Author Topic: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter  (Read 5086 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 638
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
I've never understood how anyone gets around the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas. There you have the ancient Church of Rome dogmatically hand down how Tradition requires the divine promise to be understood of the Apostolic Throne of St. Peter, the Rock on which the Church is built. Do Orthodox accept and profess that which is contained in St. Hormisdas' formula?

"The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies ...

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome."
« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 07:53:59 AM by Xavier »
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2018, 01:26:27 PM »
Wasn't this already brought up before by me, and didn't you comment on it?

Well, anyways, I found it worth quoting from Michael Whelton.

"Many Catholic historians claim that the Eastern Churches have always recognized the supreme jurisdiction of Rome and they usually point to the Oath of Pope Hormisdas. The Acacian schism had divided the Eastern and Western Church for 35 years and upon his ascension to the throne in AD 518, the Emperor Justin decided that he was going to rule over one empire and one Church and entrusted his nephew Justinian with the task of ending the schism.

To accomplish this, Justinian needed the support of the Bishop of Rome. Being in a strong bargaining position, Pope Hormisdas placed a very high price for reconciliation, i.e., wholesale excommunications, including the Patriarchs Euphemius and Macedonius, who accoding to Byzantine scholar John Julius Norwich "had never vered from the Orthodox path and had indeed suffered exile for his beliefs..." Last and certainly not least was the following oath that each bishop had to sign:

'In following in all things that apostolic see and in professing all its constitutions, I hope that I will deserve to remain in the same communion with you which is professed by the apostolic see, in which persists the total and true strength of the Christian religion. Promising also not to recite in the liturgy the names of men who have been separated from communion with the Catholic Church which means, who do not agree with the apostolic see...'

Justinian accepted Pope Hormisdas' conditions and using imperial authority forced the Eastern Church to comply. Before signing the document, John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, added the following sentence: 'I hold the most holy Church of the old and the new Rome to be one. I define the see of Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see." In doing so, he was recalling the fact that canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon declared that the Sees of Rome and Constantinople were equal...It was the same Justinian as emperor, whom we saw earlier bringing Pope Vigilius to Constantinople and placing him under house arrest for 10 years in order to gain acceptance of another formula, who would secure a unified Church within his empire.

The Eastern Church vigorously defended the principles of collegiality, which they saw as the true and traditional form of Church government, against the rising monarchial concept of Church government advanced by the Papacy...it was only a matter of time before east and west went their separate ways..."

I'm done.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,252
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2018, 01:43:12 AM »
It's also worth noting that the majority of bishops in the Greek East either rejected or publicly burned the Libellus Hormisdae. Only those in Constantinople "accepted" it.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 01:43:26 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,822
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2018, 02:38:08 PM »
I've never understood how anyone gets around the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas.

Post-Chalcedon.  Neither Catholic nor Orthodox.
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,466
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2018, 02:56:37 PM »
The henotikon was actually a good idea in my opinion. By torpedoing it the Popes guaranteed lasting division in the east.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,747
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2018, 08:18:21 PM »
Before signing the document, John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, added the following sentence: 'I hold the most holy Church of the old and the new Rome to be one. I define the see of Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see." In doing so, he was recalling the fact that canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon declared that the Sees of Rome and Constantinople were equal...It was the same Justinian as emperor, whom we saw earlier bringing Pope Vigilius to Constantinople and placing him under house arrest for 10 years in order to gain acceptance of another formula, who would secure a unified Church within his empire.

The Eastern Church vigorously defended the principles of collegiality, which they saw as the true and traditional form of Church government, against the rising monarchial concept of Church government advanced by the Papacy...it was only a matter of time before east and west went their separate ways..."

This historically would make no sense.

If you read the Formula, there is nothing stated therein by which John could find transferable to the Constantinopolitan See. What does Hormisdas claim? That Christ promised an indefectible faith in blessed Peter and that this proved itself by the fact that the Roman See had, from the beginning, been on the right-side of doctrinal disputation. Hormisdas then says that all Christians of the world, if they want to remain united to the true faith, must be united to the Apostolic See wherein is the bedrock of the Church’s solidity.

Constantinople had on numerous occasions by 520, been involved in one heresy or another. Beginning with her Patriarch Acacius in 484, Constantinople removed the names of Pope Leo and the following Popes from the list of names, and had scratched Chalcedon off the list of Ecumenical Councils. It would be odd of him to claim equality based on the canons of a council he and his church didn’t even recognize.

Thus, we know that the Papal claims in the Formula of Hormisdas as well as the accompanying authority could never apply to Constantinople, and it would be quite a stretch to think that John thought so.

Seriously speaking, there is only one bishop in the church of God (local). It is not as if John here is saying that two bishops, John and Hormisdas, govern one single Church. It is obvious that Rome and Constantinople are two different city-churches.

Monsignor Batiffol (a critical Catholic historian, mind you) comments on this:

“This means to say that the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople are in agreement, not that he ‘identified his own see with the Roman see’ – a phrase that has no meaning Compare the letter Quando Deus of the same John to the same Hormisdas which once more uses the same terms — and the reply of Hormisdas to John, consideranti mihi. Coll. Avellan. 161 and 169 (pp. 612, 624)”
– A Reply to Bishop Gore in “Catholicism and Papacy: Anglican and Russian Difficulties” page 123.

So here you have an instance where Hormisdas himself says that the See of Constantinople and the See of Rome are “one See”. Now, I don’t know a single historian who would tell you that Hormisdas all of the sudden believed that Constantinople possessed the Petrine supremacy that both Hormisdas himself claimed, as well as all his predecessors, including Pope St. Gelasius who was quite emphatic about the inferior authority of Constantinople.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,747
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2018, 08:20:08 PM »
I've never understood how anyone gets around the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas.

Post-Chalcedon.  Neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

Have you ever seen the relationship between St Cyril of Alexandria and Pope St Celestine? St Cyril had a very high view of the authority and necessity of Rome.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,822
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2018, 08:21:26 PM »
I've never understood how anyone gets around the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas.

Post-Chalcedon.  Neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

Have you ever seen the relationship between St Cyril of Alexandria and Pope St Celestine? St Cyril had a very high view of the authority and necessity of Rome.

...when Rome was Orthodox and Catholic.  Now it is neither. 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,747
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2018, 08:44:00 PM »
I've never understood how anyone gets around the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas.

Post-Chalcedon.  Neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

Have you ever seen the relationship between St Cyril of Alexandria and Pope St Celestine? St Cyril had a very high view of the authority and necessity of Rome.

...when Rome was Orthodox and Catholic.  Now it is neither.

His relations and view of Rome would be considered heretical by you today.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,822
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2018, 08:58:49 PM »
I've never understood how anyone gets around the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas.

Post-Chalcedon.  Neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

Have you ever seen the relationship between St Cyril of Alexandria and Pope St Celestine? St Cyril had a very high view of the authority and necessity of Rome.

...when Rome was Orthodox and Catholic.  Now it is neither.

His relations and view of Rome would be considered heretical by you today.

If they were applied to an obviously heretical, obviously non-Orthodox, obviously non-Catholic Rome such as exists today?  Yes, absolutely.
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2018, 10:07:35 PM »
I've never understood how anyone gets around the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas.

Post-Chalcedon.  Neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

Have you ever seen the relationship between St Cyril of Alexandria and Pope St Celestine? St Cyril had a very high view of the authority and necessity of Rome.

...when Rome was Orthodox and Catholic.  Now it is neither.

His relations and view of Rome would be considered heretical by you today.

If they were applied to an obviously heretical, obviously non-Orthodox, obviously non-Catholic Rome such as exists today?  Yes, absolutely.

Obviously.

Quick question, Mor - were you born and raised Oriental? Perhaps people who weren't born Oriental wouldn't see how "obvious" it is, especially if they were given a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Protestant education.

And at least Saint Leo and Saint Hormosdas didn't make sex jokes on the internet, nor does he belittle a 20 year old college student who questions a Church trying to introduce a deaconess in a different manner than it's original role.

I would expect once again a more mature and informed response from someone who holds a theological degree other than saying "obviously your a heretic, even though we don't have too much information on Rome from the years 451 and prior."
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 10:08:55 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,754
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2018, 10:11:29 PM »
Do you know that much about "the original role of the deaconess," Livenot?

https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2018, 10:17:56 PM »
Before signing the document, John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, added the following sentence: 'I hold the most holy Church of the old and the new Rome to be one. I define the see of Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see." In doing so, he was recalling the fact that canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon declared that the Sees of Rome and Constantinople were equal...It was the same Justinian as emperor, whom we saw earlier bringing Pope Vigilius to Constantinople and placing him under house arrest for 10 years in order to gain acceptance of another formula, who would secure a unified Church within his empire.

The Eastern Church vigorously defended the principles of collegiality, which they saw as the true and traditional form of Church government, against the rising monarchial concept of Church government advanced by the Papacy...it was only a matter of time before east and west went their separate ways..."

This historically would make no sense.

If you read the Formula, there is nothing stated therein by which John could find transferable to the Constantinopolitan See. What does Hormisdas claim? That Christ promised an indefectible faith in blessed Peter and that this proved itself by the fact that the Roman See had, from the beginning, been on the right-side of doctrinal disputation. Hormisdas then says that all Christians of the world, if they want to remain united to the true faith, must be united to the Apostolic See wherein is the bedrock of the Church’s solidity.

Constantinople had on numerous occasions by 520, been involved in one heresy or another. Beginning with her Patriarch Acacius in 484, Constantinople removed the names of Pope Leo and the following Popes from the list of names, and had scratched Chalcedon off the list of Ecumenical Councils. It would be odd of him to claim equality based on the canons of a council he and his church didn’t even recognize.

Thus, we know that the Papal claims in the Formula of Hormisdas as well as the accompanying authority could never apply to Constantinople, and it would be quite a stretch to think that John thought so.

Seriously speaking, there is only one bishop in the church of God (local). It is not as if John here is saying that two bishops, John and Hormisdas, govern one single Church. It is obvious that Rome and Constantinople are two different city-churches.

Monsignor Batiffol (a critical Catholic historian, mind you) comments on this:

“This means to say that the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople are in agreement, not that he ‘identified his own see with the Roman see’ – a phrase that has no meaning Compare the letter Quando Deus of the same John to the same Hormisdas which once more uses the same terms — and the reply of Hormisdas to John, consideranti mihi. Coll. Avellan. 161 and 169 (pp. 612, 624)”
– A Reply to Bishop Gore in “Catholicism and Papacy: Anglican and Russian Difficulties” page 123.

So here you have an instance where Hormisdas himself says that the See of Constantinople and the See of Rome are “one See”. Now, I don’t know a single historian who would tell you that Hormisdas all of the sudden believed that Constantinople possessed the Petrine supremacy that both Hormisdas himself claimed, as well as all his predecessors, including Pope St. Gelasius who was quite emphatic about the inferior authority of Constantinople.

In my reading of it from an Orthodox perspective, you are attributing things that aren't there - of course a Church would declare itself necessary to be in communion with, in the same way the Russian Church or Constantinople Church would require communion with them in order to be a True Christian, and nobody here denies that Rome was founded and connected to Saint Peter and Saint Paul.

And the idea that Pope Hormisdas is claiming infallibility appears to be in glaring contradiction to Pope Vigilius being anathematized by the 5th Ecumenical Council and apologizing for his dogmatic statements.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 10:19:30 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 638
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2018, 10:21:01 PM »
It's easy to prove even prior to Chalcedon that the Church interpreted the divine promise as guaranteeing that the Church of Rome could never be overcome by heresy and heretics. Gates of hell=heresy and heretics. Church built on St. Peter=Holy Roman Church. That is the patristic interpretation. During the great controversies of Monothelitism and Iconoclasm, the indefectibility of the Roman Church was ever urged by the most stalwart defenders of the Christian Faith in the East, like St. Maximus and St. Theodore, against monothelitism and iconoclasm respectively. Pope St. Hormisdas and earlier Popes bear witness that the Church of Rome too has ever understood the divine promise as we do today.

At the Council of Ephesus, Fr. Philip said "it is doubtful to none, nay it has been known to all ages that blessed Peter, the Prince and Head of the Apostles, the Rock and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received from Our Lord Jesus Christ the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven and that to him was given the power to bind and loose sins, who even to this day and forever lives and judges in his successors. His successor in due order is our holy and blessed Pope Celestine". St. Cyril, who acknolwedged Rome's primacy to settle disputed questions of Faith in the controversy with Nestorius, like St. Peter Chrysolgus, who expressly wrote the same to Eutyches and others of this time all bear witness to Roman primacy in judgments relating to the Faith. The divine promise is not for some 500 or 1000 years only but until the end of time. Churches separated from Rome lose the guarantee of God's promise; only the Churches that acknowledge Rome as the necessary centre of Catholic communion and the unity of Faith participate in it. Before Chalcedon, the above witnesses should suffice. After Chalcedon, those like St. Maximus and St. Theodore in Constantinople are more explicit - and that in a time of deep controversies about the Faith.
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,822
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2018, 11:24:21 PM »
And at least Saint Leo and Saint Hormosdas didn't make sex jokes on the internet...

Heresies > sex jokes

Quote
...nor does he belittle a 20 year old college student who questions a Church trying to introduce a deaconess in a different manner than it's original role.

Ah.  So this isn't about the saints or about my humour, but about your feelings being hurt because I'm not (obviously) impressed by you.

Quote
I would expect once again a more mature and informed response from someone who holds a theological degree other than saying "obviously your a heretic, even though we don't have too much information on Rome from the years 451 and prior."

You haven't been here long enough to know the history of my use or non-use of my considerable theological education on these boards or with any individual member.  I was discussing theology here while some were still wetting the bed. 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2018, 12:02:52 AM »
And at least Saint Leo and Saint Hormosdas didn't make sex jokes on the internet...

Heresies > sex jokes

Quote
...nor does he belittle a 20 year old college student who questions a Church trying to introduce a deaconess in a different manner than it's original role.

Ah.  So this isn't about the saints or about my humour, but about your feelings being hurt because I'm not (obviously) impressed by you.

Quote
I would expect once again a more mature and informed response from someone who holds a theological degree other than saying "obviously your a heretic, even though we don't have too much information on Rome from the years 451 and prior."

You haven't been here long enough to know the history of my use or non-use of my considerable theological education on these boards or with any individual member.  I was discussing theology here while some were still wetting the bed.

Well, yeah - I would think that someone who was sophisticated enough to have a "theological education" would be a little more loving towards his fellow man.

If you have to act like a 13 year old on the internet, making penis jokes and bullying people, you obviously failed your entire education, because you missed the whole damn point of theology being something you live, not merely studying books. So much for "theology not being scholastic," amirite?

Have fun burning in hell, where you will see the demons morph into me and constantly call you gay as they burn you in boiling excrement - which is fitting, because that is everything you post on this board.

I would rather be a bed wetter than a Pharisaical heretic. So continue to be a forerunner of the antichrist as you persecute the Church with your wretched philosophies and lifestyles, and as you continue to cause - being in a leadership role - potential inquirers into Orthodoxy to turn away, clearly seeing you as someone who is not at all inspired by Christ or the Holy Spirit.

It seems Christianity isn't really your thing considering how immature you are - why don't you join FEMEN?
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 12:06:06 AM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,970
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2018, 12:10:45 AM »
LivenotoneviL,

You know full-well the rules on this forum regarding ad hominems and personal attacks. I am issuing you a twenty (20) point warning for the above.

It can be easy to get carried away when a subject is especially close to our hearts. This is a mild rebuke. Please clean up your act.

All the best,

Antonis
Section Moderator
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 12:15:14 AM by Antonis »
"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 638
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2018, 02:52:30 AM »
Well, anyway.

The only interpretation of the divine promise I have come across is either applied to the whole Church in communion with Rome, or specifically to the local Church of Rome. The latter is how St. Maximus and St. Theodore apply it.

St. Maximus: "The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High." (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

St. Theodore: "Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

And "I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter." (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

Can anyone show a different patristic interpretation regarding the "gates of hell shall not prevail" promise?
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,252
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2018, 03:10:18 AM »
Can we not ignore the fact that most bishops in the Christian East rejected the Formula of Hormisdas despite Constantinople's conditional signature? Or do Catholics think that Constantinople = the entire Christian East?
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,747
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2018, 04:12:46 AM »
Can we not ignore the fact that most bishops in the Christian East rejected the Formula of Hormisdas despite Constantinople's conditional signature? Or do Catholics think that Constantinople = the entire Christian East?

A lot signed though. I don’t know if most didn’t as the formula had 2500 signatures. That is a lot of bishops probably the majority of them.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 04:13:37 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,747
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2018, 04:18:08 AM »
I've never understood how anyone gets around the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas.

Post-Chalcedon.  Neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

Have you ever seen the relationship between St Cyril of Alexandria and Pope St Celestine? St Cyril had a very high view of the authority and necessity of Rome.

...when Rome was Orthodox and Catholic.  Now it is neither.

His relations and view of Rome would be considered heretical by you today.

If they were applied to an obviously heretical, obviously non-Orthodox, obviously non-Catholic Rome such as exists today?  Yes, absolutely.

So you believe Rome has all the Privelages and authority just that she must be Orthodox from your perspective?
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,747
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2018, 04:38:48 AM »
Before signing the document, John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, added the following sentence: 'I hold the most holy Church of the old and the new Rome to be one. I define the see of Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see." In doing so, he was recalling the fact that canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon declared that the Sees of Rome and Constantinople were equal...It was the same Justinian as emperor, whom we saw earlier bringing Pope Vigilius to Constantinople and placing him under house arrest for 10 years in order to gain acceptance of another formula, who would secure a unified Church within his empire.

The Eastern Church vigorously defended the principles of collegiality, which they saw as the true and traditional form of Church government, against the rising monarchial concept of Church government advanced by the Papacy...it was only a matter of time before east and west went their separate ways..."

This historically would make no sense.

If you read the Formula, there is nothing stated therein by which John could find transferable to the Constantinopolitan See. What does Hormisdas claim? That Christ promised an indefectible faith in blessed Peter and that this proved itself by the fact that the Roman See had, from the beginning, been on the right-side of doctrinal disputation. Hormisdas then says that all Christians of the world, if they want to remain united to the true faith, must be united to the Apostolic See wherein is the bedrock of the Church’s solidity.

Constantinople had on numerous occasions by 520, been involved in one heresy or another. Beginning with her Patriarch Acacius in 484, Constantinople removed the names of Pope Leo and the following Popes from the list of names, and had scratched Chalcedon off the list of Ecumenical Councils. It would be odd of him to claim equality based on the canons of a council he and his church didn’t even recognize.

Thus, we know that the Papal claims in the Formula of Hormisdas as well as the accompanying authority could never apply to Constantinople, and it would be quite a stretch to think that John thought so.

Seriously speaking, there is only one bishop in the church of God (local). It is not as if John here is saying that two bishops, John and Hormisdas, govern one single Church. It is obvious that Rome and Constantinople are two different city-churches.

Monsignor Batiffol (a critical Catholic historian, mind you) comments on this:

“This means to say that the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople are in agreement, not that he ‘identified his own see with the Roman see’ – a phrase that has no meaning Compare the letter Quando Deus of the same John to the same Hormisdas which once more uses the same terms — and the reply of Hormisdas to John, consideranti mihi. Coll. Avellan. 161 and 169 (pp. 612, 624)”
– A Reply to Bishop Gore in “Catholicism and Papacy: Anglican and Russian Difficulties” page 123.

So here you have an instance where Hormisdas himself says that the See of Constantinople and the See of Rome are “one See”. Now, I don’t know a single historian who would tell you that Hormisdas all of the sudden believed that Constantinople possessed the Petrine supremacy that both Hormisdas himself claimed, as well as all his predecessors, including Pope St. Gelasius who was quite emphatic about the inferior authority of Constantinople.

In my reading of it from an Orthodox perspective, you are attributing things that aren't there - of course a Church would declare itself necessary to be in communion with, in the same way the Russian Church or Constantinople Church would require communion with them in order to be a True Christian, and nobody here denies that Rome was founded and connected to Saint Peter and Saint Paul.
No it is fact that Rome when claiming this held the view she holds today of her infallibility through continuous claims of her indefectability.

Quote
And the idea that Pope Hormisdas is claiming infallibility appears to be in glaring contradiction to Pope Vigilius being anathematized by the 5th Ecumenical Council and apologizing for his dogmatic statements.

Oh this topic. He was not ananthematised for heresy (even his anathemtisation is dubious) but for neglecting to act. The council openly says as much. When the Council issued their sentence, notice where Vigilius fits in:

”Since it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever any question arises concerning the faith, not only the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who when he has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so.

In fact in the 14 Condemnations the Council issued next, the name Vigilius is absent, while a host of other heretics, including an alleged condemnation of Origen (mentioning only his name in a list, no explanation), and the Three Chapters (by name and explanation) are clearly anathematized.

Have you ever seen Pope St Agatho’s claim of infallibility of Roman see which was accepted at the sixth ecumenical council. If that same letter was issued by a Pope today to the EO they would readily brand him a heretic for his claims of infallibility. Yet the fathers of the sixth ecumenical council accepted it even after the case of Pope Vigilius.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 04:42:10 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,747
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2018, 12:27:33 PM »
Actually upon further research it seems patriarch John was a supporter of Chalcedon. My mistake. It seems he was a champion of union in Constantinople.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,252
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2018, 01:04:25 PM »
Can we not ignore the fact that most bishops in the Christian East rejected the Formula of Hormisdas despite Constantinople's conditional signature? Or do Catholics think that Constantinople = the entire Christian East?

A lot signed though. I don’t know if most didn’t as the formula had 2500 signatures. That is a lot of bishops probably the majority of them.

You've added an extra zero. It was only 250, I am fairly certain. Or my book could have a typo itself. As for who rejected the Libellus, the metropolitan of Tyre and those under him sent a letter of incompliance to the Synod of Constantinople. In addition, the Church of Jerusalem rejected the Libellus. The papal legate at Thessalonica, which was technically under papal jurisdiction, was beaten by a mob and the bishop, Dorotheus, refused to comply with its orders. The pope excommunicated Dorotheus, who was then exonerated and reinstated by a local Eastern council at Heraclea.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #24 on: February 10, 2018, 02:18:27 PM »
Well, anyway.

The only interpretation of the divine promise I have come across is either applied to the whole Church in communion with Rome, or specifically to the local Church of Rome. The latter is how St. Maximus and St. Theodore apply it.

St. Maximus: "The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High." (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

St. Theodore: "Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

And "I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter." (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

Can anyone show a different patristic interpretation regarding the "gates of hell shall not prevail" promise?

That quote from Maximus is known to be spurious if my recollection is correct.

Also, wasn't there a quote from a Church Father who essentially said that it would be impossible for the Church of Jerusalem, as it was the Mother of all Churches, to fall into heresy?

From the Sixth Ecumenical Council:
"After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches."

"To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema!
To Sergius, the heretic, anathema!
To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!
To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!
To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul the heretic, anathema!
To Peter the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!
May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!"
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 02:18:46 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #25 on: February 10, 2018, 02:22:40 PM »
Before signing the document, John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, added the following sentence: 'I hold the most holy Church of the old and the new Rome to be one. I define the see of Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see." In doing so, he was recalling the fact that canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon declared that the Sees of Rome and Constantinople were equal...It was the same Justinian as emperor, whom we saw earlier bringing Pope Vigilius to Constantinople and placing him under house arrest for 10 years in order to gain acceptance of another formula, who would secure a unified Church within his empire.

The Eastern Church vigorously defended the principles of collegiality, which they saw as the true and traditional form of Church government, against the rising monarchial concept of Church government advanced by the Papacy...it was only a matter of time before east and west went their separate ways..."

This historically would make no sense.

If you read the Formula, there is nothing stated therein by which John could find transferable to the Constantinopolitan See. What does Hormisdas claim? That Christ promised an indefectible faith in blessed Peter and that this proved itself by the fact that the Roman See had, from the beginning, been on the right-side of doctrinal disputation. Hormisdas then says that all Christians of the world, if they want to remain united to the true faith, must be united to the Apostolic See wherein is the bedrock of the Church’s solidity.

Constantinople had on numerous occasions by 520, been involved in one heresy or another. Beginning with her Patriarch Acacius in 484, Constantinople removed the names of Pope Leo and the following Popes from the list of names, and had scratched Chalcedon off the list of Ecumenical Councils. It would be odd of him to claim equality based on the canons of a council he and his church didn’t even recognize.

Thus, we know that the Papal claims in the Formula of Hormisdas as well as the accompanying authority could never apply to Constantinople, and it would be quite a stretch to think that John thought so.

Seriously speaking, there is only one bishop in the church of God (local). It is not as if John here is saying that two bishops, John and Hormisdas, govern one single Church. It is obvious that Rome and Constantinople are two different city-churches.

Monsignor Batiffol (a critical Catholic historian, mind you) comments on this:

“This means to say that the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople are in agreement, not that he ‘identified his own see with the Roman see’ – a phrase that has no meaning Compare the letter Quando Deus of the same John to the same Hormisdas which once more uses the same terms — and the reply of Hormisdas to John, consideranti mihi. Coll. Avellan. 161 and 169 (pp. 612, 624)”
– A Reply to Bishop Gore in “Catholicism and Papacy: Anglican and Russian Difficulties” page 123.

So here you have an instance where Hormisdas himself says that the See of Constantinople and the See of Rome are “one See”. Now, I don’t know a single historian who would tell you that Hormisdas all of the sudden believed that Constantinople possessed the Petrine supremacy that both Hormisdas himself claimed, as well as all his predecessors, including Pope St. Gelasius who was quite emphatic about the inferior authority of Constantinople.

In my reading of it from an Orthodox perspective, you are attributing things that aren't there - of course a Church would declare itself necessary to be in communion with, in the same way the Russian Church or Constantinople Church would require communion with them in order to be a True Christian, and nobody here denies that Rome was founded and connected to Saint Peter and Saint Paul.
No it is fact that Rome when claiming this held the view she holds today of her infallibility through continuous claims of her indefectability.

Quote
And the idea that Pope Hormisdas is claiming infallibility appears to be in glaring contradiction to Pope Vigilius being anathematized by the 5th Ecumenical Council and apologizing for his dogmatic statements.

Oh this topic. He was not ananthematised for heresy (even his anathemtisation is dubious) but for neglecting to act. The council openly says as much. When the Council issued their sentence, notice where Vigilius fits in:

”Since it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever any question arises concerning the faith, not only the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who when he has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so.

In fact in the 14 Condemnations the Council issued next, the name Vigilius is absent, while a host of other heretics, including an alleged condemnation of Origen (mentioning only his name in a list, no explanation), and the Three Chapters (by name and explanation) are clearly anathematized.

Have you ever seen Pope St Agatho’s claim of infallibility of Roman see which was accepted at the sixth ecumenical council. If that same letter was issued by a Pope today to the EO they would readily brand him a heretic for his claims of infallibility. Yet the fathers of the sixth ecumenical council accepted it even after the case of Pope Vigilius.

From the Fifth Ecumenical Council:

"When, for example, Vigilius, Pope of Old Rome, came hither, he, in answer to our questions, repeatedly anathematised in writing the Three Chapters, and confirmed his steadfastness in this view by much, even by the condemnation of his deacons, Rusticus and Sebastian. We possess still his declarations in his own hand. Then he issued his Judicatum, in which he anathematised the Three Chapters, with the words, Et quoniam, etc. You know that he not only deposed Rusticus and Sebastian because they defended the Three Chapters, but also wrote to Valentinian, bishop of Scythia, and Aurelian, bishop of Arles, that nothing might be undertaken against the Judicatum. When you afterwards came hither at my invitation, letters were exchanged between you and Vigilius in order to a common assembly. But now he had altered his view, would no longer have a synod, but required that only the three patriarchs and one other bishop (in communion with the Pope and the three bishops about him) should decide the matter. In vain we sent several commands to him to take part in the synod. He rejected also our two proposals, either to call a tribunal for decision, or to hold a smaller assembly, at which, besides him and his three bishops, every other patriarch should have place and voice, with from three to five bishops of his diocese.* We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith. As, however, the heretics are resolved to defend Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius with their impieties, and maintain that that letter of Ibas was received by the Synod of Chalcedon, so do we exhort you to direct your attention to the impious writings of Theodore, and especially to his Jewish Creed which was brought forward at Ephesus and Chalcedon, and anathematized by each synod with those who had so held or did so hold; and we further exhort you to consider what the holy Fathers have written concerning him and his blasphemies, as well as what our predecessors have promulgated, as also what the Church historians have set forth concerning him. You will thence see that he and his heresies have since been condemned and that therefore his name has long since been struck from the diptychs of the Church of Mopsuestia. Consider the absurd assertion that heretics ought not to be anathematized after their deaths; and we exhort you further to follow in this matter the doctrine of the holy Fathers, who condemned not only living heretics but also anathematized after their death those who had died in their iniquity, just as those who had been unjustly condemned they restored after their death and wrote their names in the sacred diptychs; which took place in the case of John and of Flavian of pious memory, both of them bishops of Constantinople. Moreover we exhort you to examine the writing of Theodoret and the supposed letter of Ibas, in which the incarnation of the Word is denied, the expression Mother of God and the holy Synod of Ephesus rejected, Cyril called a heretic, and Theodore and Nestorius defended and praised. And as they say that the Council of Chalcedon has received this letter, you must compare the declarations of this Council relating to the faith with the contents of the impious letter. Finally, we entreat you to accelerate the matter. For he who when asked concerning the right faith, puts off his answer for a long while, does nothing else but deny the right faith. For in questioning and answering on things which are of faith, it is not he who is found first or second, but he who is the more ready with a right confession, that is acceptable to God. May God keep you, most holy and religious fathers, for many years. Given IV. Nones of May, at Constantinople, in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of the imperial lord Justinian, the perpetual Augustus, and in the twelfth year after the consulate of the most illustrious Basil."

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

To which Vigilius responded:

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

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

I don't think that Vigilius being anathematized was doubtful, as he wouldn't have apologized for his actions and annul the dogmatic statements he made.
By that logic, Celuarius didn't anathematize Leo IX when he struck his name from the Diptychs.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 02:25:04 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,822
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #26 on: February 10, 2018, 04:59:59 PM »
Well, yeah - I would think that someone who was sophisticated enough to have a "theological education" would be a little more loving towards his fellow man.

My love, not unlike God's, warms and burns, depending on the state of the recipient.

Quote
If you have to act like a 13 year old on the internet, making penis jokes and bullying people, you obviously failed your entire education, because you missed the whole damn point of theology being something you live, not merely studying books. So much for "theology not being scholastic," amirite?

Actually, I graduated with honours. 

Quote
Have fun burning in hell, where you will see the demons morph into me and constantly call you gay as they burn you in boiling excrement - which is fitting, because that is everything you post on this board.

Even the demons are not that stupid.

Quote
I would rather be a bed wetter than a Pharisaical heretic. So continue to be a forerunner of the antichrist as you persecute the Church with your wretched philosophies and lifestyles, and as you continue to cause - being in a leadership role - potential inquirers into Orthodoxy to turn away, clearly seeing you as someone who is not at all inspired by Christ or the Holy Spirit.

Wait a minute, I'm confused.  Am I an immature thirteen year old on the internet or the forerunner of the antichrist? 

Anyway, if potential inquirers into Orthodoxy are turning away from the Lord because of me, they clearly do not know or love the Lord and have no desire to know or love him.  Maybe they're inquiring because of the hats?  The hats are not worth being in communion with me, even I will agree with that. 

Quote
It seems Christianity isn't really your thing considering how immature you are - why don't you join FEMEN?

If you have ever seen the women who join FEMEN, you'd know why I don't. 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,822
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #27 on: February 10, 2018, 05:10:16 PM »
I've never understood how anyone gets around the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas.

Post-Chalcedon.  Neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

Have you ever seen the relationship between St Cyril of Alexandria and Pope St Celestine? St Cyril had a very high view of the authority and necessity of Rome.

...when Rome was Orthodox and Catholic.  Now it is neither.

His relations and view of Rome would be considered heretical by you today.

If they were applied to an obviously heretical, obviously non-Orthodox, obviously non-Catholic Rome such as exists today?  Yes, absolutely.

So you believe Rome has all the Privelages and authority just that she must be Orthodox from your perspective?

I believe what St Cyril believed about Rome.  I don't believe what you believe about Rome, and I don't believe St Cyril believed about Rome what you believe about Rome. 

Yes, Rome must be Orthodox.  Rome is not so special as to get a pass on that. 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,660
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #28 on: February 10, 2018, 05:47:00 PM »
I've never understood how anyone gets around the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas.

Post-Chalcedon.  Neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

Have you ever seen the relationship between St Cyril of Alexandria and Pope St Celestine? St Cyril had a very high view of the authority and necessity of Rome.

...when Rome was Orthodox and Catholic.  Now it is neither.

His relations and view of Rome would be considered heretical by you today.

If they were applied to an obviously heretical, obviously non-Orthodox, obviously non-Catholic Rome such as exists today?  Yes, absolutely.

So you believe Rome has all the Privelages and authority just that she must be Orthodox from your perspective?

I believe what St Cyril believed about Rome.  I don't believe what you believe about Rome, and I don't believe St Cyril believed about Rome what you believe about Rome. 

Yes, Rome must be Orthodox.  Rome is not so special as to get a pass on that.

Cue Papal Infallibility rabbit hole...
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: 2,747
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2018, 06:19:26 PM »
I've never understood how anyone gets around the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas.

Post-Chalcedon.  Neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

Have you ever seen the relationship between St Cyril of Alexandria and Pope St Celestine? St Cyril had a very high view of the authority and necessity of Rome.

...when Rome was Orthodox and Catholic.  Now it is neither.

His relations and view of Rome would be considered heretical by you today.

If they were applied to an obviously heretical, obviously non-Orthodox, obviously non-Catholic Rome such as exists today?  Yes, absolutely.

So you believe Rome has all the Privelages and authority just that she must be Orthodox from your perspective?

I believe what St Cyril believed about Rome.  I don't believe what you believe about Rome, and I don't believe St Cyril believed about Rome what you believe about Rome. 

Yes, Rome must be Orthodox.  Rome is not so special as to get a pass on that.

lol St Cyril literally acted like he could not do anything without the consent of Pope St Celestine. His letters bear so much evidence of this. This would not fly in your communion today.

Neither do we believe Rome gets a pass on orthodoxy but rather that she is indefectable. She is permanently orthodox. 
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,970
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2018, 06:25:08 PM »
lol St Cyril literally acted like he could not do anything without the consent of Pope St Celestine. His letters bear so much evidence of this. This would not fly in your communion today.
You should familiarize yourself with the Malankara Church. ;)

Neither do we believe Rome gets a pass on orthodoxy but rather that she is indefectable. She is permanently orthodox.
Until she isn't. Then orthodox Catholics are faithful to "eternal Rome," a delightful semantic workaround. :P
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 06:25:49 PM by Antonis »
"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,822
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #31 on: February 10, 2018, 06:32:47 PM »
lol St Cyril literally acted like he could not do anything without the consent of Pope St Celestine. His letters bear so much evidence of this. This would not fly in your communion today.

Even if I take what you say for granted (and I don't, not at all, but for the sake of argument, why not?), St Cyril was dealing with an Orthodox and Catholic Pope of Rome.  He was not dealing with the Pope even you don't like. 

Quote
Neither do we believe Rome gets a pass on orthodoxy but rather that she is indefectable. She is permanently orthodox.

If BS could ever be considered pure, this would be the purest BS of all.  This is the Hope Diamond of BS. 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,747
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #32 on: February 10, 2018, 06:34:30 PM »
Before signing the document, John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, added the following sentence: 'I hold the most holy Church of the old and the new Rome to be one. I define the see of Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see." In doing so, he was recalling the fact that canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon declared that the Sees of Rome and Constantinople were equal...It was the same Justinian as emperor, whom we saw earlier bringing Pope Vigilius to Constantinople and placing him under house arrest for 10 years in order to gain acceptance of another formula, who would secure a unified Church within his empire.

The Eastern Church vigorously defended the principles of collegiality, which they saw as the true and traditional form of Church government, against the rising monarchial concept of Church government advanced by the Papacy...it was only a matter of time before east and west went their separate ways..."

This historically would make no sense.

If you read the Formula, there is nothing stated therein by which John could find transferable to the Constantinopolitan See. What does Hormisdas claim? That Christ promised an indefectible faith in blessed Peter and that this proved itself by the fact that the Roman See had, from the beginning, been on the right-side of doctrinal disputation. Hormisdas then says that all Christians of the world, if they want to remain united to the true faith, must be united to the Apostolic See wherein is the bedrock of the Church’s solidity.

Constantinople had on numerous occasions by 520, been involved in one heresy or another. Beginning with her Patriarch Acacius in 484, Constantinople removed the names of Pope Leo and the following Popes from the list of names, and had scratched Chalcedon off the list of Ecumenical Councils. It would be odd of him to claim equality based on the canons of a council he and his church didn’t even recognize.

Thus, we know that the Papal claims in the Formula of Hormisdas as well as the accompanying authority could never apply to Constantinople, and it would be quite a stretch to think that John thought so.

Seriously speaking, there is only one bishop in the church of God (local). It is not as if John here is saying that two bishops, John and Hormisdas, govern one single Church. It is obvious that Rome and Constantinople are two different city-churches.

Monsignor Batiffol (a critical Catholic historian, mind you) comments on this:

“This means to say that the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople are in agreement, not that he ‘identified his own see with the Roman see’ – a phrase that has no meaning Compare the letter Quando Deus of the same John to the same Hormisdas which once more uses the same terms — and the reply of Hormisdas to John, consideranti mihi. Coll. Avellan. 161 and 169 (pp. 612, 624)”
– A Reply to Bishop Gore in “Catholicism and Papacy: Anglican and Russian Difficulties” page 123.

So here you have an instance where Hormisdas himself says that the See of Constantinople and the See of Rome are “one See”. Now, I don’t know a single historian who would tell you that Hormisdas all of the sudden believed that Constantinople possessed the Petrine supremacy that both Hormisdas himself claimed, as well as all his predecessors, including Pope St. Gelasius who was quite emphatic about the inferior authority of Constantinople.

In my reading of it from an Orthodox perspective, you are attributing things that aren't there - of course a Church would declare itself necessary to be in communion with, in the same way the Russian Church or Constantinople Church would require communion with them in order to be a True Christian, and nobody here denies that Rome was founded and connected to Saint Peter and Saint Paul.
No it is fact that Rome when claiming this held the view she holds today of her infallibility through continuous claims of her indefectability.

Quote
And the idea that Pope Hormisdas is claiming infallibility appears to be in glaring contradiction to Pope Vigilius being anathematized by the 5th Ecumenical Council and apologizing for his dogmatic statements.

Oh this topic. He was not ananthematised for heresy (even his anathemtisation is dubious) but for neglecting to act. The council openly says as much. When the Council issued their sentence, notice where Vigilius fits in:

”Since it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever any question arises concerning the faith, not only the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who when he has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so.

In fact in the 14 Condemnations the Council issued next, the name Vigilius is absent, while a host of other heretics, including an alleged condemnation of Origen (mentioning only his name in a list, no explanation), and the Three Chapters (by name and explanation) are clearly anathematized.

Have you ever seen Pope St Agatho’s claim of infallibility of Roman see which was accepted at the sixth ecumenical council. If that same letter was issued by a Pope today to the EO they would readily brand him a heretic for his claims of infallibility. Yet the fathers of the sixth ecumenical council accepted it even after the case of Pope Vigilius.

From the Fifth Ecumenical Council:

"When, for example, Vigilius, Pope of Old Rome, came hither, he, in answer to our questions, repeatedly anathematised in writing the Three Chapters, and confirmed his steadfastness in this view by much, even by the condemnation of his deacons, Rusticus and Sebastian. We possess still his declarations in his own hand. Then he issued his Judicatum, in which he anathematised the Three Chapters, with the words, Et quoniam, etc. You know that he not only deposed Rusticus and Sebastian because they defended the Three Chapters, but also wrote to Valentinian, bishop of Scythia, and Aurelian, bishop of Arles, that nothing might be undertaken against the Judicatum. When you afterwards came hither at my invitation, letters were exchanged between you and Vigilius in order to a common assembly. But now he had altered his view, would no longer have a synod, but required that only the three patriarchs and one other bishop (in communion with the Pope and the three bishops about him) should decide the matter. In vain we sent several commands to him to take part in the synod. He rejected also our two proposals, either to call a tribunal for decision, or to hold a smaller assembly, at which, besides him and his three bishops, every other patriarch should have place and voice, with from three to five bishops of his diocese.* We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith. As, however, the heretics are resolved to defend Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius with their impieties, and maintain that that letter of Ibas was received by the Synod of Chalcedon, so do we exhort you to direct your attention to the impious writings of Theodore, and especially to his Jewish Creed which was brought forward at Ephesus and Chalcedon, and anathematized by each synod with those who had so held or did so hold; and we further exhort you to consider what the holy Fathers have written concerning him and his blasphemies, as well as what our predecessors have promulgated, as also what the Church historians have set forth concerning him. You will thence see that he and his heresies have since been condemned and that therefore his name has long since been struck from the diptychs of the Church of Mopsuestia. Consider the absurd assertion that heretics ought not to be anathematized after their deaths; and we exhort you further to follow in this matter the doctrine of the holy Fathers, who condemned not only living heretics but also anathematized after their death those who had died in their iniquity, just as those who had been unjustly condemned they restored after their death and wrote their names in the sacred diptychs; which took place in the case of John and of Flavian of pious memory, both of them bishops of Constantinople. Moreover we exhort you to examine the writing of Theodoret and the supposed letter of Ibas, in which the incarnation of the Word is denied, the expression Mother of God and the holy Synod of Ephesus rejected, Cyril called a heretic, and Theodore and Nestorius defended and praised. And as they say that the Council of Chalcedon has received this letter, you must compare the declarations of this Council relating to the faith with the contents of the impious letter. Finally, we entreat you to accelerate the matter. For he who when asked concerning the right faith, puts off his answer for a long while, does nothing else but deny the right faith. For in questioning and answering on things which are of faith, it is not he who is found first or second, but he who is the more ready with a right confession, that is acceptable to God. May God keep you, most holy and religious fathers, for many years. Given IV. Nones of May, at Constantinople, in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of the imperial lord Justinian, the perpetual Augustus, and in the twelfth year after the consulate of the most illustrious Basil."

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

To which Vigilius responded:

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

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

I don't think that Vigilius being anathematized was doubtful, as he wouldn't have apologized for his actions and annul the dogmatic statements he made.
By that logic, Celuarius didn't anathematize Leo IX when he struck his name from the Diptychs.

What I see here is serving of communion with Pope Vigilius ,not anathema, on account of his unwillingness to attend the council and to condemn the three chapters. Just so you know the ban of excommunication  separates one from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, one is separated from the body of Christ, which is the Church.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 06:37:59 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,747
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #33 on: February 10, 2018, 06:36:01 PM »
lol St Cyril literally acted like he could not do anything without the consent of Pope St Celestine. His letters bear so much evidence of this. This would not fly in your communion today.

Even if I take what you say for granted (and I don't, not at all, but for the sake of argument, why not?), St Cyril was dealing with an Orthodox and Catholic Pope of Rome.  He was not dealing with the Pope even you don't like.

So you admit the universal jurisdiction of the pope? If he agrees with you?

Quote
Quote
Neither do we believe Rome gets a pass on orthodoxy but rather that she is indefectable. She is permanently orthodox.

If BS could ever be considered pure, this would be the purest BS of all.  This is the Hope Diamond of BS.

And you’re a theologian?
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,822
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #34 on: February 10, 2018, 06:37:57 PM »
lol St Cyril literally acted like he could not do anything without the consent of Pope St Celestine. His letters bear so much evidence of this. This would not fly in your communion today.

Even if I take what you say for granted (and I don't, not at all, but for the sake of argument, why not?), St Cyril was dealing with an Orthodox and Catholic Pope of Rome.  He was not dealing with the Pope even you don't like.

So you admit the universal jurisdiction of the pope? If he agrees with you?

No Pope of Rome ever had universal jurisdiction.  Popes up to 451 at least had Orthodoxy, but they never had universal jurisdiction.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Neither do we believe Rome gets a pass on orthodoxy but rather that she is indefectable. She is permanently orthodox.

If BS could ever be considered pure, this would be the purest BS of all.  This is the Hope Diamond of BS.

And you’re a theologian?

Yes, and I have the paperwork to prove it. 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,747
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #35 on: February 10, 2018, 06:40:54 PM »
lol St Cyril literally acted like he could not do anything without the consent of Pope St Celestine. His letters bear so much evidence of this. This would not fly in your communion today.

Even if I take what you say for granted (and I don't, not at all, but for the sake of argument, why not?), St Cyril was dealing with an Orthodox and Catholic Pope of Rome.  He was not dealing with the Pope even you don't like.

So you admit the universal jurisdiction of the pope? If he agrees with you?

No Pope of Rome ever had universal jurisdiction.  Popes up to 451 at least had Orthodoxy, but they never had universal jurisdiction.

This is what St Cyril shows that even where trouble was in his dominion he still sought the consent of Pope St Celestine to act despite him being the highest ranking cleric in the east. Why would he regularly require his consent to handle the Nestorian problem if Pope St Celestine had no authority there? It absolutely makes no sense.

For example in the historical context just before the Council of Ephesus, Pope Celestine’ wrote an epistle to St Cyril with the instructions for Nestorius’ excommunication, and herein he delegates St Cyril with the following words:

“And so, appropriating to yourself the authority of our see, and using our position, you shall with resolute severity carry out this sentence [of excommunication]….”


Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Neither do we believe Rome gets a pass on orthodoxy but rather that she is indefectable. She is permanently orthodox.

If BS could ever be considered pure, this would be the purest BS of all.  This is the Hope Diamond of BS.

And you’re a theologian?

Yes, and I have the paperwork to prove it.

You need to start acting like one. Self proclaimed theologians tend to have a lot of arrogance. Is a common trait I see even at CAF. It’s a common complaint that many people who interact with them make that they are arrogant and lack charity.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 06:51:10 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #36 on: February 10, 2018, 08:57:28 PM »
Well, yeah - I would think that someone who was sophisticated enough to have a "theological education" would be a little more loving towards his fellow man.

My love, not unlike God's, warms and burns, depending on the state of the recipient.

Quote
If you have to act like a 13 year old on the internet, making penis jokes and bullying people, you obviously failed your entire education, because you missed the whole damn point of theology being something you live, not merely studying books. So much for "theology not being scholastic," amirite?

Actually, I graduated with honours. 

Quote
Have fun burning in hell, where you will see the demons morph into me and constantly call you gay as they burn you in boiling excrement - which is fitting, because that is everything you post on this board.

Even the demons are not that stupid.

Quote
I would rather be a bed wetter than a Pharisaical heretic. So continue to be a forerunner of the antichrist as you persecute the Church with your wretched philosophies and lifestyles, and as you continue to cause - being in a leadership role - potential inquirers into Orthodoxy to turn away, clearly seeing you as someone who is not at all inspired by Christ or the Holy Spirit.

Wait a minute, I'm confused.  Am I an immature thirteen year old on the internet or the forerunner of the antichrist? 

Anyway, if potential inquirers into Orthodoxy are turning away from the Lord because of me, they clearly do not know or love the Lord and have no desire to know or love him.  Maybe they're inquiring because of the hats?  The hats are not worth being in communion with me, even I will agree with that. 

Quote
It seems Christianity isn't really your thing considering how immature you are - why don't you join FEMEN?

If you have ever seen the women who join FEMEN, you'd know why I don't.

I appreciate your maturity when dealing with my immaturity.

At least I'm two for two when it comes to you publicizing my stupid posts.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 08:58:41 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #37 on: February 10, 2018, 09:06:16 PM »
Before signing the document, John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, added the following sentence: 'I hold the most holy Church of the old and the new Rome to be one. I define the see of Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see." In doing so, he was recalling the fact that canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon declared that the Sees of Rome and Constantinople were equal...It was the same Justinian as emperor, whom we saw earlier bringing Pope Vigilius to Constantinople and placing him under house arrest for 10 years in order to gain acceptance of another formula, who would secure a unified Church within his empire.

The Eastern Church vigorously defended the principles of collegiality, which they saw as the true and traditional form of Church government, against the rising monarchial concept of Church government advanced by the Papacy...it was only a matter of time before east and west went their separate ways..."

This historically would make no sense.

If you read the Formula, there is nothing stated therein by which John could find transferable to the Constantinopolitan See. What does Hormisdas claim? That Christ promised an indefectible faith in blessed Peter and that this proved itself by the fact that the Roman See had, from the beginning, been on the right-side of doctrinal disputation. Hormisdas then says that all Christians of the world, if they want to remain united to the true faith, must be united to the Apostolic See wherein is the bedrock of the Church’s solidity.

Constantinople had on numerous occasions by 520, been involved in one heresy or another. Beginning with her Patriarch Acacius in 484, Constantinople removed the names of Pope Leo and the following Popes from the list of names, and had scratched Chalcedon off the list of Ecumenical Councils. It would be odd of him to claim equality based on the canons of a council he and his church didn’t even recognize.

Thus, we know that the Papal claims in the Formula of Hormisdas as well as the accompanying authority could never apply to Constantinople, and it would be quite a stretch to think that John thought so.

Seriously speaking, there is only one bishop in the church of God (local). It is not as if John here is saying that two bishops, John and Hormisdas, govern one single Church. It is obvious that Rome and Constantinople are two different city-churches.

Monsignor Batiffol (a critical Catholic historian, mind you) comments on this:

“This means to say that the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople are in agreement, not that he ‘identified his own see with the Roman see’ – a phrase that has no meaning Compare the letter Quando Deus of the same John to the same Hormisdas which once more uses the same terms — and the reply of Hormisdas to John, consideranti mihi. Coll. Avellan. 161 and 169 (pp. 612, 624)”
– A Reply to Bishop Gore in “Catholicism and Papacy: Anglican and Russian Difficulties” page 123.

So here you have an instance where Hormisdas himself says that the See of Constantinople and the See of Rome are “one See”. Now, I don’t know a single historian who would tell you that Hormisdas all of the sudden believed that Constantinople possessed the Petrine supremacy that both Hormisdas himself claimed, as well as all his predecessors, including Pope St. Gelasius who was quite emphatic about the inferior authority of Constantinople.

In my reading of it from an Orthodox perspective, you are attributing things that aren't there - of course a Church would declare itself necessary to be in communion with, in the same way the Russian Church or Constantinople Church would require communion with them in order to be a True Christian, and nobody here denies that Rome was founded and connected to Saint Peter and Saint Paul.
No it is fact that Rome when claiming this held the view she holds today of her infallibility through continuous claims of her indefectability.

Quote
And the idea that Pope Hormisdas is claiming infallibility appears to be in glaring contradiction to Pope Vigilius being anathematized by the 5th Ecumenical Council and apologizing for his dogmatic statements.

Oh this topic. He was not ananthematised for heresy (even his anathemtisation is dubious) but for neglecting to act. The council openly says as much. When the Council issued their sentence, notice where Vigilius fits in:

”Since it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever any question arises concerning the faith, not only the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who when he has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so.

In fact in the 14 Condemnations the Council issued next, the name Vigilius is absent, while a host of other heretics, including an alleged condemnation of Origen (mentioning only his name in a list, no explanation), and the Three Chapters (by name and explanation) are clearly anathematized.

Have you ever seen Pope St Agatho’s claim of infallibility of Roman see which was accepted at the sixth ecumenical council. If that same letter was issued by a Pope today to the EO they would readily brand him a heretic for his claims of infallibility. Yet the fathers of the sixth ecumenical council accepted it even after the case of Pope Vigilius.

From the Fifth Ecumenical Council:

"When, for example, Vigilius, Pope of Old Rome, came hither, he, in answer to our questions, repeatedly anathematised in writing the Three Chapters, and confirmed his steadfastness in this view by much, even by the condemnation of his deacons, Rusticus and Sebastian. We possess still his declarations in his own hand. Then he issued his Judicatum, in which he anathematised the Three Chapters, with the words, Et quoniam, etc. You know that he not only deposed Rusticus and Sebastian because they defended the Three Chapters, but also wrote to Valentinian, bishop of Scythia, and Aurelian, bishop of Arles, that nothing might be undertaken against the Judicatum. When you afterwards came hither at my invitation, letters were exchanged between you and Vigilius in order to a common assembly. But now he had altered his view, would no longer have a synod, but required that only the three patriarchs and one other bishop (in communion with the Pope and the three bishops about him) should decide the matter. In vain we sent several commands to him to take part in the synod. He rejected also our two proposals, either to call a tribunal for decision, or to hold a smaller assembly, at which, besides him and his three bishops, every other patriarch should have place and voice, with from three to five bishops of his diocese.* We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith. As, however, the heretics are resolved to defend Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius with their impieties, and maintain that that letter of Ibas was received by the Synod of Chalcedon, so do we exhort you to direct your attention to the impious writings of Theodore, and especially to his Jewish Creed which was brought forward at Ephesus and Chalcedon, and anathematized by each synod with those who had so held or did so hold; and we further exhort you to consider what the holy Fathers have written concerning him and his blasphemies, as well as what our predecessors have promulgated, as also what the Church historians have set forth concerning him. You will thence see that he and his heresies have since been condemned and that therefore his name has long since been struck from the diptychs of the Church of Mopsuestia. Consider the absurd assertion that heretics ought not to be anathematized after their deaths; and we exhort you further to follow in this matter the doctrine of the holy Fathers, who condemned not only living heretics but also anathematized after their death those who had died in their iniquity, just as those who had been unjustly condemned they restored after their death and wrote their names in the sacred diptychs; which took place in the case of John and of Flavian of pious memory, both of them bishops of Constantinople. Moreover we exhort you to examine the writing of Theodoret and the supposed letter of Ibas, in which the incarnation of the Word is denied, the expression Mother of God and the holy Synod of Ephesus rejected, Cyril called a heretic, and Theodore and Nestorius defended and praised. And as they say that the Council of Chalcedon has received this letter, you must compare the declarations of this Council relating to the faith with the contents of the impious letter. Finally, we entreat you to accelerate the matter. For he who when asked concerning the right faith, puts off his answer for a long while, does nothing else but deny the right faith. For in questioning and answering on things which are of faith, it is not he who is found first or second, but he who is the more ready with a right confession, that is acceptable to God. May God keep you, most holy and religious fathers, for many years. Given IV. Nones of May, at Constantinople, in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of the imperial lord Justinian, the perpetual Augustus, and in the twelfth year after the consulate of the most illustrious Basil."

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

To which Vigilius responded:

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

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

I don't think that Vigilius being anathematized was doubtful, as he wouldn't have apologized for his actions and annul the dogmatic statements he made.
By that logic, Celuarius didn't anathematize Leo IX when he struck his name from the Diptychs.

What I see here is serving of communion with Pope Vigilius ,not anathema, on account of his unwillingness to attend the council and to condemn the three chapters. Just so you know the ban of excommunication  separates one from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, one is separated from the body of Christ, which is the Church.

But aren't Popes the final authority of the Church, of which Pope Innocent III said "Jesus Christ wills that the kingdom should be priestly, and the priesthood kingly. Over all, he has set me as his vicar upon earth, so that, as before Jesus ‘every knee shall bow...'"?

According to Vatican I, how can an Ecumenical Council depose a Pope?
I'm done.

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Faith: Lutheran
  • Jurisdiction: Texas
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #38 on: February 10, 2018, 09:37:36 PM »
Please type in your own posts and refrain from cut n copy n paste.
For questions about the history of the Lutheran faith see the Book of Concord available from Pastor's office.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,822
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #39 on: February 10, 2018, 09:44:44 PM »
lol St Cyril literally acted like he could not do anything without the consent of Pope St Celestine. His letters bear so much evidence of this. This would not fly in your communion today.

Even if I take what you say for granted (and I don't, not at all, but for the sake of argument, why not?), St Cyril was dealing with an Orthodox and Catholic Pope of Rome.  He was not dealing with the Pope even you don't like.

So you admit the universal jurisdiction of the pope? If he agrees with you?

No Pope of Rome ever had universal jurisdiction.  Popes up to 451 at least had Orthodoxy, but they never had universal jurisdiction.

This is what St Cyril shows that even where trouble was in his dominion he still sought the consent of Pope St Celestine to act despite him being the highest ranking cleric in the east. Why would he regularly require his consent to handle the Nestorian problem if Pope St Celestine had no authority there? It absolutely makes no sense.

You're right.  Your interpretation absolutely makes no sense.  What you are looking at is "communion".  What you are calling it is "universal jurisdiction".  What you are looking at is "love".  What you are calling it is "power".  Post-Orthodox Rome is an institution of systemic abuse. 

Quote
For example in the historical context just before the Council of Ephesus, Pope Celestine’ wrote an epistle to St Cyril with the instructions for Nestorius’ excommunication, and herein he delegates St Cyril with the following words:

“And so, appropriating to yourself the authority of our see, and using our position, you shall with resolute severity carry out this sentence [of excommunication]….”

See above. 

Also, it seems the tradition of Rome, before it really went off the deep end, was to consider the Petrine see to be one in three.  So is Celestine only using the "royal we", or is he in fact affirming that Cyril has the same power as himself since they occupy the see of Peter ("our see", "our position")? 

There is no delegation, nor is there instruction in how to excommunicate.  As if Cyril needed to be taught such things.  LOL.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Neither do we believe Rome gets a pass on orthodoxy but rather that she is indefectable. She is permanently orthodox.

If BS could ever be considered pure, this would be the purest BS of all.  This is the Hope Diamond of BS.

And you’re a theologian?

Yes, and I have the paperwork to prove it.

You need to start acting like one. Self proclaimed theologians tend to have a lot of arrogance. Is a common trait I see even at CAF. It’s a common complaint that many people who interact with them make that they are arrogant and lack charity.

I act like a real theologian when I'm doing real theology with real, sincere people.  When I believed you were sincere, I acted that way.  When I came to be convinced that you are not, I stopped casting my pearls so liberally.
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,660
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #40 on: February 11, 2018, 01:23:36 AM »
Is that even a common thing in the RCC today, bishops having to get Papal permission before they excommunicate somebody or speak against a teaching? Sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare.
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: 2,747
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #41 on: February 11, 2018, 04:18:22 AM »
Before signing the document, John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, added the following sentence: 'I hold the most holy Church of the old and the new Rome to be one. I define the see of Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see." In doing so, he was recalling the fact that canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon declared that the Sees of Rome and Constantinople were equal...It was the same Justinian as emperor, whom we saw earlier bringing Pope Vigilius to Constantinople and placing him under house arrest for 10 years in order to gain acceptance of another formula, who would secure a unified Church within his empire.

The Eastern Church vigorously defended the principles of collegiality, which they saw as the true and traditional form of Church government, against the rising monarchial concept of Church government advanced by the Papacy...it was only a matter of time before east and west went their separate ways..."

This historically would make no sense.

If you read the Formula, there is nothing stated therein by which John could find transferable to the Constantinopolitan See. What does Hormisdas claim? That Christ promised an indefectible faith in blessed Peter and that this proved itself by the fact that the Roman See had, from the beginning, been on the right-side of doctrinal disputation. Hormisdas then says that all Christians of the world, if they want to remain united to the true faith, must be united to the Apostolic See wherein is the bedrock of the Church’s solidity.

Constantinople had on numerous occasions by 520, been involved in one heresy or another. Beginning with her Patriarch Acacius in 484, Constantinople removed the names of Pope Leo and the following Popes from the list of names, and had scratched Chalcedon off the list of Ecumenical Councils. It would be odd of him to claim equality based on the canons of a council he and his church didn’t even recognize.

Thus, we know that the Papal claims in the Formula of Hormisdas as well as the accompanying authority could never apply to Constantinople, and it would be quite a stretch to think that John thought so.

Seriously speaking, there is only one bishop in the church of God (local). It is not as if John here is saying that two bishops, John and Hormisdas, govern one single Church. It is obvious that Rome and Constantinople are two different city-churches.

Monsignor Batiffol (a critical Catholic historian, mind you) comments on this:

“This means to say that the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople are in agreement, not that he ‘identified his own see with the Roman see’ – a phrase that has no meaning Compare the letter Quando Deus of the same John to the same Hormisdas which once more uses the same terms — and the reply of Hormisdas to John, consideranti mihi. Coll. Avellan. 161 and 169 (pp. 612, 624)”
– A Reply to Bishop Gore in “Catholicism and Papacy: Anglican and Russian Difficulties” page 123.

So here you have an instance where Hormisdas himself says that the See of Constantinople and the See of Rome are “one See”. Now, I don’t know a single historian who would tell you that Hormisdas all of the sudden believed that Constantinople possessed the Petrine supremacy that both Hormisdas himself claimed, as well as all his predecessors, including Pope St. Gelasius who was quite emphatic about the inferior authority of Constantinople.

In my reading of it from an Orthodox perspective, you are attributing things that aren't there - of course a Church would declare itself necessary to be in communion with, in the same way the Russian Church or Constantinople Church would require communion with them in order to be a True Christian, and nobody here denies that Rome was founded and connected to Saint Peter and Saint Paul.
No it is fact that Rome when claiming this held the view she holds today of her infallibility through continuous claims of her indefectability.

Quote
And the idea that Pope Hormisdas is claiming infallibility appears to be in glaring contradiction to Pope Vigilius being anathematized by the 5th Ecumenical Council and apologizing for his dogmatic statements.

Oh this topic. He was not ananthematised for heresy (even his anathemtisation is dubious) but for neglecting to act. The council openly says as much. When the Council issued their sentence, notice where Vigilius fits in:

”Since it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever any question arises concerning the faith, not only the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who when he has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so.

In fact in the 14 Condemnations the Council issued next, the name Vigilius is absent, while a host of other heretics, including an alleged condemnation of Origen (mentioning only his name in a list, no explanation), and the Three Chapters (by name and explanation) are clearly anathematized.

Have you ever seen Pope St Agatho’s claim of infallibility of Roman see which was accepted at the sixth ecumenical council. If that same letter was issued by a Pope today to the EO they would readily brand him a heretic for his claims of infallibility. Yet the fathers of the sixth ecumenical council accepted it even after the case of Pope Vigilius.

From the Fifth Ecumenical Council:

"When, for example, Vigilius, Pope of Old Rome, came hither, he, in answer to our questions, repeatedly anathematised in writing the Three Chapters, and confirmed his steadfastness in this view by much, even by the condemnation of his deacons, Rusticus and Sebastian. We possess still his declarations in his own hand. Then he issued his Judicatum, in which he anathematised the Three Chapters, with the words, Et quoniam, etc. You know that he not only deposed Rusticus and Sebastian because they defended the Three Chapters, but also wrote to Valentinian, bishop of Scythia, and Aurelian, bishop of Arles, that nothing might be undertaken against the Judicatum. When you afterwards came hither at my invitation, letters were exchanged between you and Vigilius in order to a common assembly. But now he had altered his view, would no longer have a synod, but required that only the three patriarchs and one other bishop (in communion with the Pope and the three bishops about him) should decide the matter. In vain we sent several commands to him to take part in the synod. He rejected also our two proposals, either to call a tribunal for decision, or to hold a smaller assembly, at which, besides him and his three bishops, every other patriarch should have place and voice, with from three to five bishops of his diocese.* We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith. As, however, the heretics are resolved to defend Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius with their impieties, and maintain that that letter of Ibas was received by the Synod of Chalcedon, so do we exhort you to direct your attention to the impious writings of Theodore, and especially to his Jewish Creed which was brought forward at Ephesus and Chalcedon, and anathematized by each synod with those who had so held or did so hold; and we further exhort you to consider what the holy Fathers have written concerning him and his blasphemies, as well as what our predecessors have promulgated, as also what the Church historians have set forth concerning him. You will thence see that he and his heresies have since been condemned and that therefore his name has long since been struck from the diptychs of the Church of Mopsuestia. Consider the absurd assertion that heretics ought not to be anathematized after their deaths; and we exhort you further to follow in this matter the doctrine of the holy Fathers, who condemned not only living heretics but also anathematized after their death those who had died in their iniquity, just as those who had been unjustly condemned they restored after their death and wrote their names in the sacred diptychs; which took place in the case of John and of Flavian of pious memory, both of them bishops of Constantinople. Moreover we exhort you to examine the writing of Theodoret and the supposed letter of Ibas, in which the incarnation of the Word is denied, the expression Mother of God and the holy Synod of Ephesus rejected, Cyril called a heretic, and Theodore and Nestorius defended and praised. And as they say that the Council of Chalcedon has received this letter, you must compare the declarations of this Council relating to the faith with the contents of the impious letter. Finally, we entreat you to accelerate the matter. For he who when asked concerning the right faith, puts off his answer for a long while, does nothing else but deny the right faith. For in questioning and answering on things which are of faith, it is not he who is found first or second, but he who is the more ready with a right confession, that is acceptable to God. May God keep you, most holy and religious fathers, for many years. Given IV. Nones of May, at Constantinople, in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of the imperial lord Justinian, the perpetual Augustus, and in the twelfth year after the consulate of the most illustrious Basil."

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

To which Vigilius responded:

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

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

I don't think that Vigilius being anathematized was doubtful, as he wouldn't have apologized for his actions and annul the dogmatic statements he made.
By that logic, Celuarius didn't anathematize Leo IX when he struck his name from the Diptychs.

What I see here is serving of communion with Pope Vigilius ,not anathema, on account of his unwillingness to attend the council and to condemn the three chapters. Just so you know the ban of excommunication  separates one from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, one is separated from the body of Christ, which is the Church.

But aren't Popes the final authority of the Church, of which Pope Innocent III said "Jesus Christ wills that the kingdom should be priestly, and the priesthood kingly. Over all, he has set me as his vicar upon earth, so that, as before Jesus ‘every knee shall bow...'"?

According to Vatican I, how can an Ecumenical Council depose a Pope?

Yes they are. The emperor was overstepping and pulling the hand of the fathers.

It didn’t depose him. It served communion. Even the latter was an overreach of power based on politics. The council fathers did not want to do that but were instructed by the emperor to do that. What is shown however is that the council could not have legitimacy without the consent of the Roman bishop. Hence why they kept Pope Vigilius there for as long as they could so that they could get his signature. No council has ecclesiastical force without the consent of the Roman bishop.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,747
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #42 on: February 11, 2018, 04:20:02 AM »
Is that even a common thing in the RCC today, bishops having to get Papal permission before they excommunicate somebody or speak against a teaching? Sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare.

They could excommunicate someone but would have to inform Rome about it as to why. Roman would then need to confirm it for it to have the full force of law. It’s the apostolic tradition. The fathers all testify to it even at the ecumenical councils.

For example, in the fourth century, St. Athanasius, the de-posed bishop of Alexandria, appealed to Pope St. Julius, who reinstated Athanasius, reversing the sentence of an Eastern Council. Pope Julius wrote:

[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write to us, so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all.For they were bishops who suffered; and they were not ordinary Churches which suffered, but were those which the Apostles themselves had governed. And above all, why was nothing written to us about the Church of the Alexandrians? Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place?If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there * notice of it ought to have been written to the Church here. But now, after they have done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him . Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 04:25:40 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,747
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #43 on: February 11, 2018, 04:47:38 AM »
lol St Cyril literally acted like he could not do anything without the consent of Pope St Celestine. His letters bear so much evidence of this. This would not fly in your communion today.

Even if I take what you say for granted (and I don't, not at all, but for the sake of argument, why not?), St Cyril was dealing with an Orthodox and Catholic Pope of Rome.  He was not dealing with the Pope even you don't like.

So you admit the universal jurisdiction of the pope? If he agrees with you?

No Pope of Rome ever had universal jurisdiction.  Popes up to 451 at least had Orthodoxy, but they never had universal jurisdiction.

This is what St Cyril shows that even where trouble was in his dominion he still sought the consent of Pope St Celestine to act despite him being the highest ranking cleric in the east. Why would he regularly require his consent to handle the Nestorian problem if Pope St Celestine had no authority there? It absolutely makes no sense.

You're right.  Your interpretation absolutely makes no sense.  What you are looking at is "communion".  What you are calling it is "universal jurisdiction".  What you are looking at is "love".  What you are calling it is "power".  Post-Orthodox Rome is an institution of systemic abuse. 

Quote
For example in the historical context just before the Council of Ephesus, Pope Celestine’ wrote an epistle to St Cyril with the instructions for Nestorius’ excommunication, and herein he delegates St Cyril with the following words:

“And so, appropriating to yourself the authority of our see, and using our position, you shall with resolute severity carry out this sentence [of excommunication]….”

See above. 

Also, it seems the tradition of Rome, before it really went off the deep end, was to consider the Petrine see to be one in three.
Only to the extent of recognizing the legitimacy of the 3 patriarchates and why they have their authority and ranking. This did not entail equality of authority at all. The pope’s make this very clear.

Quote
So is Celestine only using the "royal we", or is he in fact affirming that Cyril has the same power as himself since they occupy the see of Peter ("our see", "our position")?
It is the royal we. He is telling St Cyril to act with the authority of the pope in the east. He is delegating in a place where according to your tradition he has no authority. You can only delegate your authority where your authority has place.

Quote
There is no delegation, nor is there instruction in how to excommunicate.  As if Cyril needed to be taught such things.  LOL.


LOL it actually is. The Council of Ephesus itself made reference to this Papal letter in its own epistle to Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian in July 11th, 431:

“And now they have approved with one accord our sentence concerning the faith, and those who differed they have pronounced to be cut off from the priesthood. And before the assembly of this synod, Celestine, bishop of great Rome, showed by his letter to Cyril, beloved of God, bishop of the great city of Alexandria, whom he appointed to act in his place…

Before all this St Cyril wrote to Pope St Celestine asking him what do with the Nestorian problem in his dominion first seeking the consent of Rome before acting:

”God requires us to be vigilant in these matters and the ancient customs of the Churches persuades that we should communicate with your Holiness [in Rome]. We do not openly and publicly break off communion with [Nestorius] before communicating these things to your Piety. Deign therefore to declare what seems to you right; and whether one must remain still in communion with him, or ought it to be proclaimed publicly that no one communicated with one who professes to teach such errors?”
 (Letter to Pope Celestine [ca. 431 AD]).

Nestorius, likewise, appealed to Pope St Celestine, attempting to persuade him of the orthodoxy of his views. In response to these cross-appeals, Pope Celestine authorized Cyril to act with Rome’s authority in condemning Nestorius saying:

”assuring to yourself the authority of our See [Rome] and using our stead and place, you will execute this sentence with the utmost severity”
(Letter [ca. 431 AD]).

After he was deposed at the Council of Ephesus, Nestorius bitterly commented about the proceedings:

“Who was judge? Cyril. Who was accuser? Cyril. Who was Bishop of Rome? Cyril. Cyril was everything.”

He saw St Cyril as abusing the authority Rome had granted to him in dealing with Nestorius. The fact that Nestorius equated his judge and accuser with the bishop of Rome sheds light on his views on the Roman primacy. In his eyes, Cyril had arrogated to himself the authority and prerogatives of the pope himself beyond what had been delegated to him.

Oddly enough further confirming the view of the pope at the time and why he complained of St Cyril is that in the case of Eutyches, who later fell into the opposite error to his own, Nestorius says:

”He had received judgment. What other judgment was requisite beyond that which the bishop of Rome had made?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Neither do we believe Rome gets a pass on orthodoxy but rather that she is indefectable. She is permanently orthodox.

If BS could ever be considered pure, this would be the purest BS of all.  This is the Hope Diamond of BS.

And you’re a theologian?

Yes, and I have the paperwork to prove it.

You need to start acting like one. Self proclaimed theologians tend to have a lot of arrogance. Is a common trait I see even at CAF. It’s a common complaint that many people who interact with them make that they are arrogant and lack charity.

I act like a real theologian when I'm doing real theology with real, sincere people.  When I believed you were sincere, I acted that way.  When I came to be convinced that you are not, I stopped casting my pearls so liberally.

Lol okay if that’s what you tell yourself. I’m not the only one who hasn’t noticed it evidently.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 04:55:14 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline mikeforjesus

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,886
Re: Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas and the divine promise to St. Peter
« Reply #44 on: February 11, 2018, 05:25:57 AM »
And at least Saint Leo and Saint Hormosdas didn't make sex jokes on the internet...

Heresies > sex jokes

Quote
...nor does he belittle a 20 year old college student who questions a Church trying to introduce a deaconess in a different manner than it's original role.

Ah.  So this isn't about the saints or about my humour, but about your feelings being hurt because I'm not (obviously) impressed by you.

Quote
I would expect once again a more mature and informed response from someone who holds a theological degree other than saying "obviously your a heretic, even though we don't have too much information on Rome from the years 451 and prior."

You haven't been here long enough to know the history of my use or non-use of my considerable theological education on these boards or with any individual member.  I was discussing theology here while some were still wetting the bed.

Well, yeah - I would think that someone who was sophisticated enough to have a "theological education" would be a little more loving towards his fellow man.

If you have to act like a 13 year old on the internet, making penis jokes and bullying people, you obviously failed your entire education, because you missed the whole damn point of theology being something you live, not merely studying books. So much for "theology not being scholastic," amirite?

Have fun burning in hell, where you will see the demons morph into me and constantly call you gay as they burn you in boiling excrement - which is fitting, because that is everything you post on this board.

I would rather be a bed wetter than a Pharisaical heretic. So continue to be a forerunner of the antichrist as you persecute the Church with your wretched philosophies and lifestyles, and as you continue to cause - being in a leadership role - potential inquirers into Orthodoxy to turn away, clearly seeing you as someone who is not at all inspired by Christ or the Holy Spirit.

It seems Christianity isn't really your thing considering how immature you are - why don't you join FEMEN?

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 05:29:07 AM by mikeforjesus »