the spiritual and civil powers, and the supremacy of the former. "And the charge of pontiffs is the much more heavy, because at the judgment of God they will have to give account of kings themselves. You know, most clement Son, that although you preside over the human race by your dignity, you are nevertheless subject to the ministers of sacred things....if in that which concerns order and public administration the pontiffs of religion, recognising that the empire has been entrusted to you by a disposition from on high, obey your laws, with what assiduity ought you not to obey those who are set up to dispense the sacred mysteries."

The writings of these popes of the fifth century are extremely interesting in their so uncompromising claims. Whether the emperors like it or not, whether the emperors recognize it or not, the popes assert that they are above the monarchs, that there is no appeal from the Roman see, and that no council can set aside their decision: that Peter speaks through them, and, as the Acts of Ephesus recorded, "ever lives in his see and gives judgment."

Acacius, more than once, averred that the popes owed their pre-eminence in the Church to their being bishops of the capital city of the empire, and now that that capital was transferred to Constantinople, the first rank should go to its patriarchs.

Gelasius fitly replied:

"We laughed at the prerogative which is desired to be attributed to Acacius because he was bishop of the imperial city. Hasn't the emperor resided for a long time at Ravenna, at Milan, at Sirmium, at Trier, and have the bishops of these cities exceeded the limits that antiquity fixed for them?...The secular power of the empire is one thing; the distribution of ecclesiastical dignities is another thing. However small a town may be, it does not diminish the greatness of the prince who resides there; in the same way, the presence of the emperor does not change the order of the hierarchy."

The Acacian Schism had now lasted nearly thirty years. The policy of compromise still had its strong supporters, though recent essays in that direction had shown so little success. The Monophysites must indeed be reconciled, but not at the price of any modification of the settled Faith. There were, however, plenty of orthodox "Chalcedonians" in the East, and especially at Constantinople. They saw that the only means of preventing the further spread of the growing heresy was to have the help of the West. Negotiations were entered upon with Pope Anastasius II (496-498), but were frustrated by his early death. Pope Symmachus, his successor, received in 512 from Eastern bishops a letter begging for the communion of Blessed Peter "the Prince of the Apostles," and promising obedience to the Apostolic See...In his acknowledgement of the appeal Symmachus urges all abstention of communion with the partisans of Acacius. Only so could they hope for communion with the Apostolic See...

The Emperor Anastasius was veering more and more in favour of Monophysitism. The lot of the orthodox was a hard one. When Vitalian the barbarian general found it good policy to espouse the cause of the Catholics, and brought his 50,000 troops to the very walls of Constantinople (514), Anastasius thought it wise to modify his treatment of the orthodox and to seek restoration of communion with Rome. This would be possible on condition that the persecution ceased, the exiled bishops were restored, and a great council should be called together at Heraclea to effect the reunion of East and West. It was suggested that the Pope should be invited to this, but there was no precedent for a pope being present at a General Council, or leaving Rome to be present at a Council of the East. Besides, an attempt might be made to reopen the questions solemnly closed at Chalcedon. It was a delicate situation. Dorotheus, the Metropolitan of Thessalonica, at the head of forty bishops, sought reunion with Rome. They protested their attachment to it and their utter detestation of the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches...

In 518 Anastasius was succeded by Justin, who, like his nephew the great Justinian, was a Catholic, and Justin speedily took steps to restore union with Rome. This was not now so difficult a task, bearing in mind the Eastern mentality were a sovereign was concerned, and the efforts that had already been made to that end, e.g. John of Nicopolis (516) in his own name and that of others sent to Hormisdas begging for restoration of communion and protesting adhesion to the decrees of Chalcedon.

Pope Hormisdas issued his famous Formula, and all who desired communion with Rome were required to sign it. No modification or alteration could be tolerated, and signatures to the libellus were received were received from 2,500 Eastern bishops.
Just to intrude a bit in the fantasies here, but in the days of Nicea I less than two centuries earlier, the Church throughout the world only had 2,000 bishops, the Church of Greece of today-with dioceses which resemble those of antiquity and a seventh to a third of the population of the Roman Empire in Hormisdas' day-boasts an episcopate of only a hundred bishops, and the Vatican can muster only around 4,500 for over a billion followers around the world. So on this 2,500 signatures of not only bishops but Eastern bishops, I'd like to count on more than hearsay.
Quote

This Formula is of extreme importance, not only because of its explicit condemnation of the heresies and heresiarchs and of their supporters by name, but also because of the unequivocal assertion of papal authority to which these Easterns assented.

It puts the Tome of Leo on the same level as the decisions of ecumenical councils--Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon...

This Formulary, then, was dispatched for signature to the East, but it met with a certain amount of opposition, chiefly, indeed solely, I think, because of its condemnation of Acacius, who had been very popular at Constantinople, and also because of the omission of the diptychs of his name and those of his orthodox successors. The opposition to signing it did not arise from its clear affirmation of the rights of Rome. No one raised any objection to the powers of the Apostolic See, which were so plainly set out in it.

Hormisdas had a difficult task, no doubt, but he was endowed with a masterful disposition. The accession to power and influence of Justin, Vitalian, and Justinian, all orthodox, would perhaps still more "stiffen" him (if indeed he needed it), and he did not hesitate later to suggest to the Emperor that a little physical force might advantageously be used to encourage signatures. But things did not go quite so smoothly as it was given out. The obtaining of the signature of John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, affords a certain interest and subject for discussion as it has of controversy. Hormisdas, we have seen, would not tolerate any modification of his Formula. John wished to send instead his own profession of faith, and when this was ruled out he insisted on adding a preamble:... with a statement which evacuated it of its Roman meaning. He somehow identified his own see with the Roman see, so as to admit of the position that he was accepting nothing as belonging to Hormisdas which he himself did not share. Moreover, numbers of Eastern bishops were admitted to the communion of Rome without signing anything except a statement of the orthodox faith...the Patriarch John managed to blunt very considerably the edge of the Formulary, for by identifying in some curious fashion his own see of new Rome with the papal see of old Rome, he managed to claim for the Constantinopolitan see a share in all the special privileges which in the Formulary were assigned to the Western apostolic chair...

But John could hardly claim a share in "all" the privileges of old Rome. For example, Constantinople was not a "See of Peter."

When John prefaced to the Formula, "For I hold the most holy Churches of your elder and our new Rome to be one Church. I define that the see of the Apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see," he might be simply expressing the oneness of faith and closeness of union in a striking manner just as Gregory the Great (in Ep. VII. 40) speaks of the "oneness" of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome.

[Gregory writes to Eulogius, Patriarch of Antioch: "Who does not know that the Church was built and established on the firmness of the Prince of the apostles, by whose name is implied a rock? Hence, though there were several apostles, there is but one apostolic see, that of the Prince of the apostles, which has acquired great authority; and that see is in three places--in Rome where he died, in Alexandria where it was founded by his disciple S. Mark, and in Antioch where he himself lived seven years. These three therefore are but one see, and on that one see sit three bishops, who are but one in Him Who said, I am in My Father, and you in me, and I in you."]...

Personally I find it hard to see how his preamble blunted the edge of the Formulary. He subscribed to all these "Roman Claims." What more could the Pope want?...

The Formula of Pope Hormisdas was signed by the great Emperor Justinian, as we shall later see. And the bishops at the Eighth General Council all subscribed to it. But as this council is not now acknowledged by the Eastern Churches as ecumenical, and as our deductions are drawn from the Seven Ecumenical Councils common to East and West, the weight of the Formula, from an Eastern point of view, is certainly lessened.

Hormisdas was succeeded by John I, and this pope is to be remembered as the first pope to visit Constantinople [in 526]. It was not a willing visit however; it was, in fact, one from which he shrank. The Arian king Theodoric had incongruously compelled him to undertake the conduct of an embassy to Constantinople, to obtain from the Emperor Justinian mitigation of his severe policy,--the stern repression of the Arians in the East. For the Churches of the heretics had compulsorily been surrendered to the Catholics, and they themselves had been subjected to the utmost pressure to make them accept the Catholic Faith.

The enthusiasm and reverence with which Pope John was received in Constantinople were remarkable: the whole city being moved, and in its thousands going out to greet with crosses and lights "the vicar of the blessed Apostle Peter," and by their devotion "to honour the blessed Apostle Peter." ....Documents relative to this pontificate are scanty. But it is evident from the "glory" with which the pontiff was received at Constantinople, and by the way in which he was treated by Theodoric on his return (he was cast into prison at Ravenna, where shortly afterwards he died), that the Catholics were satisfied, not only with his attitude towards the Arians, but also with his confirmation of the Faith; and that, while doubtless urging the emperor to clemency and forbearance with them, he had no idea of compromising or modifying the doctrine of the Church.
as Pope Vigilius would find out at the Council of Constantinople II.
 
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 12:45:27 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2011, 07:53:39 PM »

On another forum  police Roll Eyes police there is a thread on the OP here, on the "Eastern Catholicism Forum":Eastern Catholic opinion wanted on Formula of Hormisdas."  Mardukm, of course, is busy there.   I thought we might get to the truth here.

The thread there was started on this:
http://energeticprocession.com/2009/02/16/some-notes-on-the-acacian-schism/

where he makes the interesting observation:
Quote
It is also noteworthy that not all of the eastern churches subscribed to the Formula. The Church of Jerussalem would not do so even under threat of imperial force. And it is important to recall that Justinian designated the church of Jerusalem as “the Mother of the Christian name, from which no one dares to separate.” (PL 63, 503) This is important to keep in mind, say during the monothelite controversy under the patriarch of Jersualem Sophronius  as opposed to Pope Honorius of Rome.
To this has been added
Quote
First it should be noted that if one reads the controversial literature of the 19th and early 20th centuries on the papacy on the anti-papal side, these facts are brought up often enough. (For example in Fr. Puller’s Primitive Saints and the See of Rome. John of Constantinople’s comments can be read in the Patrologia Latina Lxiii. 314, 343, 418, & 443-45. The Pope’s statements in part recognizing that not all of the conditions could be met can be found at Collect. Avellan., Epist. Clviii, sec. 6-8, p.606.

A secondary formula was drawn up to reconcile with the majority of eastern bishops who would not sign the formula of Hormisdas even under threat of torture (Coleti, v. 667) and this included nothing regarding papal perogatives. This is Patrologia Latina lxiii, 512-521. This was the means of reconciliation for the other Patriarchates, with Alexandria signing the modified formula in 538 ad.

The variant Greek and Latin readings of the formula can be seen in the letter of Pope Hadrian to Basil and Constantine in the acts of the 869 council in Mansi, xvi. 21. That council was revoked by both east and west alike, until the late 12th century when Rome reversed itself and re-recognized it, designating it as the Eighth Ecumenical Council.
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/some-notes-on-the-acacian-schism/feed/
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2011, 03:47:54 PM »

The Roman Catholic church seems to use the Formula of Pope Hormisdas as evidence to assert their claim that at one time, the Eastern Church recognized that the RC is supreme. Does anyone care to answer as to why the Eastern Church would sign such a document that seems to prove the RC position?

The Formula states that, “... in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate.”; it anathematizes Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Acacius and other heretics and, “... whoever embraces the communion of (such) individuals receives a similar judgment... ”; it says, “... we receive and approve all the letters of the blessed Pope Leo, which he wrote concerning the true faith.”; it states that it is necessary to follow, “... in all things the Apostolic See... ” and to preach, “... whatever has been decreed by it...”; it states that, “...  those who do not agree in every respect with the Apostolic See” are not to be cited, “... during the celebration of the sacred mysteries...”; and ends with, “This profession of faith I [bishop, emperor, priest, etc.] have signed with my own hand, and offered it to you, Hormisdas, holy and venerable pope of the city of Rome.” [CSEL 35: 520-22]

Btw, the Latin versions (none of which would be what the bishops signed for the most part, as they wrote in Greek) can be seen here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=5CERAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

here is the one quoted by the OP (or rather his quote mine):
Quote
Prima salus est rectae fidei regulam custodire et a constitutis patrum nullatenus deuiare. et quia non potest domini nostri Iesu Christi praetermitti sententia dicentis: tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. haec, quae dicta sunt, rerum probantur eftectibus, quia in sede apostolica immaculata est semper catholica seruata religio. de hac ergo spe et fide separari minime cupientes et patrum sequentes in omnibus constituta anathematizamus omnes haereses, praecipue Nestorium haereticum, qui quondam Constantiuopolitanae fuit urbis episcopus, damnatum in concilio Epheseno a Caelestino papa urbis Eomae et a sancto Cyrillo Alexandrinae ciuitatis antistite; una cum isto anathematizantes Eutychen et Dioscorum Alexandrinum in sancta synodo, quam sequimur et amplectimur, Calcedonensi damnatos: his Timotheum adicientes parricidam Ellurum cognomento et discipulum quoque ipsius atque sequacem <in omnibus Petrum Alexandrinum; itemque condemnamus atque anathematizamus Acacium Constantiuopolitanum quondam episcopum ab apostolica sede damnatum eorum complicem atque sequacem> uel qui in eorum communionis societate permanserint: quia quorum se communioni <quis> miscuit, ipsorum similem meruit in damnatione sententiam; Petrum nihilominus Antiochenum damnantes cum sequacibus suis et omuium supra scriptorum. quapropter suscipimus et probamus epistolas beati Leonis papae uniuersas, quas de Christiana religione conscripsit. unde, sicut praediximus, sequentes in apostolicam sedem et praedicantes eius omnia constituta, spero, ut in una communione uobiscum, quam sedes apostolica praedicat, esse merear, in qua est integra et uerax Christianae religionis soliditas: promittentes etiam sequestratos a communione ecclesiae catholicae, id est non consentientes sedi apostolicae. eorum nomina inter sacra non recitanda esse mysteria. hanc autem professionem meam manu propria subscripsi et tibi Hormisdae sancto et uenerabili papae urbis Romae obtuli die XV. Kalendarum Aprilium Agapito u. c. cons.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 03:58:39 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.173 seconds with 49 queries.