Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
According to the above article, a Pope's authority ceases on his death, thus any decisions or pronouncements made while alive would no longer have any bearing after their death. Is this Catholic teaching? I'm surprised you would post something which so undermines the papacy.
It's in Justin Martyrs, so you are free to debate, in fact we welcome it. All we ask is that it be done in a civil manner.I did not realize this was in the Eastern Orthodox section. Please accept my apology.
I didn’t dismiss it. I read it and found it was missing a lot of important history.I offered an alternative view. So quick to dismiss a quick read and accept a short video as gospel. If that is reportable, be my guest.
It does not undermine it.According to the above article, a Pope's authority ceases on his death, thus any decisions or pronouncements made while alive would no longer have any bearing after their death. Is this Catholic teaching? I'm surprised you would post something which so undermines the papacy.
not true. Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the East when he refused to accept the 5th Ecumenical Council, and then was excommunicated by the West when he did accept the 5th Ecumenical Council.As well, I stated in the past that Michael had no authority [and as this article states] to excommunicate the Pope of Rome.
It really does.It does not undermine it.
indeed.It really does.
I have said this and will repeat it...not true. Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the East when he refused to accept the 5th Ecumenical Council, and then was excommunicated by the West when he did accept the 5th Ecumenical Council.
that doesn’t explain that the West excommunicated Pope Vigilius after he accepted the council.I have said this and will repeat it...
JESUS said...
Anything henceforth is man made. Opinion even.
Site
St Paul: “If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:9). The objection hinges, therefore, on the way in which those involved in the context were speaking of the See of Rome, as well as the established canonical procedure at the time. In any case, it must first be remembered that the Second Council of Constantinople had nothing to do with Papal authority or the ability of a council to judge a pope.
Today the Fifth Ecumenical is remembered for a very different reason. The treatment of Pope Vigilius by Emperor Justinian at the Council, and even the Council fathers’ subscription to personally excommunicating the Pope, is seen as a vindication of anti-Roman interpretations of the Patristic age. Divorcing the Council from its context in the middle of intense dispute and chaotic politics, this interpretation insists that such a history is incompatible with the later definition of ‘Papal Supremacy’: an ecumenical Council here seems to judge the See of Rome, which the Roman Church would later condemn as contrary to the rights and privileges afforded to that See.
It would seem, historically, that the other Sees enjoyed the Emperors authority over the one Christ established, and far too often.
Honorius did not - did not send a resolution.that doesn’t explain that the West excommunicated Pope Vigilius after he accepted the council.
plus you have Honorius who was anathematized by an Ecumenical Council.
you are arguing for a position that history doesn’t support, neither does the Scripture. the fact that you have to repeat your claim by inserting words Christ doesn’t actually say is pretty telling.
he was still condemned by a council.Honorius did not - did not send a resolution.
again, not true. Ephesus was called and finished before the Roman delegation got there. if they needed Rome, they would have waited especially since St Celestine of Rome was an ally of St Cyril.Another point we do well to remember - a council is not an ecumenical council unless the Roman Pope declares it. So to suggest Vigiglius was not conforming to an ECUMENICAL council has more errors than we need to replay.
no, I said the West.NOW - you are suggesting he was then excommunicated in Rome?
And what the 'majority' of all heresies fought against repeatedly and ONLY came from the others Churches in the East.
Every single one, in fact.
Also a Pope cannot be condemned from a council.he was still condemned by a council.
again, not true. Ephesus was called and finished before the Roman delegation got there. if they needed Rome, they would have waited especially since St Celestine of Rome was an ally of St Cyril.
no, I said the West.
also not true. Pelegianism came from the West. Novationism started in the West. the filioque started in the West (not forgetting that even Rome condemned it as a heresy for a while).
except that it happened to Honorius. this was recognized by Rome as well. the 6th Ecumenical Council condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic. the 7th affirmed this condemnation. the Liber Diurnus, which Roman Popes affirmed, also affirmed he is a condemned heretic.Also a Pope cannot be condemned from a council.
He cannot be excommunicated because the Church is built upon his chair.
He holds the keys to open and shut Heaven and the gates cannot prevail.
I never said he excommunicated himself.SO pray tell me how a Pontiff agrees with the findings and signs off on it excommunicating himself.
I mean, really?
It's not even logical.
actually, a lot of them did. Pope John VIII signed off on a council that excommunicated anyone who used it. plus, Popes for over a century agreed with our Constantinople VI which condemned it as a heresy. there is a reason the Creed is on silver slabs in Greek and Latin in the Vatican without the filioque.The filioque is not a heresy.
Did the Pope say it was heresy?
No.
if that were true, they wouldn’t disagree on matters of teaching, and they do.Does that mean the Pope is always right?
Yes. In matters of teaching - 100%.
I never said he excommunicated himself.
actually, a lot of them did. Pope John VIII signed off on a council that excommunicated anyone who used it. plus, Popes for over a century agreed with our Constantinople VI which condemned it as a heresy. there is a reason the Creed is on silver slabs in Greek and Latin in the Vatican without the filioque.
if that were true, they wouldn’t disagree on matters of teaching, and they do.
that wasn’t the reason the filioque was inserted. wrong heresy.So if you are suggesting Pope John VIII suggested as you are suggesting, you are mistaken.
BECAUSE of the heresy of Pneumatomachi, it was necessitted to actually add in "who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified…"
AND that could not be changed. ^^^
yes, and the whole Church to include Rome condemned the filioque at Constantinople IV.NOW, if we want technicality, did they not at one time say the Nicene Creed could not be changed? Ay.
But that was before a heresy rose against the incomplete statements which were made at the time when another heresy was being meted out. The phrase 'who knew...' could be used.
The East cannot pronounce heresy. They can meet, discuss and then ask the Roman Pope.that wasn’t the reason the filioque was inserted. wrong heresy.
yes, and the whole Church to include Rome condemned the filioque at Constantinople IV.
actually, the Church said at Chalcedon centuries prior to the insertion of the filioque that all manner and teaching concerning the Holy Spirit was full and complete.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?