How does it not, though?
God called him to other areas. that still never shows that any authority passes to Rome alone.
Right, but St. Irenaeus stated, “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere should agree with the Roman Church
because of the apostles who founded it” (
Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, Section 2). His final seat of authority was in Rome, where he was martyred, and the unity of the Church is intimately tied to the paramount office of Peter in Rome.
except no one argued it was an infallible statement. no one made the case it was infallible and should be adopted. you’re saying everyone knew Rome had this authority, and nobody made the case for it at either Ephesus (the robber synod) or Chalcedon.
At Ephesus, it was Pope Leo I who named it
Latrocinium ("Robber Synod"); moreover, during the first proceeding, Leo I referred to his dogmatic Tome,
which he intended the council to accept as a ruling of faith: "We have given an
explicit definition of the truth,
which we know you will approve and accept." The same applies to Chalcedon, which read the Tome again with the previous quotation within.
A Pontiff cannot be judged by those below him, and thus only his proceeding pontiff could condemn him, as he held the same position. I will quote my
Contra JSRG for the next two responses, found in
Two more Italian priests sanctioned for claiming Francis is ‘anti-pope’: "...while a Pontiff can summon a lower cleric to a trial for heresy,
no one can do the same to a Pontiff; for there is no authority on Earth higher than a reigning Pontiff. Take these three examples:
- Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’” (Denz. 330)
- Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Chap. 11: “By passing judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of the venerable Councils…” (Denz. 352)
- Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Chap. 32: “… As the hinge while remaining immoveable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’” (Denz. 353)
- St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”
In particular, Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law,
On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”"
so Vigilius was only excommunicated by the 5th Council when he agreed that he was excommunicated, and he was only excommunicated by the West when he agreed after the 5th Council.
Not quite, according to Pope Paul IV'
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio: "...or even a Roman Pontiff prior to his promotion or elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then his promotion or elevation, even if it be uncontested and carried out by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, invalid, and void; [...]." Also see the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which for canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law on loss of office without declaration, it
gives a footnote (in the original Latin version) to Pope Paul IV’s bull:
“There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office,
which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4)
if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.”
The important matter here is "
without any declaration." All of this applies to the time period
before any declaration. Moreover, St. Robert Bellarmine,
De Romano Pontifice, II, 30, speaking of a claimant to the Papal Office: "For, in the first place,
it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who
orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate -
which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."
Moreover, Pope Leo XIII, in
Satis Cognitum #9, says: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever
would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.” He later states [
Satis Cognitum #15], in relation to his previous statement “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since
it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” If anyone was to recede
in the least degree from any point of doctrine, he would be outside the Church; and as such it is
absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church. To end this point, I note St. Antoninus: "
In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church.
He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (
Summa Theologica, cited in
Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
We see here that Vigilius or any Pope who publically errors (external forum) he is
ipso facto deposed of his position immediately upon his declaration of that error. St. Robert Bellarmine,
De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30: “
A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore,
he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” Note the last part, after Vigilius committed error, he was no longer the Pope, and thus he can be judged and punished by the Church the way the Church sees fit to punish him, however it must be done with the proceeding legal Pontiff overseeing and declaring the condemnations to be valid, which is what happened at the 5th Council.
plus, the 3rd Council at Ephesus was finished before the Roman delegation even arrived. no one made the case that they needed to wait.
Pope Celestine I had sent a dogmatic letter to the Council that strongly condemned Nestorianism, which was read aloud at the Council and formed the foundation for the decisions made against Nestorius. Since Celestine had made his declaration, they did not need to wait, as the papal legates had been appointed by the pope to represent his authority at the council, and the Roman judgment was held to have doctrinal weight, even before the legates arrived. In
The Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), Session I: "The letter of Pope Celestine
was read aloud in the assembly,
confirming the condemnation of Nestorius and affirming the orthodox faith in the mystery of Christ’s incarnation."
plus, no Pope presided over any of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.
Papal legates were present, who, as stated before, "had been appointed by the pope to represent his authority." See Canon 6 of Chalcedon (451 AD):
“The most reverent Archbishop of Rome, the successor of the Apostles,
has sent his legates...and they presided over the proceedings.” At Nicaea: "Pope Sylvester I’s delegates were present at the First Council of Nicaea
to represent his authority and position on key issues, including the affirmation of the Nicene Creed and the condemnation of Arianism" (
Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book I, Chapter 16).
so, Arians and Iconoclasts butchering Christians it’s not necessary. no one even mentions it.
The doctrine was not necessary for these issues, as Ecumenical Councils addressed them with the support of the papacy.
see above. odd silence early on from all sides.
The Ecumenical Councils addressed them properly, and needed no definition by the papacy.
actually in the Middle Ages, the Father and the Son are the single principle that’s Spirit’s ultimate source.
Father remains the
primordial source of the Spirit’s origin, but the procession of the Spirit is not from two separate principles; it is a united principle between the Father and the Son as you said. Note, though, that the Son is the
co-cause of the Spirit’s procession, as the Father and the Son are inseparably united in this action. The Holy Spirit’s procession does not come from two separate causes
but from a singular principle, which is the relationship between the Father and Son, who share the same divine essence in the divine act of procession while still acknowledging that the Father is the source. Likewise, the Father is the origin, but the Son’s involvement in the Spirit’s communication/procession to the world is essential and inseparable. This is coagulated by the Eastern St. Petro Mohyla, who stated that the Eastern "through the Son"
was equal to the West's "from the Son" through the Son playing a role in the Spirit’s mission and sending while keeping that the Father is the ultimate source of the Spirit.
Thus, there is no contradiction.
merits and Roman understanding of original sin
The idea that our understanding of Original Sin and your understanding of Original Guilt is different comes from Romanides, who was totally wrong, as the disagreement is more about terminology and emphasis than about the doctrine itself. See this good video:
not now, but we were condemned at a few councils you hold as Ecumenical
Not at all! Provide the Councils, and I will show you.
Liturgy is theology. you can’t separate the two.
What I meant was that the universal church did not dogmatically state the theological distinction at that time; it was rather in the local liturgical tradition, reflecting the local doctrine at the time. Later, it was made universal.
and yes, Rome openly condemned the Filioque as a Trinitarian heresy when they agreed with Constantinople IV that restored St Photius. it’s only after a century their view changed.
The Filioque controversy was not explicitly addressed or condemned at Constantinople IV, and the restoration of Photius was a matter of Photius' authority and recognition of Photius as the rightful patriarch, not a theological endorsement, which was already using the
filioque locally. Moreover, the Eastern Catholics are able to deny the usage of it in their liturgy, but since the two contain no contradiction, they remain fully in communion with the Holy See, which the Orthodox are able to do at any time without any theological contradiction.
(2/2)
