• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

The "Arabic" Canons of Nicaea being pro-Papist?

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
160
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
AANA
As regards the 5th council, Rome and the whole west weren’t happy about it because initially it sought to undermine he faith of the 4th ecumenical council and rightly so the objected. The council actually ended up listening to westerners about how to avoid turning on the 4th council which is why they, in the end, condemned the works and not the persons (This suggestion came from the west if you’d don’t know). The reason why St Cyril was used in the 5th council was because the council was held to appease the non-Chalcedonian Cyrilians who held strictly to his wording. It’s only logical what they did.
I know nothing about Arabic and Syriac canons and whatnot, since I cannot read either language, but I know this is completely wrong as I have read the acts of the 5th Ecumenical Council. Pope Vigilius, representing the West, refused to accept the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the grounds that the Church does not make war with those who died at peace with Her. He refused to accept the condemnation of the Letter of Ibas, on the grounds that he was declared orthodox in faith at Chalcedon on the basis of this letter (this is only partially true, insofar as the papal legates spoke prematurely despite the fact that they almost certainly did not understand the letter as it was being read in Greek, leading to an awkward situation where many bishops protested the decision to deem his letter orthodox by deeming him worthy of restoration only on account of his supposed senility, following after Saint Juvenal of Jerusalem who cleverly came up with this excuse not to contradict the legates). Pope Vigilius’ first constitutum, in fact, contains a very thorough (though mistaken) argument for why a condemnation of the three chapters themselves must contradict the faith of Chalcedon

The Council took none of his protests seriously, however, condemning the three chapters and the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and in the end, far from feeling as if the council took Western concerns seriously, numerous Western sees, chiefly Milan and Aquileia, went into schism on the grounds that Rome had betrayed the faith of Chalcedon after Pope Vigilius capitulated and his successor also accepted the council.
 
Last edited:
Top