• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

The Remnant and Deposing a Pope

Paisius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Florida
TheMathematician said:
Just to clarify Wandile

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


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

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

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,036
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Wandile said:
Cavaradossi said:
Wandile said:
I never even began to say doctrinally they contradicted each other so I don't know how you got there cav
  :-\ seriously...

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

or like the other incorrect claims you have made in this thread, did this claim come from nowhere?
Correct claims brother. You are the one denying the evidence and playing gymnastics to make contradictory actions agree.

I don't ever remember reading that the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas was ever on the agenda.
Just like honorius' wasn't initially but yet letter were read and we know what happened. Ibas had been declared orthodox  after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril and subsequently restored to his see by Chalcedon and die in communion with the church.
I didn't ask you to repeat the claim, Wandile, I asked you to substantiate it. I have read the Acts of Second Constantinople in translation, as well as the relevant documents concerning the preparation of the council, and I do not remember the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas being on the agenda, nor a moment when such an item was struck from the agenda because of the objections of the pope and the Western bishops. I grant to you, however, that my memory is imperfect, and that I very well could be remembering incorrectly, hence why I am asking you to substantiate the claim with evidence from the acts of the council or the pre-conciliar documents.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
Cavaradossi said:
Wandile said:
Volnutt said:
I don't see Wandile claiming he has better judgment. He's just saying that the 5th Council contradicted the 4th. He might be right, he might be wrong. But I see anything untoward about trying to point out a fact.
Thank you

Though if the 5th did contradict the 4th, what does that mean for the infallibility of the subsequent Popes who failed to overturn one or the other?
Like I said, the judgments on personas are not infallible. At least in RC theology.
They are not? Why then do so many Latin theologians seem to be under the impression that canonizations are a regular exercise of the church's infallibility?
Oh that's a whole 'nother topic. Canonizations go through different process of getting true verifiable miracles  and assessing the life (not theology as per many saints who have erred) of the person in question

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

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

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,834
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
I have not gotten a satisfactory answer to the puzzle of how someone is supposed to know if a statement by the Pope is infallible or not. Most Catholics I know have different numbers and different ideas of which statements were and were not infallible.  What good is infallibility if no one knows when you are being infallible?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Cavaradossi said:
Wandile said:
Cavaradossi said:
Wandile said:
I never even began to say doctrinally they contradicted each other so I don't know how you got there cav
  :-\ seriously...

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

or like the other incorrect claims you have made in this thread, did this claim come from nowhere?
Correct claims brother. You are the one denying the evidence and playing gymnastics to make contradictory actions agree.

I don't ever remember reading that the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas was ever on the agenda.
Just like honorius' wasn't initially but yet letter were read and we know what happened. Ibas had been declared orthodox  after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril and subsequently restored to his see by Chalcedon and die in communion with the church.
I didn't ask you to repeat the claim, Wandile, I asked you to substantiate it. I have read the Acts of Second Constantinople in translation, as well as the relevant documents concerning the preparation of the council, and I do not remember the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas being on the agenda, nor a moment when such an item was struck from the agenda because of the objections of the pope and the Western bishops. I grant to you, however, that my memory is imperfect, and that I very well could be remembering incorrectly, hence why I am asking you to substantiate the claim with evidence from the acts of the council or the pre-conciliar documents.
I have the Acts of the Council right in front of me, but I'll let Wandile explain himself.

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

Ooops!

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

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

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
Cavaradossi said:
Wandile said:
Cavaradossi said:
Wandile said:
Cavaradossi said:
Wandile said:
Cavaradossi said:
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.
That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..
Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).
Yeah?

Vigilius defence can be explained by the facts that because chalcedon had the letters and saw no reason to condemn these people. Even with knowledge of the controversial passages. So why should he? It's that simple.  Further he showed how certain things can be interpreted in an orthodox light. In the first Constitutum,  Vigilius decided that Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were indeed heretical, but Theodore himself ought not to be condemned, since he was never given an opportunity to face charges while alive. Secondly Theodoret should not to be charged with insulting St. Cyril, as he denied authorship of such writings and St. Cyril himself never made such an accusation, so the authentic works of Theodoret should not be generally condemned, except for four Nestorian propositions they contain and lastly that Ibas had been declared orthodox at Chalcedon even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.
The Fifth Ecumenical Council disagreed as it indeed condemned the letter. The Pope, by the way, completely withdrew and annulled his defense of the letter of Ibas and condemned it.
Yes I know, the 5th ecumenical council contradicted the 4th... And I know about Vigilius' retraction which caused a huge schism in the west lasting 150 years. The whole issue was the west and (in the beginning also the east) wanted to uphold the authority of chalcedon. They eventually achieve that by not condemning their persons bar one which kept to chalcedon. What the emperor wanted was a complete 180 on chalcedon and vigilius and west wouldn't stand for it.
Evidently you've read neither the acts of Chalcedon nor the acts of Second Constantinople. Dogmatically, the two councils were in alignment, though Second Constantinople extended the dogmatic judgments of Chalcedon. Despite Vigilius' protestations to the contrary, the letter of Ibas was never fully accepted at Chalcedon. The Roman legates, it is true, essentially jumped the gun by declaring the letter orthodox (though they likely did not fully understand it), and because it was considered in Roman society an unthinkable breach of decorum for junior judges to contradict senior ones, the council fathers were placed into an awkward position (as Price notes in both his translation of the acts of Chalcedon and of Second Constantinople), one which the newly elevated Patriarch of Jerusalem, Juvenal, solved by confirming the Roman legates' exoneration of Ibas with the implication that Ibas was senile rather than with an approval his letter.

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

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

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

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
ialmisry said:
no, they were charged with heresy before-that is how they got deposed-and they have to abjure the heresy, i.e. Nestorianism, that they were charged with. In the case of Ibas, Constantinople II didn't even find him guilty of the letter attributed to him, which the Council condemned.
But Ibas did write the letter, didn't he? CII just accepted an "orthodox interpretation" of it and let him off with his denunciation of Nestorius.

I thought Ecumenical Councils are supposed to be infallible in Orthodoxy. How can CII have contradicted Chalcedon?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Volnutt said:
ialmisry said:
no, they were charged with heresy before-that is how they got deposed-and they have to abjure the heresy, i.e. Nestorianism, that they were charged with. In the case of Ibas, Constantinople II didn't even find him guilty of the letter attributed to him, which the Council condemned.
But Ibas did write the letter, didn't he? CII just accepted an "orthodox interpretation" of it and let him off with his denunciation of Nestorius.

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

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

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
TheTrisagion said:
I have not gotten a satisfactory answer to the puzzle of how someone is supposed to know if a statement by the Pope is infallible or not. Most Catholics I know have different numbers and different ideas of which statements were and were not infallible.  What good is infallibility if no one knows when you are being infallible?
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
ialmisry said:
Volnutt said:
ialmisry said:
no, they were charged with heresy before-that is how they got deposed-and they have to abjure the heresy, i.e. Nestorianism, that they were charged with. In the case of Ibas, Constantinople II didn't even find him guilty of the letter attributed to him, which the Council condemned.
But Ibas did write the letter, didn't he? CII just accepted an "orthodox interpretation" of it and let him off with his denunciation of Nestorius.

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

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


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

It formally labels them a heretic but it seems like anathematizing their writings does that job already. I mean, surely it's not a crime to say so if Arius, for example, happened to be right about some issue outside the Deity of Christ. Origen said a lot of good things, after all.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
You're sort of arguing two directions there, aren't you? Starting by saying writings and not persons ought to be accursed, then saying Origen's writings were of use to the Fathers (and so his person and not his writings should be accursed?) ...
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
Porter ODoran said:
You're sort of arguing two directions there, aren't you? Starting by saying writings and not persons ought to be accursed, then saying Origen's writings were of use to the Fathers (and so his person and not his writings should be accursed?) ...
I'm not saying his person should be accursed because I have no idea what that actually means in this context.

Origen wrote some good things and he wrote some heretical things. Intuitively, it seems like anathematizing the man denies that- along with whatever it might be saying about the state of his soul.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Anathematization of a man after his death I'm not sure the meaning of, but anathemitization of a living teacher seems useful or necessary to me. Imposing complete distance between someone and the Church is just a reflection of a truth, sometimes, it seems to me. Now, if we really wanted to spice up the discussion, we could include St. Paul's statement about someone anathema -- that he was turning him over to the Evil One to be tormented in body (my paraphrase) and learn to repent.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
Porter ODoran said:
Anathematization of a man after his death I'm not sure the meaning of, but anathemitization of a living teacher seems useful or necessary to me. Imposing complete distance between someone and the Church is just a reflection of a truth, sometimes, it seems to me. Now, if we really wanted to spice up the discussion, we could include St. Paul's statement about someone anathema -- that he was turning him over to the Evil One to be tormented in body (my paraphrase) and learn to repent.
Yeah, you're right. That makes sense.

I should have been more clear. It is posthumous anathamatization that I don't get.
 

emanresu

Jr. Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheTrisagion said:
I have not gotten a satisfactory answer to the puzzle of how someone is supposed to know if a statement by the Pope is infallible or not. Most Catholics I know have different numbers and different ideas of which statements were and were not infallible.  What good is infallibility if no one knows when you are being infallible?
There are typically two ways in which a pope can teach infallibly, according to Rome:

1) A solemn pronouncement on a matter of Faith and Morals such as the dogma of the Assumption in 1950:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html

You'll note that the definition is usually preceded by a lengthy review of the history of the dogma and usually ends with the solemn: "We Define, We Profess, etc..."

2) If a pope issues an encyclical which supports or reinforces a long held belief of the Church, that teaching is usually considered to be infallible. An example of this would probably be Pope Paul VI issuing Humanae Vitae condeming artificial birth control. Prior to this you had the general consensus of the Church condemning the practice as well as a prior encyclical by Pope Pius XI, Castii Connubii, written in 1930 condemning the practice.

So there really isn't any neat list available detailing all infallible teachings. The above should be used as a guideline.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,834
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
Volnutt said:
Porter ODoran said:
Anathematization of a man after his death I'm not sure the meaning of, but anathemitization of a living teacher seems useful or necessary to me. Imposing complete distance between someone and the Church is just a reflection of a truth, sometimes, it seems to me. Now, if we really wanted to spice up the discussion, we could include St. Paul's statement about someone anathema -- that he was turning him over to the Evil One to be tormented in body (my paraphrase) and learn to repent.
Yeah, you're right. That makes sense.

I should have been more clear. It is posthumous anathamatization that I don't get.
It is my understanding that there is no such thing as a posthumous anathamatization of a man, rather, the teachings are anathamatized.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
The Second Council specifically anathematizes (a long dead) Origen, "as well as" his works. (In the West, the practice was quite common, along with posthumous torture and so on, but I'll admit that's another subject.)
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
Porter ODoran said:
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
None of those were alive at the time of the 5th Council, or if Nestorius was he was on his death bed.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Volnutt said:
Porter ODoran said:
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
None of those were alive at the time of the 5th Council, or if Nestorius was he was on his death bed.
You're right, I was looking them up and they'd been dead for some time. However, the quote is not from the Fifth but from the Second Council (Eleventh Canon).
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
Porter ODoran said:
Volnutt said:
Porter ODoran said:
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
None of those were alive at the time of the 5th Council, or if Nestorius was he was on his death bed.
You're right, I was looking them up and they'd been dead for some time. However, the quote is not from the Fifth but from the Second Council (Eleventh Canon).
Huh? Nestorius was only condemned at the Third Council and Eutyches at the Fourth.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Volnutt said:
Porter ODoran said:
Volnutt said:
Porter ODoran said:
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
None of those were alive at the time of the 5th Council, or if Nestorius was he was on his death bed.
You're right, I was looking them up and they'd been dead for some time. However, the quote is not from the Fifth but from the Second Council (Eleventh Canon).
Huh? Nestorius was only condemned at the Third Council and Eutyches at the Fourth.
Thanks! It's a mis-citation in the OrthodoxWiki.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
Porter ODoran said:
Volnutt said:
Porter ODoran said:
Volnutt said:
Porter ODoran said:
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
None of those were alive at the time of the 5th Council, or if Nestorius was he was on his death bed.
You're right, I was looking them up and they'd been dead for some time. However, the quote is not from the Fifth but from the Second Council (Eleventh Canon).
Huh? Nestorius was only condemned at the Third Council and Eutyches at the Fourth.
Thanks! It's a mis-citation in the OrthodoxWiki.
Ah, ok!
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,036
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Porter ODoran said:
Volnutt said:
Porter ODoran said:
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
None of those were alive at the time of the 5th Council, or if Nestorius was he was on his death bed.
You're right, I was looking them up and they'd been dead for some time. However, the quote is not from the Fifth but from the Second Council (Eleventh Canon).
The Second Council of Constantinople is the Fifth a Ecumenical Council.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
Cavaradossi said:
Porter ODoran said:
Volnutt said:
Porter ODoran said:
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
None of those were alive at the time of the 5th Council, or if Nestorius was he was on his death bed.
You're right, I was looking them up and they'd been dead for some time. However, the quote is not from the Fifth but from the Second Council (Eleventh Canon).
The Second Council of Constantinople is the Fifth a Ecumenical Council.
Oh. I thought he meant Second Ecumenical Council, period. As in Constantinople I.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
TheMathematician said:
Just to clarify Wandile

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


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

Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
TheMathematician said:
Just to clarify Wandile

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


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

Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope.
LOL. Can you show us by what authority and what canon how said "formal  heretic" pope would be deposed?
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Isa read the testimony of the doctors of the church on this issue. Its all theoretical as such a thing hasn't happened. Bit the doctors pretty much agree on the issue
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
It might be helpful at this juncture to ask, as silly as it might sound, what it would take for authority in Orthodoxy to completely collapse.

If every Orthodox bishop on the planet were to simultaneously die in a plane crash would the Apostolic Succession continue in the Presbyters? What if every Presbyter died at the same time as the bishops?
 

hecma925

Stratopedarches
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
20,190
Reaction score
347
Points
83
Age
159
Location
The South
Volnutt said:
It might be helpful at this juncture to ask, as silly as it might sound, what it would take for authority in Orthodoxy to completely collapse.

If every Orthodox bishop on the planet were to simultaneously die in a plane crash would the Apostolic Succession continue in the Presbyters? What if every Presbyter died at the same time as the bishops?
That sounds similar to this thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,61702.0.html

The bolded statement is worth asking, but your hypothetical is not.



 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wandile said:
TheMathematician said:
Just to clarify Wandile

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


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

Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English
IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Volnutt said:
It might be helpful at this juncture to ask, as silly as it might sound, what it would take for authority in Orthodoxy to completely collapse.

If every Orthodox bishop on the planet were to simultaneously die in a plane crash would the Apostolic Succession continue in the Presbyters? What if every Presbyter died at the same time as the bishops?
lol The One World Government would have to found an assassin's order to get rid of all of the evil Bishops.
 

emanresu

Jr. Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wandile said:
Isa read the testimony of the doctors of the church on this issue. Its all theoretical as such a thing hasn't happened. Bit the doctors pretty much agree on the issue
Please quote said "doctors" and try to be specific.

As for it never happening, I'd say that Francis is coming pretty darn close.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
Isa read the testimony of the doctors of the church on this issue. Its all theoretical as such a thing hasn't happened. Bit the doctors pretty much agree on the issue
yes, all the Orthodox ones and even quite a few of the Ultramontanist ones testify that a heretical bishop of Old Rome is deposed like any other heretical bishop.

Or should be-quite a few, starting with Pope Benedictus VIII, for instance, had a king with an army propping them up on their throne.
And yet Pope John XXIII (the real one, that is, crowned in ) was not the only one deposed.

Pope Eugene IV, the one at the robber council of Florence, was deposed by the Council of Basel on June 25, 1439, for instance.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Wandile said:
TheMathematician said:
Just to clarify Wandile

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


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

Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English
IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?
I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wandile said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Wandile said:
TheMathematician said:
Just to clarify Wandile

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


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

Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English
IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?
I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.
What I'm getting at is how someone can be a Protestant or a Catholic and know about the crimes that their 17th century imperial agents committed around the world. Especially considering how South Africa was under an apartheid state instituted by the West.
 
Top