www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Formula of Pope St Hormisdas

I'm working on a reply to OrthodoxyorDeath's post but had to comment on this...

Stuart wrote:


Was he condemned? From what I've read he actually confirmed the Council. Say all we want about Vigilius (he was a wimp, I'll agree) his confirmation of the Council was sought and accepted.

More later.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dave,

Why wouldn't his confirmation be sought? He was one of the five equal patriarchs.

Fr. Meyendorff argues in his book "Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions":

p. 238-- Vigilius arrives in Rome on January 27, 547. He refuses to concelebrate with Patriarch of Constantinople Menas, on the advice of his western advisers. Menas removes Vigilius from the diptychs.

p. 239-- on June 29, 547 Vigilius gives up and concelebrates with Menas, secretly pledges to Justinian to condemn 3 Chapters, but only if it is done "ecclesiastically right" and makes it appear that his judgment is sought as Bishop of Rome. Justianian says ok. There is a mini council of 70, and Vigilius submits a Judicatum wherein he condemns the 3 Chapters.

p. 239-- Roman clerics who travelled with the Pope refuse to concelebrate with Pope at St. Sophia's on Christman 549.

p. 239-- Bishops of Africa depose Vigilius and excommunicate Vigilius [footnote: Victor of Tunnuna, Chronicon, a. 550., Monumentae Germaniae Historica, XI, p. 202]

p. 240-- Justinian realizes pope's power is not strong in the west, decides on an ecumenical council, and then tells the Pope he *can* take back his Judicatum.

p. 242-- Pope Vigilius backs out, won't go the council, and writes a Consitutum--his opinion, wherein he anathematizes those who condemn the 3 Chapters. Justinian whips out written evidence that Vigilius had previously condemned the 3 Chapters, says that thus Vigilius in his own Constitutum condemns himself. At seventh session of council, the evidece was produced, with letters, etc.

p. 242-- COUNCIL AGREES WITH JUSTINIAN'S EVIDENCE. ON JUSTINIAN'S PROPOSAL, VIGILUS'S NAME IS STRICKEN FROM THE DIPTYCHS AND HE IS DEPOSED, the council saying it was "severing unity with the apostolic see of Old Rome" by removing its incumbant.

p. 243-- Vigilius changes his mind on Dec 8, 553, where he repents of writing the Constiutum. He gets put back in Pope role, but dies.

IN Christ,

anastasios

As I said I am working on a reply on the Vigilius case. It will probably be a couple of days before I can post it due to some pressing needs at home. I will be back, I promise!

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DTBrown:
[QB]
>>>As I said I am working on a reply on the Vigilius case. It will probably be a couple of days before I can post it due to some pressing needs at home. I will be back, I promise!<<<

I am curious to know why it is SO important to you to prove that (a) no Bishop of Rome has ever either taught or professed erroneous beliefs; and (b) that from the beginning, the Bishops of Rome have rightfully viewed themselves as having some sort of jurisdiction over other Churches. Particularly when to do so you must resort to special pleading and selective reading of the evidence. If the current papal claims cannot withstand historical scrutiny, then it is the papal claims that must change, not history. The Catholic faith is not grounded on qualities attributed to the personage of the Bishop of Rome, but on the fullness of a Tradition which is shared by many Churches, including many that have not been in communion with the Church of Rome for 1500 years. If they have managed to maintain the fullness of that faith over such a long period, and in the face of sustained persecution, without that communion, then I think we have to say that said communion is not a prerequisite for catholicity. No matter that Rome's own self-image demands otherwise.

Dear Stuart,

Your last sentence is really not worthy of you.

The great benefits of an international centre of Christian authority and unity are many.

I too belong to a tradition that is Particular, has its own "everything" and was also a great teacher of other churches as a "Light of the East."

And yet being in communion with Rome helps one turn from an inward gaze towards one's religious and cultural identity that can become quite parochial.

Yes, there are many traditions within the oikumene that developed independently of Rome.

But today they have largely become museums for the preservation of a religious-ethnic identity and heritage that has lost its inner dynamic that once enlivened it.

Union with Rome, while maintaining one's love and respect for one's own Particular heritage and cultural identity, goes one step further in providing a connection with the universal pleroma of Churches and traditions that form the Body of Christ worldwide.

This is the appeal that I have seen even agnostic journalists become inspired by, especially last week.

Alex

Alex,

You say:
By Orthodox standards this outcome would be a curse. If the Lord granted us to see the full depths of our hearts, we would turn our eyes away in horror from such an overwhelming accumulation of filth. Let each of us look into our hearts each day and say before the witness of our conscience what it is that occupies our hearts most of all. Passions, sins voluntary and involuntary�are these not our heart's constant inhabitants?

And where does Christ dwell? -in pure hearts, hearts that are humble and contrite. Hearts that are not occupied with concerns for "cultural identity", or how many times the pope coughs in one day.

Turning to an inward gaze is the goal for the Orthodox Christian because "The kingdom of God is within You (Luke 17:21). And that God will "grant you according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith." (Eph. 3:16-17)


A dead "inner dynamic" results in a vocation crisis, virtually non-existant monastic communities, abusive "priests", and make-up laden, hair-do conscience congregations. While the Orthodox could do better in these areas, I could certainly think of other groups who have a far stiffer corpse of "inner dynamic" than us.

And these people are hardly in a position to accuse the Orthodox of being a spiritual museum. If the Orthodox Church was filled with progressive liberals such as those who think it is not only their right, but duty, to change the Traditions of the Church such as the Liturgy, then I doubt we would even have Orthodoxy as we know it today, but some post-"Orthodox" version of Vatican II.

Perhaps one day you will count your blessings that it is a worldly "museum" so that it can remain a spiritual dynasty.



[ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
>>>[QB]Dear Stuart,

Your last sentence is really not worthy of you.<<<

It was not meant as a criticism of THIS Pope, who by his actions and words alike has shown that he is not married to a dogmatic conception of his ministry. Rather, it is an explicit criticism of the Curia Romana and the extended ecclesiastical bureaucracy of the Latin Church, which treats its own prerogatives as a divine mandate. But the Gospel is quite specific: "The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over others, but it shall not be so with you".

>>>The great benefits of an international centre of Christian authority and unity are many.<<<

There is not, and never has been in any of my writing, a denial of the need for a universal primacy, or that the Church of Rome is the only logical nexus for such a primacy. But true primacy is not and cannot be juridical, and therefore it cannot be imposed, and it cannot be unilaterally defined. The Petrine Ministry is one of conciliation, unity and support. At present, the way the ministry is perceived and exercised makes it, in the words of not one but two Popes, the principal obstacle to Christian unity.

>>>And yet being in communion with Rome helps one turn from an inward gaze towards one's religious and cultural identity that can become quite parochial.<<<

That is true, provided it is a true communion in the Holy Spirit, and not the subordination of one Church to another. There are those in the Church of Rome's ruling elite who still think of unity as union, submission, subordination, assimilation. I know. I've heard them speak, read their words.

>>>Yes, there are many traditions within the oikumene that developed independently of Rome.<<<

And maintained their faith in the face of overwhelming obstacles despite being deprived of something which Latin doctrine says is "essential" for the fullness of faith. But I say if a Church is diminished by not being in communion with Rome, so, too is Rome diminished by not being in communion with that Church. Communion and its benefits are mutual, not unilateral.

>>>But today they have largely become museums for the preservation of a religious-ethnic identity and heritage that has lost its inner dynamic that once enlivened it.<<<

Some are, some aren't.

>>>Union with Rome, while maintaining one's love and respect for one's own Particular heritage and cultural identity, goes one step further in providing a connection with the universal pleroma of Churches and traditions that form the Body of Christ worldwide.<<<

Even you, Alex, find it difficult to avoid the terminology of subordination, for that is what "union" with Rome implies. Union is the submergence of one entity into another. A communion, on the other hand, is a mutual sharing and interpentration.

>>>This is the appeal that I have seen even agnostic journalists become inspired by, especially last week.<<<

They'll take some asprin and be over it in a week, I'm sure.

[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]

Dear OOD,

I never called Orthodoxy a "museum" and I'm sorry that you got that from my post.

I realize now that western commentators on the Orthodox Church sometimes use that term to describe it, but I can assure you that was the farthest thing from my mind.

I used that term as an "ideal type" to describe ANY Church or churchmen who suffer the process of what I call "ossification through liturgification."

Certainly, the Orthodox missionaries who carried the faith through Siberia and North America were saints who while immersed in the rich spirituality of their tradition looked forward to converting the world.

The WYD experience renewed that sense of Christian mission within me.

Union with Rome, in my experience, has lifted me and my people from an "inward focus" that stultifies and has nothing to do with vibrant spirituality.

This "inward focus" rests content in a "spirituality" that is based more on nationalism, cultural patriotism and complacency.

And, Sir, you weren't here.

This Pope shut the mouths of agnostic journalists and pro-abortionists while he was here. The entire city stopped breathing to hear him speak.

If that is evil, Sir, then where do I buy my plastic horns?

Alex

Alex, please for...forg...ehhhmm, please forgi...well you know what I mean.

Dear Stuart,

It is always an honour to get your attention and response!

I don't disagree with the majority of what you say, but only wanted to share my reflections on a few points you raised.

I never charged you with ever denying the Petrine Ministry of the Bishop of Rome, nor could I or anyone.

And how could anyone disagree that we need less centralized bureaucracy and authoritarianism in the Church?

However, what you said about the Roman Church bureaucracy can be equally applied to any Orthodox Patriarchate, e.g. the Moscow Patriarchate or any Bishop's Office for that matter.

There are Churches and clerics who just like bureaucracy. It gives a sense of security and officialdom. I think it needs to be kept in check, but I don't mind a modicum of bureaucracy. That's probably because I work with government, mind you .

Rome's primacy is not only an obstacle to Christian unity based on the "how" that primacy is to be exercised, there are other more psychological obstacles as well, and as you well know.

I think it would be the height of naivete for us to say that if, tomorrow, Rome was to return to a "Primacy of Honour" mode of operation for all Churches outside of its patriarchal jurisdiction that the East would come into communion with it.

Again, owing to my sociological bias or background (you choose which), I see everything as influenced by and couched in cultural conditions and presuppositions.

When I read what you write, for example, I'm not only learning a great deal about liturgical theology and church history, I'm also studying YOU as the writer to determine how and why you come to the conclusions you do. It's really fun!

This is why church culture is a needed perspective in ecumenical considerations without which theological agreements and bureaucratic restructuring are eventually bound to lead, in and of themselves, to a disappointing juncture.

"In union with" versus "In communion with."

It wasn't my intention to talk about subordination in saying "in union with."

But I agree that I DO see our Church as being "under" Rome.

And I will defend my view as being the accurate view on the actual state of affairs in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. I don't know how Melkites and Ruthenians see their relationship to Rome. I do know how Rome sees it. And I do know that in actual fact the Ukrainian Catholic Church is most definitely "under" Rome.

All manner of talk about "communion" etc. is nice, but it is, at this point, wishful thinking.

We don't ultimately control the running of our Church. Whatever our Synod says or does is "allowed" if and only if Rome shows no interest in the decisions or if it isn't itself bothered by them.

Otherwise, we are indeed under Rome, no matter how "Orthodox in communion with" we think we are.

At best, this issue can be discussed as a future goal, but I doubt if our Rome-picked episcopal candidates will see it as a priority - ever.

As for the museums, perhaps I was a bit strident.

But WYD has had an enormous impact on me. The aspirin doesn't help anyone really.

I know it's hard to believe. And I would probably say as you if I didn't experience it myself.

Again, the City of Toronto stopped breathing.

My uncle, an agnostic Jew and U.S. Korean War Veteran with whom I had lunch with this week himself told me he watched the Vigil and Papal Mass on TV.

He said while he doesn't have faith, he respects all the youth who were there because "they have faith."

He was also taken by the Pope and didn't hide his admiration for him.

Again, I saw how infectious a living and enthusiastic faith can be. Liturgical spirituality is great. Liturgification is something to be avoided as is the TENDENCY toward museum spirituality.

Spirituality must be dynamic and we must go out to witness to our faith.

What I learned last week was that people can and do respond to the warmth and dynamism of such faith and spirituality.

I came to realize that what I've been living up to now was a museum and the spirituality of inertia.

And I'm going to do something about it. My head is buzzing, I get up in the morning eager to see the sun rise and now actually look forward to another day spent in joy and happiness in the love of God.

I now ask God to tell me what to do and to use me to do whatever he wishes through me.

The Psalms of David are now my own daily shouts and cries of praise.

Dancing in the joy of God is also not out of the question.

WYD took me from feeling sorry for myself to a pro-active attitude where I want to judge no one, be there for everyone, and pray always with my Cross and Beads in my hands, just as those young people did and do.

I can't help what has happened to me. I feel as if there are running rivers of water inside of me that refresh yet carry me along.

May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob be glorified! We praise you O our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ!

Use us as Your instruments of peace!

God bless you, Stuart, Servant and Teacher of Christ our God!

Alex

Dear OOD,

May the Father of Lights bless and protect you and your family always!

May the Spirit anoint you and empower you to be His agent for good!

Alex

Dear Alex:

Eerie but I still vividly remember a Jesuit mentor of mine said a long time ago: "Catholicism is a living faith!"


AmdG

Dear Amado,

Yes, those Jesuits! I was surrounded by them at the Martyrs' Shrine, including a Jesuit among the Papal Delegation.

I understand that Our Lady of Guadalupe is the Patroness of the Philippines, as well as of the Americas.

Why is this? And why not another local Shrine of the Mother of God in the Philippines?

Do you have information on these?

Alex

Dear Alex:

I think the Philippines was consecrated to Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception.

The "Galleon Trade" was a thriving maritime commerce between Mexico and the Philippines began in the latter part of the 1500's. As time went by, the devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe must have been "traded" between Manila and Acapulco
along with such mundane goods as gold, spices, hemp, tobacco, and the like.

(The "hemp," which is mainly abaca hemp, found its way to the Americas and commercialized as end-products now more popularly known as the "manila envelope," "manila folder," and other by-products.)

Marian devotion in the Philippines is intense, to say the least. Foremost is our Novena to Our Mother of Perpetual Help, which is done every Wednesday of the year, in all parishes throughout the country. An icon (yes, Eastern!) of the Virgin is enshrined in all Chruches.

Next is our devotion to Our Lady of Fatima where an image of the Virgin leads the procession during the month of October, the designated month of the Holy Rosary. Almost all parishes have their own processions during this month in Her honor. Rosaries are prayed daily during the month of October, at least in my own parish when I was still there.

We have our own indigenous shrines to Our Lady. Miracles have been attributed by local devotees to these shrines:

--Our Lady of Antipolo (in Rizal Provine);
--Our Lady of Penafrancia (in the Bicol Region);
--Our Lady of Manaoag (in the Province of
Pangasinan);
--Our Lady of Piat (in the Province of Cagayan
in Northern Luzon, my birthplace);
--Our Lady of Vigan (in the Province of Ilocos
Sur)

Another devotion, which is interesting, is our devotion to the Child Jesus, apart from the usual Catholic fondness of the Holy Family. We call Him "Sto. Nino," and many Filipino homes are adorned with statuettes of the Child Jesus garbed in varied and colorful costumes, beside an icon of His own Mother, Our Mother of Perpetual Help. Perhaps, this devotion was brought by the Spanish conquistadores who must have been influenced by the Infant Jesus of Prague!

Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us!

Dear Amado,

How fascinating!

And I always wondered about those manila envelopes . . .

I understand the Philippines also now have great devotion to Our Lady of La Leche or "Of the Milk" which is the Patroness of Florida and Co-Patroness of the U.S.

Alex