Author Topic: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope  (Read 44333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Regnare

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2014, 10:24:41 AM »
I'd suggest that Regnare refrain from following internet apologetics while a catachumen and discuss these questions about the role of councils and church doctrine with his priest or teacher.
That's fair, but I'm interested to know what in what I've said is problematic. I haven't denied the authority of councils at any point.
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust." --Psalm 91: 1-2

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,462
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #46 on: December 13, 2014, 07:33:28 AM »
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?" It's simply a statement that this is our faith and the faith of the Church, without any explanation of how this particular conciliar proclamation is authoritative apart from that it's what we recognise as Tradition.
Nice post. The faith is a matter of tradition, and is not based upon what a hierarch of a particular Church may teach at a given point in history.
"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,020
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #47 on: December 15, 2014, 05:11:27 AM »
I'd suggest that Regnare refrain from following internet apologetics while a catachumen and discuss these questions about the role of councils and church doctrine with his priest or teacher.

Why is it that I only ever see this snide and dismissive remark when the one making it is on the losing side of an argument?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2014, 05:34:05 AM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,020
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #48 on: December 15, 2014, 05:29:06 AM »
I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?"

Precisely. The Synodicon of Orthodoxy is totally irrelevant, because it never makes any claim as to how one may systematically assess a teaching and determine if it was defined infallibly or not. The papacy on the other hand, according to Roman Catholic internet apologists, is supposed to solve precisely this problem. But then these confused apologists introduce all sorts of absurdities, like pointing out that while popes technically may not be judged, they still can remove themselves from the Church, and a synod may then be convened to recognize this fact (this argument in fact seems to be an absolute necessity for your historically informed apologist, as he otherwise has no way of explaining how popes sometimes found themselves being deposed). But that only returns us to the problem which the papacy was supposed to solve. If a synod is convened to declare that the Pope by some heresy or by some malfeasance (simony being the particularly favorite charge of synods throughout history looking to depose a pope), how are we to know that the synod has not erred? Likewise, there are similar issues with knowing whether or not a papal statement is infallible.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline emanresu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #49 on: December 15, 2014, 12:02:52 PM »
I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?"

Precisely. The Synodicon of Orthodoxy is totally irrelevant, because it never makes any claim as to how one may systematically assess a teaching and determine if it was defined infallibly or not. The papacy on the other hand, according to Roman Catholic internet apologists, is supposed to solve precisely this problem. But then these confused apologists introduce all sorts of absurdities, like pointing out that while popes technically may not be judged, they still can remove themselves from the Church, and a synod may then be convened to recognize this fact (this argument in fact seems to be an absolute necessity for your historically informed apologist, as he otherwise has no way of explaining how popes sometimes found themselves being deposed). But that only returns us to the problem which the papacy was supposed to solve. If a synod is convened to declare that the Pope by some heresy or by some malfeasance (simony being the particularly favorite charge of synods throughout history looking to depose a pope), how are we to know that the synod has not erred? Likewise, there are similar issues with knowing whether or not a papal statement is infallible.

Bingo. It becomes an endless maze when it comes to judging a pope to be a heretic.

Principle 1: No earthly authority (including all the bishops of the Church) can judge and/or depose a pope.

Principle 2: Only God Himself can judge a pope.

Therefore if a Council meets to declare a pope ipso facto to have fallen from office it seems that they have in fact made a judgment upon him since God has not revealed in any tangible way that the pope has, in fact, lost his Office.

But the pope and he alone is the final authority on what is or is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. Therefore, for a Council to declare the Office vacant is to, in practice and also in theory, to place a Council above the pope.

However, Vatican I states that the pope declares on matters of Faith and Morals infallibly without the consent of the Church.

So…….You see the confusion that that has been wrought over the centuries as layer upon layer has been added to the list of papal pretensions.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2014, 12:03:25 PM by emanresu »

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #50 on: December 23, 2014, 01:33:05 PM »
I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?"

Precisely. The Synodicon of Orthodoxy is totally irrelevant, because it never makes any claim as to how one may systematically assess a teaching and determine if it was defined infallibly or not. The papacy on the other hand, according to Roman Catholic internet apologists, is supposed to solve precisely this problem. But then these confused apologists introduce all sorts of absurdities, like pointing out that while popes technically may not be judged, they still can remove themselves from the Church, and a synod may then be convened to recognize this fact (this argument in fact seems to be an absolute necessity for your historically informed apologist, as he otherwise has no way of explaining how popes sometimes found themselves being deposed). But that only returns us to the problem which the papacy was supposed to solve. If a synod is convened to declare that the Pope by some heresy or by some malfeasance (simony being the particularly favorite charge of synods throughout history looking to depose a pope), how are we to know that the synod has not erred? Likewise, there are similar issues with knowing whether or not a papal statement is infallible.

Bingo. It becomes an endless maze when it comes to judging a pope to be a heretic.

Principle 1: No earthly authority (including all the bishops of the Church) can judge and/or depose a pope.

Principle 2: Only God Himself can judge a pope.

Therefore if a Council meets to declare a pope ipso facto to have fallen from office it seems that they have in fact made a judgment upon him since God has not revealed in any tangible way that the pope has, in fact, lost his Office.

But the pope and he alone is the final authority on what is or is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. Therefore, for a Council to declare the Office vacant is to, in practice and also in theory, to place a Council above the pope.

However, Vatican I states that the pope declares on matters of Faith and Morals infallibly without the consent of the Church.

So…….You see the confusion that that has been wrought over the centuries as layer upon layer has been added to the list of papal pretensions.

I guess every judging Synod needs their own St. Euphemia's corpse to decide the outcome...


It seems to me that everything else aside, the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncement doesn't work as a guarantee of the Church because we don't even have a list of infallible pronouncements. When did a Pope confirm the Deity of Christ ex cathedra for example? And if the Pope confirms it simply by believing it, then why isn't Vigilius' refusal to condemn the Three Chapters considered an ex cathedra confirmation of them?
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #51 on: December 23, 2014, 06:17:57 PM »
I guess every judging Synod needs their own St. Euphemia's corpse to decide the outcome...

I remember reading about that story, although it was most likely apocryphal (no records from the time mention it, if I remember correctly).

If it were true, though, wouldn't it constitute a forbidden act of divination, if not necromancy? Venerating relics is one thing, but actually consulting them for answers to your own questions is quite another, and seems almost like witchcraft. Miracles can happen, but one of the things you don't do is actively seek them out or try to "provoke" one.
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #52 on: December 23, 2014, 09:27:11 PM »
I guess every judging Synod needs their own St. Euphemia's corpse to decide the outcome...

I remember reading about that story, although it was most likely apocryphal (no records from the time mention it, if I remember correctly).

If it were true, though, wouldn't it constitute a forbidden act of divination, if not necromancy? Venerating relics is one thing, but actually consulting them for answers to your own questions is quite another, and seems almost like witchcraft. Miracles can happen, but one of the things you don't do is actively seek them out or try to "provoke" one.
Makes sense.

I don't put any stock in the story myself and I really wish AFR didn't repeat it. It just seems to be analogous to the kind of "surety" which the Catholic Church and a lot of Protestants all seek.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2014, 09:28:16 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #53 on: December 26, 2014, 02:35:55 PM »
I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?"

Precisely. The Synodicon of Orthodoxy is totally irrelevant, because it never makes any claim as to how one may systematically assess a teaching and determine if it was defined infallibly or not. The papacy on the other hand, according to Roman Catholic internet apologists, is supposed to solve precisely this problem. But then these confused apologists introduce all sorts of absurdities, like pointing out that while popes technically may not be judged, they still can remove themselves from the Church, and a synod may then be convened to recognize this fact (this argument in fact seems to be an absolute necessity for your historically informed apologist, as he otherwise has no way of explaining how popes sometimes found themselves being deposed). But that only returns us to the problem which the papacy was supposed to solve. If a synod is convened to declare that the Pope by some heresy or by some malfeasance (simony being the particularly favorite charge of synods throughout history looking to depose a pope), how are we to know that the synod has not erred? Likewise, there are similar issues with knowing whether or not a papal statement is infallible.

Bingo. It becomes an endless maze when it comes to judging a pope to be a heretic.

Principle 1: No earthly authority (including all the bishops of the Church) can judge and/or depose a pope.

Principle 2: Only God Himself can judge a pope.

Therefore if a Council meets to declare a pope ipso facto to have fallen from office it seems that they have in fact made a judgment upon him since God has not revealed in any tangible way that the pope has, in fact, lost his Office.

But the pope and he alone is the final authority on what is or is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. Therefore, for a Council to declare the Office vacant is to, in practice and also in theory, to place a Council above the pope.

However, Vatican I states that the pope declares on matters of Faith and Morals infallibly without the consent of the Church.

So…….You see the confusion that that has been wrought over the centuries as layer upon layer has been added to the list of papal pretensions.

I guess every judging Synod needs their own St. Euphemia's corpse to decide the outcome...


It seems to me that everything else aside, the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncement doesn't work as a guarantee of the Church because we don't even have a list of infallible pronouncements.

I've never understood the need for a list. Everything Thais in the faith before and leading up to Vatican 1 had been already known to be de fide. Various catechisms and ecumenical councils contain our faith. The only two to be knowledgeable about are  Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissmus Deus which are later explicit affirmations of the ancient faith.

When did a Pope confirm the Deity of Christ ex cathedra for example?

When he ratified the council of nicaea and the various letters of the popes on the issue teaching it.

And if the Pope confirms it simply by believing it,

He confirmed the council.

then why isn't Vigilius' refusal to condemn the Three Chapters considered an ex cathedra confirmation of them?

Because it wasn't a matter of faith in his eyes nor morals but mere politics. He as well as the west were reluctant to condemn the three chapters and their persons because they were worried it would undermine the authority of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon.
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #54 on: December 26, 2014, 04:25:45 PM »
I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?"

Precisely. The Synodicon of Orthodoxy is totally irrelevant, because it never makes any claim as to how one may systematically assess a teaching and determine if it was defined infallibly or not. The papacy on the other hand, according to Roman Catholic internet apologists, is supposed to solve precisely this problem. But then these confused apologists introduce all sorts of absurdities, like pointing out that while popes technically may not be judged, they still can remove themselves from the Church, and a synod may then be convened to recognize this fact (this argument in fact seems to be an absolute necessity for your historically informed apologist, as he otherwise has no way of explaining how popes sometimes found themselves being deposed). But that only returns us to the problem which the papacy was supposed to solve. If a synod is convened to declare that the Pope by some heresy or by some malfeasance (simony being the particularly favorite charge of synods throughout history looking to depose a pope), how are we to know that the synod has not erred? Likewise, there are similar issues with knowing whether or not a papal statement is infallible.

Bingo. It becomes an endless maze when it comes to judging a pope to be a heretic.

Principle 1: No earthly authority (including all the bishops of the Church) can judge and/or depose a pope.

Principle 2: Only God Himself can judge a pope.

Therefore if a Council meets to declare a pope ipso facto to have fallen from office it seems that they have in fact made a judgment upon him since God has not revealed in any tangible way that the pope has, in fact, lost his Office.

But the pope and he alone is the final authority on what is or is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. Therefore, for a Council to declare the Office vacant is to, in practice and also in theory, to place a Council above the pope.

However, Vatican I states that the pope declares on matters of Faith and Morals infallibly without the consent of the Church.

So…….You see the confusion that that has been wrought over the centuries as layer upon layer has been added to the list of papal pretensions.

I guess every judging Synod needs their own St. Euphemia's corpse to decide the outcome...


It seems to me that everything else aside, the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncement doesn't work as a guarantee of the Church because we don't even have a list of infallible pronouncements.

I've never understood the need for a list. Everything Thais in the faith before and leading up to Vatican 1 had been already known to be de fide. Various catechisms and ecumenical councils contain our faith. The only two to be knowledgeable about are  Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissmus Deus which are later explicit affirmations of the ancient faith.
So when JP II kisses the Koran and says that Islam is a beautiful religion, you don't think any past Popes would disagree with this as a matter of faith of morals? Imagine JP II (or Francis) and Boniface VII having a conversation on the fate of pious Muslims.

How about Popes that have supported the Donation of Constantine, the trial of Galileo (or even Bruno), the Inquisition and Reconquista of Spain?

And then there's Inter caetera:
Quote
We have indeed learned that you, who for a long time had intended to seek out and discover certain islands and mainlands remote and unknown and not hitherto discovered by others, to the end that you might bring to the worship of our Redeemer and the profession of the Catholic faith their residents and inhabitants, having been up to the present time greatly engaged in the siege and recovery of the kingdom itself of Granada were unable to accomplish this holy and praiseworthy purpose; but the said kingdom having at length been regained, as was pleasing to the Lord, you, with the wish to fulfill your desire, chose our beloved son, Christopher Columbus, a man assuredly worthy and of the highest recommendations and fitted for so great an undertaking, whom you furnished with ships and men equipped for like designs, not without the greatest hardships, dangers, and expenses, to make diligent quest for these remote and unknown mainlands and islands through the sea, where hitherto no one had sailed; and they at length, with divine aid and with the utmost diligence sailing in the ocean sea, discovered certain very remote islands and even mainlands that hitherto had not been discovered by others; wherein dwell very many peoples living in peace, and, as reported, going unclothed, and not eating flesh. Moreover, as your aforesaid envoys are of opinion, these very peoples living in the said islands and countries believe in one God, the Creator in heaven, and seem sufficiently disposed to embrace the Catholic faith and be trained in good morals.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Alex06/alex06inter.htm

Is Spain still the rightful and God given ruler of Columbus' "discoveries" for the instruction of the natives in the Catholic faith? I doubt Pope Francis would agree.

How about Pius IX's puritanical regime in the Papal States that included reopening the Jewish ghettos? Was Garibaldi not an immoral heretic in his eyes for opposing the rights of God's man on earth to be a temporal ruler?

If you don't have an exact list, then the vague criteria of infallible when speaking ex cathedra as to faith and morals proves far too much. And your statements bellow seem to only confirm that.

then why isn't Vigilius' refusal to condemn the Three Chapters considered an ex cathedra confirmation of them?

Because it wasn't a matter of faith in his eyes nor morals but mere politics. He as well as the west were reluctant to condemn the three chapters and their persons because they were worried it would undermine the authority of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon.
It doesn't matter what his motives were. There's all kinds of sincere heretics, are there not?
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #55 on: December 26, 2014, 05:04:23 PM »
I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?"

Precisely. The Synodicon of Orthodoxy is totally irrelevant, because it never makes any claim as to how one may systematically assess a teaching and determine if it was defined infallibly or not. The papacy on the other hand, according to Roman Catholic internet apologists, is supposed to solve precisely this problem. But then these confused apologists introduce all sorts of absurdities, like pointing out that while popes technically may not be judged, they still can remove themselves from the Church, and a synod may then be convened to recognize this fact (this argument in fact seems to be an absolute necessity for your historically informed apologist, as he otherwise has no way of explaining how popes sometimes found themselves being deposed). But that only returns us to the problem which the papacy was supposed to solve. If a synod is convened to declare that the Pope by some heresy or by some malfeasance (simony being the particularly favorite charge of synods throughout history looking to depose a pope), how are we to know that the synod has not erred? Likewise, there are similar issues with knowing whether or not a papal statement is infallible.

Bingo. It becomes an endless maze when it comes to judging a pope to be a heretic.

Principle 1: No earthly authority (including all the bishops of the Church) can judge and/or depose a pope.

Principle 2: Only God Himself can judge a pope.

Therefore if a Council meets to declare a pope ipso facto to have fallen from office it seems that they have in fact made a judgment upon him since God has not revealed in any tangible way that the pope has, in fact, lost his Office.

But the pope and he alone is the final authority on what is or is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. Therefore, for a Council to declare the Office vacant is to, in practice and also in theory, to place a Council above the pope.

However, Vatican I states that the pope declares on matters of Faith and Morals infallibly without the consent of the Church.

So…….You see the confusion that that has been wrought over the centuries as layer upon layer has been added to the list of papal pretensions.

I guess every judging Synod needs their own St. Euphemia's corpse to decide the outcome...


It seems to me that everything else aside, the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncement doesn't work as a guarantee of the Church because we don't even have a list of infallible pronouncements.

I've never understood the need for a list. Everything Thais in the faith before and leading up to Vatican 1 had been already known to be de fide. Various catechisms and ecumenical councils contain our faith. The only two to be knowledgeable about are  Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissmus Deus which are later explicit affirmations of the ancient faith.
So when JP II kisses the Koran and says that Islam is a beautiful religion, you don't think any past Popes would disagree with this as a matter of faith of morals? Imagine JP II (or Francis) and Boniface VII having a conversation on the fate of pious Muslims.

I can't pretend to know how that would go. St John Paul kissing the Qur'an was simply an act of reverence. I disagree with it but it is not a heresy or anything of the sort.

Quote
How about Popes that have supported the Donation of Constantine, the trial of Galileo (or even Bruno), the Inquisition and Reconquista of Spain?

I get tired of this. The donation was first of all thought to be real. Secondly it was not used as the primal basis for asserting papal authority but rather a piece of extra information that "added fuel to the fire" so to speak. They already asserted papal claims without the donation. The Galileo trial was all politics. I can give a good account of it if you want.

Quote
And then there's Inter caetera:
Quote
We have indeed learned that you, who for a long time had intended to seek out and discover certain islands and mainlands remote and unknown and not hitherto discovered by others, to the end that you might bring to the worship of our Redeemer and the profession of the Catholic faith their residents and inhabitants, having been up to the present time greatly engaged in the siege and recovery of the kingdom itself of Granada were unable to accomplish this holy and praiseworthy purpose; but the said kingdom having at length been regained, as was pleasing to the Lord, you, with the wish to fulfill your desire, chose our beloved son, Christopher Columbus, a man assuredly worthy and of the highest recommendations and fitted for so great an undertaking, whom you furnished with ships and men equipped for like designs, not without the greatest hardships, dangers, and expenses, to make diligent quest for these remote and unknown mainlands and islands through the sea, where hitherto no one had sailed; and they at length, with divine aid and with the utmost diligence sailing in the ocean sea, discovered certain very remote islands and even mainlands that hitherto had not been discovered by others; wherein dwell very many peoples living in peace, and, as reported, going unclothed, and not eating flesh. Moreover, as your aforesaid envoys are of opinion, these very peoples living in the said islands and countries believe in one God, the Creator in heaven, and seem sufficiently disposed to embrace the Catholic faith and be trained in good morals.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Alex06/alex06inter.htm

Is Spain still the rightful and God given ruler of Columbus' "discoveries" for the instruction of the natives in the Catholic faith? I doubt Pope Francis would agree.

No, that's because the americas are catholic now. But even then it was a mere affirmation that to spread the word of God is a good thing. Hyperbole put aside. You are really grasping at straws now...

Quote
How about Pius IX's puritanical regime in the Papal States that included reopening the Jewish ghettos? Was Garibaldi not an immoral heretic in his eyes for opposing the rights of God's man on earth to be a temporal ruler?

What does this have to do with pontifical infallibility? So far all that you said seems more like you venting of how bad the popes have been and other personal grievances rather than a rebuttal to how we can know something is infallible... Sure may be Pius did some bad things but nobody claimed the popes are impeccable

Quote
If you don't have an exact list, then the vague criteria of infallible when speaking ex cathedra as to faith and morals proves far too much. And your statements bellow seem to only confirm that.

Lol but none of what you mentioned were ex cathedra statements. I know this by looking at the guidelines which are far from vague and actually quite precise and narrow. Every body knows inefibilis deus was and ex cathedra statement and so with the decree on the assumption.

Quote
then why isn't Vigilius' refusal to condemn the Three Chapters considered an ex cathedra confirmation of them?

Because it wasn't a matter of faith in his eyes nor morals but mere politics. He as well as the west were reluctant to condemn the three chapters and their persons because they were worried it would undermine the authority of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon.
It doesn't matter what his motives were. There's all kinds of sincere heretics, are there not?

Lol Vigilius never challenged the condemnation on theological grounds (that would constitute heresy) but rather challenged the motivation behind the condemnation of the persons in question as an ecumenical council saw fit to leave them be, why was it necessary to undermine Chalcedon? Please, if you haven't, read about the real dispute and not the smokescreen used as the battlefield.

By calling Vigilius heretical for upholding Chalcedon is to call the 4th Ecumenical council heretical.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2014, 05:15:49 PM by Wandile »
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,838
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #56 on: December 26, 2014, 06:49:03 PM »
By calling Vigilius heretical for upholding Chalcedon is to call the 4th Ecumenical council heretical.

 ;)

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #57 on: December 26, 2014, 08:25:12 PM »
By calling Vigilius heretical for upholding Chalcedon is to call the 4th Ecumenical council heretical.

 ;)

LOL  :D
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,020
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #58 on: December 27, 2014, 07:48:30 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #59 on: December 27, 2014, 08:39:37 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..
« Last Edit: December 27, 2014, 08:47:50 AM by Wandile »
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,020
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #60 on: December 28, 2014, 01:58:20 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..

Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #61 on: December 28, 2014, 06:03:02 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..

Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).

Yeah?

Vigilius defence can be explained by the facts that because chalcedon had the letters and saw no reason to condemn these people. Even with knowledge of the controversial passages. So why should he? It's that simple.  Further he showed how certain things can be interpreted in an orthodox light. In the first Constitutum,  Vigilius decided that Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were indeed heretical, but Theodore himself ought not to be condemned, since he was never given an opportunity to face charges while alive. Secondly Theodoret should not to be charged with insulting St. Cyril, as he denied authorship of such writings and St. Cyril himself never made such an accusation, so the authentic works of Theodoret should not be generally condemned, except for four Nestorian propositions they contain and lastly that Ibas had been declared orthodox at Chalcedon even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2014, 06:09:35 AM by Wandile »
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,020
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #62 on: December 28, 2014, 08:25:39 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..

Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).

Yeah?

Vigilius defence can be explained by the facts that because chalcedon had the letters and saw no reason to condemn these people. Even with knowledge of the controversial passages. So why should he? It's that simple.  Further he showed how certain things can be interpreted in an orthodox light. In the first Constitutum,  Vigilius decided that Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were indeed heretical, but Theodore himself ought not to be condemned, since he was never given an opportunity to face charges while alive. Secondly Theodoret should not to be charged with insulting St. Cyril, as he denied authorship of such writings and St. Cyril himself never made such an accusation, so the authentic works of Theodoret should not be generally condemned, except for four Nestorian propositions they contain and lastly that Ibas had been declared orthodox at Chalcedon even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council disagreed as it indeed condemned the letter. The Pope, by the way, completely withdrew and annulled his defense of the letter of Ibas and condemned it.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #63 on: December 28, 2014, 08:33:00 AM »
I'm still not seeing how his earlier writings in defense of the Three Chapters can be "grandfathered" into orthodoxy (little o) just because he eventually ended up on the right side of theological history, though. It's complicated.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #64 on: December 28, 2014, 11:12:27 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..

Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).

Yeah?

Vigilius defence can be explained by the facts that because chalcedon had the letters and saw no reason to condemn these people. Even with knowledge of the controversial passages. So why should he? It's that simple.  Further he showed how certain things can be interpreted in an orthodox light. In the first Constitutum,  Vigilius decided that Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were indeed heretical, but Theodore himself ought not to be condemned, since he was never given an opportunity to face charges while alive. Secondly Theodoret should not to be charged with insulting St. Cyril, as he denied authorship of such writings and St. Cyril himself never made such an accusation, so the authentic works of Theodoret should not be generally condemned, except for four Nestorian propositions they contain and lastly that Ibas had been declared orthodox at Chalcedon even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council disagreed as it indeed condemned the letter. The Pope, by the way, completely withdrew and annulled his defense of the letter of Ibas and condemned it.

Yes I know, the 5th ecumenical council contradicted the 4th... And I know about Vigilius' retraction which caused a huge schism in the west lasting 150 years. The whole issue was the west and (in the beginning also the east) wanted to uphold the authority of chalcedon. They eventually achieve that by not condemning their persons bar one which kept to chalcedon. What the emperor wanted was a complete 180 on chalcedon and vigilius and west wouldn't stand for it.
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #65 on: December 28, 2014, 11:14:25 AM »
I'm still not seeing how his earlier writings in defense of the Three Chapters can be "grandfathered" into orthodoxy (little o) just because he eventually ended up on the right side of theological history, though. It's complicated.

His earlier writing was defense based on chalcedon which acknowledged that the letter of Ibas could be read in an orthodox light. That's why chalcedon never condemned it as they took it in that manner. The 5th council saw it differently...
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Paisius

  • Ditry Pope-loving ecumenist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,341
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Depends on the mood
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #66 on: December 28, 2014, 04:58:20 PM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.



I will say that's one of the great things about being Orthodox. If a bishop writes something heretical we can call a spade a spade. We don't have to spend extraordinary amounts of time and energy trying to explain how he didn't really mean what he said.  :D

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #67 on: December 28, 2014, 07:24:23 PM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.



I will say that's one of the great things about being Orthodox. If a bishop writes something heretical we can call a spade a spade. We don't have to spend extraordinary amounts of time and energy trying to explain how he didn't really mean what he said.  :D

Soooo Chalcedon  was heretical? Because that's all vigilius did. He upheld Chakcedon
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,838
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #68 on: December 28, 2014, 07:35:37 PM »
Chalcedon is the gift that keeps on giving.  A veritable Christmas every day. 

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,020
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #69 on: December 28, 2014, 08:07:32 PM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..

Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).

Yeah?

Vigilius defence can be explained by the facts that because chalcedon had the letters and saw no reason to condemn these people. Even with knowledge of the controversial passages. So why should he? It's that simple.  Further he showed how certain things can be interpreted in an orthodox light. In the first Constitutum,  Vigilius decided that Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were indeed heretical, but Theodore himself ought not to be condemned, since he was never given an opportunity to face charges while alive. Secondly Theodoret should not to be charged with insulting St. Cyril, as he denied authorship of such writings and St. Cyril himself never made such an accusation, so the authentic works of Theodoret should not be generally condemned, except for four Nestorian propositions they contain and lastly that Ibas had been declared orthodox at Chalcedon even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council disagreed as it indeed condemned the letter. The Pope, by the way, completely withdrew and annulled his defense of the letter of Ibas and condemned it.

Yes I know, the 5th ecumenical council contradicted the 4th... And I know about Vigilius' retraction which caused a huge schism in the west lasting 150 years. The whole issue was the west and (in the beginning also the east) wanted to uphold the authority of chalcedon. They eventually achieve that by not condemning their persons bar one which kept to chalcedon. What the emperor wanted was a complete 180 on chalcedon and vigilius and west wouldn't stand for it.

Evidently you've read neither the acts of Chalcedon nor the acts of Second Constantinople. Dogmatically, the two councils were in alignment, though Second Constantinople extended the dogmatic judgments of Chalcedon. Despite Vigilius' protestations to the contrary, the letter of Ibas was never fully accepted at Chalcedon. The Roman legates, it is true, essentially jumped the gun by declaring the letter orthodox (though they likely did not fully understand it), and because it was considered in Roman society an unthinkable breach of decorum for junior judges to contradict senior ones, the council fathers were placed into an awkward position (as Price notes in both his translation of the acts of Chalcedon and of Second Constantinople), one which the newly elevated Patriarch of Jerusalem, Juvenal, solved by confirming the Roman legates' exoneration of Ibas with the implication that Ibas was senile rather than with an approval his letter.

What is it, by the way, with you and fancying that your judgment is better than that of an ecumenical council?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2014, 08:09:13 PM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #70 on: December 29, 2014, 12:17:30 AM »
I don't see Wandile claiming he has better judgment. He's just saying that the 5th Council contradicted the 4th. He might be right, he might be wrong. But I see anything untoward about trying to point out a fact.

Though if the 5th did contradict the 4th, what does that mean for the infallibility of the subsequent Popes who failed to overturn one or the other?
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 12:19:05 AM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #71 on: December 29, 2014, 05:39:48 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..

Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).

Yeah?

Vigilius defence can be explained by the facts that because chalcedon had the letters and saw no reason to condemn these people. Even with knowledge of the controversial passages. So why should he? It's that simple.  Further he showed how certain things can be interpreted in an orthodox light. In the first Constitutum,  Vigilius decided that Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were indeed heretical, but Theodore himself ought not to be condemned, since he was never given an opportunity to face charges while alive. Secondly Theodoret should not to be charged with insulting St. Cyril, as he denied authorship of such writings and St. Cyril himself never made such an accusation, so the authentic works of Theodoret should not be generally condemned, except for four Nestorian propositions they contain and lastly that Ibas had been declared orthodox at Chalcedon even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council disagreed as it indeed condemned the letter. The Pope, by the way, completely withdrew and annulled his defense of the letter of Ibas and condemned it.

Yes I know, the 5th ecumenical council contradicted the 4th... And I know about Vigilius' retraction which caused a huge schism in the west lasting 150 years. The whole issue was the west and (in the beginning also the east) wanted to uphold the authority of chalcedon. They eventually achieve that by not condemning their persons bar one which kept to chalcedon. What the emperor wanted was a complete 180 on chalcedon and vigilius and west wouldn't stand for it.

Evidently you've read neither the acts of Chalcedon nor the acts of Second Constantinople. Dogmatically, the two councils were in alignment, though Second Constantinople extended the dogmatic judgments of Chalcedon. Despite Vigilius' protestations to the contrary, the letter of Ibas was never fully accepted at Chalcedon. The Roman legates, it is true, essentially jumped the gun by declaring the letter orthodox (though they likely did not fully understand it), and because it was considered in Roman society an unthinkable breach of decorum for junior judges to contradict senior ones, the council fathers were placed into an awkward position (as Price notes in both his translation of the acts of Chalcedon and of Second Constantinople), one which the newly elevated Patriarch of Jerusalem, Juvenal, solved by confirming the Roman legates' exoneration of Ibas with the implication that Ibas was senile rather than with an approval his letter.

What is it, by the way, with you and fancying that your judgment is better than that of an ecumenical council?


I never even began to say doctrinally they contradicted each other so I don't know how you got there cav
  :-\ seriously...

Oh I'm just reporting on the facts... Not fancying my judgments over the councils. The fact is Chalcedon declared Ibas and his letter were orthodox... Constantinople said otherwise. We know for a fact that at Chalcedon Ibas had been declared orthodox even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.no matter what surrounded the issue, this was the final position of the council to have him lay in good stead with the church. Secondly at the 5th we know that they did an about face on the issue and condemned the letters and would have fully went against chalcedon by condemning persons had it not been for the protests of Vigilius and the west who steadfastly upheld Chalcedon. Sometimes we have to call a spade a spade and here lies a contradiction between the 4th and 5th and decisions were overturned. This also proved the RC position that ecumenical councils, when it comes to any judgments of a person, are not infallible. Only judgments on doctrines are.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 05:41:09 AM by Wandile »
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #72 on: December 29, 2014, 05:58:27 AM »
I don't see Wandile claiming he has better judgment. He's just saying that the 5th Council contradicted the 4th. He might be right, he might be wrong. But I see anything untoward about trying to point out a fact.

Thank you

Quote
Though if the 5th did contradict the 4th, what does that mean for the infallibility of the subsequent Popes who failed to overturn one or the other?

Like I said, the judgments on personas are not infallible. At least in RC theology.

However Papal infallibility does not even factor in here once you realize that vigilius did not make ex cathedra pronouncements but rather what he was issuing was pretty much the same as an encyclical on a matter.  Further Vigilius only signed those statements of faith  under duress. So even if it was an attempt to speak ex cathedra on the face of it, it failed by this standard that he signed it under duress and not free will.
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,020
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #73 on: December 29, 2014, 09:15:28 AM »
I never even began to say doctrinally they contradicted each other so I don't know how you got there cav
  :-\ seriously...

Oh I'm just reporting on the facts... Not fancying my judgments over the councils. The fact is Chalcedon declared Ibas and his letter were orthodox... Constantinople said otherwise. We know for a fact that at Chalcedon Ibas had been declared orthodox even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.no matter what surrounded the issue, this was the final position of the council to have him lay in good stead with the church. Secondly at the 5th we know that they did an about face on the issue and condemned the letters and would have fully went against chalcedon by condemning persons had it not been for the protests of Vigilius and the west who steadfastly upheld Chalcedon. Sometimes we have to call a spade a spade and here lies a contradiction between the 4th and 5th and decisions were overturned. This also proved the RC position that ecumenical councils, when it comes to any judgments of a person, are not infallible. Only judgments on doctrines are.

We know that they would have condemned the persons of Theodoret and Ibas? Can you substantiate this claim, or like the other incorrect claims you have made in this thread, did this claim come from nowhere? I don't ever remember reading that the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas was ever on the agenda.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 09:18:13 AM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,020
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #74 on: December 29, 2014, 09:16:45 AM »
I don't see Wandile claiming he has better judgment. He's just saying that the 5th Council contradicted the 4th. He might be right, he might be wrong. But I see anything untoward about trying to point out a fact.

Thank you

Quote
Though if the 5th did contradict the 4th, what does that mean for the infallibility of the subsequent Popes who failed to overturn one or the other?

Like I said, the judgments on personas are not infallible. At least in RC theology.

They are not? Why then do so many Latin theologians seem to be under the impression that canonizations are a regular exercise of the church's infallibility?
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline emanresu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #75 on: December 30, 2014, 09:26:58 AM »
I don't see Wandile claiming he has better judgment. He's just saying that the 5th Council contradicted the 4th. He might be right, he might be wrong. But I see anything untoward about trying to point out a fact.

Thank you

Quote
Though if the 5th did contradict the 4th, what does that mean for the infallibility of the subsequent Popes who failed to overturn one or the other?

Like I said, the judgments on personas are not infallible. At least in RC theology.

They are not? Why then do so many Latin theologians seem to be under the impression that canonizations are a regular exercise of the church's infallibility?

The following is according to RC theology:

There are different ways in which the Church acts/speaks infallibly. One is the Extraordinary Magisterium (pope speaking ex cathedra on a matter of Faith or Morals). There is also the Universal, Ordinary Magisterium where Tradition is considered infallible (decrees of Ecumenical Councils, constant teaching of the Church on Faith and Morals etc.)

Canonizations have taken place in different ways at different times throughout the history of the Church. However the RCC considers these Canonizations, in whichever form the "official" proclamation takes place to be protected by the Church's Infallibility.

It has become fashionable for some Catholic traditionalists, in the wake of the canonizations of JPII and JXXIII, to downplay or outright deny that it has ever been a teaching of the Church that canonizations are protected by the Church's infallibility. They often point to the Vatican I dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus which states when the pope is speaking infallibly. To me this ignores a couple of facts:

1) The Church's current mode of canonizing saints is a fairly recent process stretching back to about the time just before the Council of Trent. What of all the canonizations prior to this point? It seems to also imply that the only dogmas that we know for sure are dogmas are those defined Ex Cathedra by the pope. Of course, 99.9% of the dogmas of the RC Faith did not come about in this fashion.

2) Those who deny that the pope seeks to impose a matter of Faith on the Church when he canonizes a saint have to ignore the language used (We define, proclaim, profess....etc) and the fact that the cultus of the saint is assumed into the public life and prayer of the Church in the form of Offices, Masses and feastdays.

It is my personal opinion that those who deny the infallibility of canonizations are doing so because that is the only way that the RCC can still be the True Church.

Premise 1: JPII and JXXIII cannot be saints.
Premise 2: But they were canonized by the pope in solemn language.

Ergo: Canonizations must not really be infallible.

I personally can't wait to see what happens next year when Paul VI is "canonized."

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #76 on: December 30, 2014, 03:25:34 PM »
I don't see Wandile claiming he has better judgment. He's just saying that the 5th Council contradicted the 4th. He might be right, he might be wrong. But I see anything untoward about trying to point out a fact.

Thank you

Quote
Though if the 5th did contradict the 4th, what does that mean for the infallibility of the subsequent Popes who failed to overturn one or the other?

Like I said, the judgments on personas are not infallible. At least in RC theology.

They are not? Why then do so many Latin theologians seem to be under the impression that canonizations are a regular exercise of the church's infallibility?

Oh that's a whole 'nother topic. Canonizations go through different process of getting true verifiable miracles  and assessing the life (not theology as per many saints who have erred) of the person in question

Judging someone's supposed heresy us not infallible and that is standard catholic teaching. Case in point: Oriental orthodox were declared to be monophysites by the CC for over 1000 years. We have later revoked this charge and deemed their Christology orthodox.

Just as the church of the east and their Christology and all their father erroneously condemned

Last point is the case of Honorius and the 6th council. They deemed him a monothelite though  in actual fact he was orthodox as many scholars have shown and any basic reading of the letter that had him condemned shows. There numerous cases to prove this point of how ecumenical councils judgments on pwrsosn are not infallible and can be overturned. Another case in point is this very thread, Chalcedon vs Constantinople where the people in question were restored but later were charged with heresy.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 03:27:35 PM by Wandile »
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #77 on: December 30, 2014, 03:34:15 PM »
I never even began to say doctrinally they contradicted each other so I don't know how you got there cav
  :-\ seriously...

Oh I'm just reporting on the facts... Not fancying my judgments over the councils. The fact is Chalcedon declared Ibas and his letter were orthodox... Constantinople said otherwise. We know for a fact that at Chalcedon Ibas had been declared orthodox even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.no matter what surrounded the issue, this was the final position of the council to have him lay in good stead with the church. Secondly at the 5th we know that they did an about face on the issue and condemned the letters and would have fully went against chalcedon by condemning persons had it not been for the protests of Vigilius and the west who steadfastly upheld Chalcedon. Sometimes we have to call a spade a spade and here lies a contradiction between the 4th and 5th and decisions were overturned. This also proved the RC position that ecumenical councils, when it comes to any judgments of a person, are not infallible. Only judgments on doctrines are.

We know that they would have condemned the persons of Theodoret and Ibas? Can you substantiate this claim,

The emperor made an agreement to condemn the persons in question and the fathers attending the council agreed to this clause. Vigilius and the west refused and said that if they were to attend, they would vote against condemnation

Quote
or like the other incorrect claims you have made in this thread, did this claim come from nowhere?

Correct claims brother. You are the one denying the evidence and playing gymnastics to make contradictory actions agree.

Quote
I don't ever remember reading that the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas was ever on the agenda.

Just like honorius' wasn't initially but yet letter were read and we know what happened. Ibas had been declared orthodox  after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril and subsequently restored to his see by Chalcedon and die in communion with the church.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 03:36:58 PM by Wandile »
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline TheMathematician

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,007
  • Formerly known as Montalo
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ACROD
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #78 on: December 30, 2014, 04:44:38 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #79 on: December 30, 2014, 05:04:26 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)
Then he would receive major accolades from these people: www.womenpriests.org and www.huffingtonpost.com
and major protests from these people: www.traditio.com
God bless!

Offline Paisius

  • Ditry Pope-loving ecumenist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,341
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Depends on the mood
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #80 on: December 30, 2014, 06:28:46 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Completely impossible. God would strike him dead first. Didn't you know that?  8)

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,020
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #81 on: December 30, 2014, 10:54:06 PM »
I never even began to say doctrinally they contradicted each other so I don't know how you got there cav
  :-\ seriously...

Oh I'm just reporting on the facts... Not fancying my judgments over the councils. The fact is Chalcedon declared Ibas and his letter were orthodox... Constantinople said otherwise. We know for a fact that at Chalcedon Ibas had been declared orthodox even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.no matter what surrounded the issue, this was the final position of the council to have him lay in good stead with the church. Secondly at the 5th we know that they did an about face on the issue and condemned the letters and would have fully went against chalcedon by condemning persons had it not been for the protests of Vigilius and the west who steadfastly upheld Chalcedon. Sometimes we have to call a spade a spade and here lies a contradiction between the 4th and 5th and decisions were overturned. This also proved the RC position that ecumenical councils, when it comes to any judgments of a person, are not infallible. Only judgments on doctrines are.

We know that they would have condemned the persons of Theodoret and Ibas? Can you substantiate this claim,

The emperor made an agreement to condemn the persons in question and the fathers attending the council agreed to this clause. Vigilius and the west refused and said that if they were to attend, they would vote against condemnation

Quote
or like the other incorrect claims you have made in this thread, did this claim come from nowhere?

Correct claims brother. You are the one denying the evidence and playing gymnastics to make contradictory actions agree.

Quote
I don't ever remember reading that the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas was ever on the agenda.

Just like honorius' wasn't initially but yet letter were read and we know what happened. Ibas had been declared orthodox  after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril and subsequently restored to his see by Chalcedon and die in communion with the church.

I didn't ask you to repeat the claim, Wandile, I asked you to substantiate it. I have read the Acts of Second Constantinople in translation, as well as the relevant documents concerning the preparation of the council, and I do not remember the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas being on the agenda, nor a moment when such an item was struck from the agenda because of the objections of the pope and the Western bishops. I grant to you, however, that my memory is imperfect, and that I very well could be remembering incorrectly, hence why I am asking you to substantiate the claim with evidence from the acts of the council or the pre-conciliar documents.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 10:56:41 PM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,764
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #82 on: December 30, 2014, 11:44:00 PM »
I don't see Wandile claiming he has better judgment. He's just saying that the 5th Council contradicted the 4th. He might be right, he might be wrong. But I see anything untoward about trying to point out a fact.

Thank you

Quote
Though if the 5th did contradict the 4th, what does that mean for the infallibility of the subsequent Popes who failed to overturn one or the other?

Like I said, the judgments on personas are not infallible. At least in RC theology.

They are not? Why then do so many Latin theologians seem to be under the impression that canonizations are a regular exercise of the church's infallibility?

Oh that's a whole 'nother topic. Canonizations go through different process of getting true verifiable miracles  and assessing the life (not theology as per many saints who have erred) of the person in question

Judging someone's supposed heresy us not infallible and that is standard catholic teaching. Case in point: Oriental orthodox were declared to be monophysites by the CC for over 1000 years. We have later revoked this charge and deemed their Christology orthodox.
so your doctrine develops in circles. Just like your "infallible" supreme pontiffs contradict each other.
Just as the church of the east and their Christology and all their father erroneously condemned
you mean erroneously exonerated by the Vatican. Anything to entice into submission.
Last point is the case of Honorius and the 6th council. They deemed him a monothelite though  in actual fact he was orthodox as many scholars have shown and any basic reading of the letter that had him condemned shows. There numerous cases to prove this point of how ecumenical councils judgments on pwrsosn are not infallible and can be overturned. Another case in point is this very thread, Chalcedon vs Constantinople where the people in question were restored but later were charged with heresy.
no, they were charged with heresy before-that is how they got deposed-and they have to abjure the heresy, i.e. Nestorianism, that they were charged with. In the case of Ibas, Constantinople II didn't even find him guilty of the letter attributed to him, which the Council condemned.
And Pope Honorius is still a heretic-"anathema!"

That "basic reading of the letter" that had him condemned-can you link to it? Quote it? Cite it?
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

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #83 on: December 30, 2014, 11:52:31 PM »
I have not gotten a satisfactory answer to the puzzle of how someone is supposed to know if a statement by the Pope is infallible or not. Most Catholics I know have different numbers and different ideas of which statements were and were not infallible.  What good is infallibility if no one knows when you are being infallible?
God bless!

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,764
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #84 on: December 31, 2014, 12:44:16 AM »
I never even began to say doctrinally they contradicted each other so I don't know how you got there cav
  :-\ seriously...

Oh I'm just reporting on the facts... Not fancying my judgments over the councils. The fact is Chalcedon declared Ibas and his letter were orthodox... Constantinople said otherwise. We know for a fact that at Chalcedon Ibas had been declared orthodox even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.no matter what surrounded the issue, this was the final position of the council to have him lay in good stead with the church. Secondly at the 5th we know that they did an about face on the issue and condemned the letters and would have fully went against chalcedon by condemning persons had it not been for the protests of Vigilius and the west who steadfastly upheld Chalcedon. Sometimes we have to call a spade a spade and here lies a contradiction between the 4th and 5th and decisions were overturned. This also proved the RC position that ecumenical councils, when it comes to any judgments of a person, are not infallible. Only judgments on doctrines are.

We know that they would have condemned the persons of Theodoret and Ibas? Can you substantiate this claim,

The emperor made an agreement to condemn the persons in question and the fathers attending the council agreed to this clause. Vigilius and the west refused and said that if they were to attend, they would vote against condemnation

Quote
or like the other incorrect claims you have made in this thread, did this claim come from nowhere?

Correct claims brother. You are the one denying the evidence and playing gymnastics to make contradictory actions agree.

Quote
I don't ever remember reading that the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas was ever on the agenda.

Just like honorius' wasn't initially but yet letter were read and we know what happened. Ibas had been declared orthodox  after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril and subsequently restored to his see by Chalcedon and die in communion with the church.

I didn't ask you to repeat the claim, Wandile, I asked you to substantiate it. I have read the Acts of Second Constantinople in translation, as well as the relevant documents concerning the preparation of the council, and I do not remember the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas being on the agenda, nor a moment when such an item was struck from the agenda because of the objections of the pope and the Western bishops. I grant to you, however, that my memory is imperfect, and that I very well could be remembering incorrectly, hence why I am asking you to substantiate the claim with evidence from the acts of the council or the pre-conciliar documents.
I have the Acts of the Council right in front of me, but I'll let Wandile explain himself.

In the meantime, Richard Price, in the introduction to his translation of the Acts of Constantinople II (pp. 36-7) brings up an interesting tidbit:
Quote
In the preparation of the convocation of the Council of Trent in 1545 Cardinal Jacobatius [Domenico Giacobazzi] produced in 1538 his Tractatus de Concilio,dedicated to Pope Paul III.  In it he raises the question whether the secular rulers should  have a role in church councils, and replies that should when the faith is at issue, since 'the cause of the faith is a universal cause, and concerns not only the clergy but also the laity'. This, he continues, is supremely true of the emperor, who is 'the master of the universe, and the prince and head of the laity' and also 'the advocate of the Church'.  He adds that, if at a council the pope himself were to be suspected of heresy, it would fall to the emperor to require from him a statement of faith. Justinian's treatment of Vigilius should be viewed in this light.
He points out that the edition of Tractatus de Concilio he uses was reprinted by the Congregation for Propagation of the Faith in Rome in 1870, i.e. during Vatican I.

Ooops!

This comes up also in a study of the robber council of Florence:
Quote
For the authentic Catholic tradition, it is worth looking ahead to what is arguably the most important work ever written on conciliar procedure, namely the Tractatus de Concilio by Cardinal Giacobazzi (or Jacobatius), written at the request of Pope Paul III in preparation for the convening of the Council of Trent and published in 1538. In it Giacobazzi raises the question of whether the emperor should have a role in church councils, and, citing various authorities (which I omit), replies as follows:
Since the emperor is the master of the universe, a lesser luminary, and the prince and head of the laity, and since a general council has to deal with all the laity as whole, it is right that at least their superior should be summoned. To take part in a council and have a voice pertains more to jurisdiction than to order ... The emperor ought to be summoned to a council, because of the general jurisdiction that he has over the laity ... The emperor is part of a council, especially  when the faith is being discussed, since he is the advocate of the Church. And his involvement is such that, if a pope is suspected of heresy, the emperor can require him to state what he holds on the subject of the faith.
Sylvester Syropoulos on Politics and Culture in the Fifteenth-Century Mediterranean
https://books.google.com/books?id=hs-pBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA40&dq=%22if+a+pope+is+suspected+of+heresy%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J3mjVKi2EJKuyATW0YCYAw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22if%20a%20pope%20is%20suspected%20of%20heresy%22&f=false

So much for the supreme pontiff's infallibility, and his being judged by no one, including a council, on faith and morals.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,764
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #85 on: December 31, 2014, 01:56:56 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..

Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).

Yeah?

Vigilius defence can be explained by the facts that because chalcedon had the letters and saw no reason to condemn these people. Even with knowledge of the controversial passages. So why should he? It's that simple.  Further he showed how certain things can be interpreted in an orthodox light. In the first Constitutum,  Vigilius decided that Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were indeed heretical, but Theodore himself ought not to be condemned, since he was never given an opportunity to face charges while alive. Secondly Theodoret should not to be charged with insulting St. Cyril, as he denied authorship of such writings and St. Cyril himself never made such an accusation, so the authentic works of Theodoret should not be generally condemned, except for four Nestorian propositions they contain and lastly that Ibas had been declared orthodox at Chalcedon even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council disagreed as it indeed condemned the letter. The Pope, by the way, completely withdrew and annulled his defense of the letter of Ibas and condemned it.

Yes I know, the 5th ecumenical council contradicted the 4th... And I know about Vigilius' retraction which caused a huge schism in the west lasting 150 years. The whole issue was the west and (in the beginning also the east) wanted to uphold the authority of chalcedon. They eventually achieve that by not condemning their persons bar one which kept to chalcedon. What the emperor wanted was a complete 180 on chalcedon and vigilius and west wouldn't stand for it.

Evidently you've read neither the acts of Chalcedon nor the acts of Second Constantinople. Dogmatically, the two councils were in alignment, though Second Constantinople extended the dogmatic judgments of Chalcedon. Despite Vigilius' protestations to the contrary, the letter of Ibas was never fully accepted at Chalcedon. The Roman legates, it is true, essentially jumped the gun by declaring the letter orthodox (though they likely did not fully understand it), and because it was considered in Roman society an unthinkable breach of decorum for junior judges to contradict senior ones, the council fathers were placed into an awkward position (as Price notes in both his translation of the acts of Chalcedon and of Second Constantinople), one which the newly elevated Patriarch of Jerusalem, Juvenal, solved by confirming the Roman legates' exoneration of Ibas with the implication that Ibas was senile rather than with an approval his letter.

What is it, by the way, with you and fancying that your judgment is better than that of an ecumenical council?


I never even began to say doctrinally they contradicted each other so I don't know how you got there cav
  :-\ seriously...

Oh I'm just reporting on the facts... Not fancying my judgments over the councils. The fact is Chalcedon declared Ibas and his letter were orthodox... Constantinople said otherwise. We know for a fact that at Chalcedon Ibas had been declared orthodox even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.no matter what surrounded the issue, this was the final position of the council to have him lay in good stead with the church. Secondly at the 5th we know that they did an about face on the issue and condemned the letters and would have fully went against chalcedon by condemning persons had it not been for the protests of Vigilius and the west who steadfastly upheld Chalcedon. Sometimes we have to call a spade a spade and here lies a contradiction between the 4th and 5th and decisions were overturned. This also proved the RC position that ecumenical councils, when it comes to any judgments of a person, are not infallible. Only judgments on doctrines are.
Nestorius would be happy to know that. Pope St. Cyril and the rest of the Fathers of Ephesus would not, nor would their successors at Chalcedon (where they required Theodoret and Ibas to anathematize Nestorius and his friends before reinstatement), nor Constantinople II.
This Vatican position on ecumenical councils and their judgments on persons, when did that development? I know why-trying to escape Honorius-but I'm curious as to when this solution was dreamt up.
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

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #86 on: December 31, 2014, 02:54:32 AM »
no, they were charged with heresy before-that is how they got deposed-and they have to abjure the heresy, i.e. Nestorianism, that they were charged with. In the case of Ibas, Constantinople II didn't even find him guilty of the letter attributed to him, which the Council condemned.
But Ibas did write the letter, didn't he? CII just accepted an "orthodox interpretation" of it and let him off with his denunciation of Nestorius.

I thought Ecumenical Councils are supposed to be infallible in Orthodoxy. How can CII have contradicted Chalcedon?
« Last Edit: December 31, 2014, 02:55:33 AM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,764
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #87 on: December 31, 2014, 03:40:29 AM »
no, they were charged with heresy before-that is how they got deposed-and they have to abjure the heresy, i.e. Nestorianism, that they were charged with. In the case of Ibas, Constantinople II didn't even find him guilty of the letter attributed to him, which the Council condemned.
But Ibas did write the letter, didn't he? CII just accepted an "orthodox interpretation" of it and let him off with his denunciation of Nestorius.

I thought Ecumenical Councils are supposed to be infallible in Orthodoxy. How can CII have contradicted Chalcedon?
it didn't. But only the Definitions are infallible, irreformable...or whatever term you like to use.

Ibas never owned up to the letter, and it was referred to as "the letter attributed to Ibas."
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

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #88 on: December 31, 2014, 03:46:43 AM »
I have not gotten a satisfactory answer to the puzzle of how someone is supposed to know if a statement by the Pope is infallible or not. Most Catholics I know have different numbers and different ideas of which statements were and were not infallible.  What good is infallibility if no one knows when you are being infallible?

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #89 on: December 31, 2014, 03:48:09 AM »
no, they were charged with heresy before-that is how they got deposed-and they have to abjure the heresy, i.e. Nestorianism, that they were charged with. In the case of Ibas, Constantinople II didn't even find him guilty of the letter attributed to him, which the Council condemned.
But Ibas did write the letter, didn't he? CII just accepted an "orthodox interpretation" of it and let him off with his denunciation of Nestorius.

I thought Ecumenical Councils are supposed to be infallible in Orthodoxy. How can CII have contradicted Chalcedon?
it didn't. But only the Definitions are infallible, irreformable...or whatever term you like to use.

Ibas never owned up to the letter, and it was referred to as "the letter attributed to Ibas."
Oh. Ok.


Which brings up my related question, what does the anathematizing of a person in Orthodoxy or Catholicism actually do? I'm guessing it doesn't mean, "this guy is definitely burning in Hell." I've heard it means that we're not allowed to pray for their soul but I didn't see a source on that.

It formally labels them a heretic but it seems like anathematizing their writings does that job already. I mean, surely it's not a crime to say so if Arius, for example, happened to be right about some issue outside the Deity of Christ. Origen said a lot of good things, after all.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.