You've already conceded that forgeries and such were just as much a problem in the East.

Why was Vigilius reluctant to anathematize Theodore? Because of his doctrine or because he wanted to make sure that no groundwork was laid to assault Chalcedon (which, of course, happened anyway and was a huge problem in the East for centuries)?

Your second paragraph could be equally applied to any Eastern theologian. Like, say, Mark of Ephesus. Just because he had some quotations doesn't make him right. So how does one determine this continuity with the holy fathers?

And why is Vigilius's opinion in all this so significant if he's just another patriarch? Why are they appealing to the traditions of Rome? Or Augustine, a particular holy father who modern Eastern theologians despise for no good reason?

PLease elaborate on how St. Irenaeus contradicts papal primacy.

I've read it. As usual, Dollinger exaggerates. For a rebuttal, I suggest Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine or perhaps even his work on the Arians of the 4th Century.

Really, though, if you're looking for a contemporary of St. Vincent on this, just read the works of St. Leo the Great. As noted by Vladimir Soloviev, it's a bit odd for Leo to be considered a saint by the Orthodox given his views on the papacy. Ditto for St. Gregory, I might add.

Nevermind

Because at that time, as said St. Irenaeus, "and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition". However, Church of Rome was not the only argument.

Besides, Vigilius in his Constitutum erred in his decision that it was not right to anathematize heretics after death, and it is not clear enough, how does this fact conform to Papal infallibility. Here is comment on Vigilius by Card. Hergenröther in his "Anti-Janus":

The reprehensible character of the propositions favouring Nestorianism, put forth by Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as of the expressions of Theodoret and Ibas in reference thereto, was not denied by this pontiff, but only the opportuneness and the justice of a condemnation of their persons. The positive dogmatic purport of the judicatum, of the constitutum, and of his last decree, is not involved in contradiction.

"Dogmatic purport of constitutum is not involved in contradiction". But according to the Decree of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, not only dogmas are important, but all ecclesiastical traditions. And everyone who dares to devise anything subversive of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church, is cut off from communion:

To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in writing or verbally, one of which is the making of pictorial representations, <...> he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received. <...> Those, therefore who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as wicked heretics to spurn the traditions of the Church and to invent some novelty, <...> or evilly and sharply to devise anything subversive of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church <...> if they be Bishops or Clerics, we command that they be deposed; if religious or laics, that they be cut off from communion.

And according to the Sentence of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, anathematizing heretics after death is one of the traditions of the Church:

... and since after all these things the defenders of his impiety, glorying in the injuries uttered by him against his Creator, said that it was not right to anathematize him after death, although we knew the ecclesiastical tradition concerning the impious, that even after death, heretics are anathematized; nevertheless we thought it necessary concerning this also to make examination, and there were found in the acts how divers heretics had been anathematized after death; and in many ways it was manifest to us that those who were saying this cared nothing for the judgment of God, nor for the Apostolic announcements, nor for the tradition of the Fathers. <...> Moreover several letters of Augustine, of most religious memory, who shone forth resplendent among the African bishops, were read, shewing that it was quite right that heretics should be anathematized after death. And this ecclesiastical tradition, the other most reverend bishops of Africa have preserved: and the holy Roman Church as well had anathematized certain bishops after their death, although they had not been accused of any falling from the faith during their lives: and of each we have the evidence in our hands.

This is, by the way, "Orthodox Papal Issue", because Protestants don't pay attention to ecclesiastical traditions while criticizing Papal infallibility.

3rd Request.

Vadim,

Where on page 321 does it say that Pope Vigilius didn't follow the rules of making decisions and, thus, made a wrong decision on the matter of the letter of Ibas?

Greg, I meant the words which I've already quoted: Vigilius wrote that he was not himself acquainted with Greek, so he had caused those who were about him to look out this subject in the Acts of Chalcedon.

Because of such imperfect method of inquiry he wrong interpreted testimonies of bishops who took part in the Council of Chalcedon (namely, papal legates, Anatolius of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch and the other bishops). Correct interpretation of these very testimonies, after more closely consideration of them, was given by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Here is description by Hefele how Fifth Ecumenical Council explained these testimonies:

Moreover, these votes 1 should be considered more closely, and it would be found how these very voters (indirectly) rejected the letter, since they demanded of Ibas that he should acknowledge the Council of Ephesus and anathematise Nestorius, the direct contrary of which was contained in the letter.

1 Voices rather — testimonies in favour of the accused during the discussion.

But this description, and also what is said in the next paragraphs on that page, is incomplete — if you read the original, more detailed and some additional explanations given in the Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, then it becomes evident, that bishops of Council of Chalcedon really rejected the letter of Ibas.

Also he wrong interpreted quotations from the writings of Pope Leo, which Hefele describes on the next page. Correct interpretation was given by the Pope Pope Pelagius I in his letter to western bishops, who also, as Pope Vigilius, wrong understood these quotations from Pope St. Leo the Great.

Vadim, if I may ask for a clarification. Is it your opinion that Vigilius's hesitance in anathematizing Theodore, et al contradicts the dogma of papal infallibility?

Vadim,

Bottom Line. In my reading of the documents, in his final letter on the 5th Ecumenical Council*, Pope Vigilius agreed with the Council concerning Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Where do you see anything different?

In particular:

-What was his wrong decision concerning the letter of Ibas?
-What was his wrong interpretation of Pope Leo?

*Source. The Decretal Epistle of Pope Vigilius in Confirmation of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. Scroll down to near the bottom.

Where does Hefele indicate that because the Pope did not understand Greek he made a wrong decision?

Also, unless I am missing something, I see nothing in any of your Hefele references (pages 312f, 318f, or 321f) that indicates Pope Vigilius made a wrong decision about what the Council of Chalcedon did, or that he made any decisions contrary to the 2nd Council of Constantinople. The fact that he wanted to discuss it at length, or that he may have - in the course of the discussion - possibly said things that sounded like support of heretical doctrine is not the same as condoning or agreeing with it.

Reading Pope Vigilius’ name into references to “the impious man,” or “the followers of Nestorious,” or “the disciples of Theodore,” or “the testimonies of some few bishops” without substantiation from the primary sources is an unwarranted reading of personal bias into the text.

Vladimir Soloviev seems to be very naive. For example, he refers to St. John Chrysostom, but look what even Roman Catholic theologian cardinal Yves Congar says about him and other eastern Church Fathers, "After Nine Hundred Years. The Background Of The Schism Between The Eastern And Western Churches": pp. 61-62, and footnotes 42)-45) on pp. 132-133.

Could you summarize what you mean?

He's naive because he disagrees with you? He wrote a whole book on the subject after all. Reading your excerpts from Congar, I don't think they prove any of your points. At best, you could argue that the East had confused and/or mixed ideas about it. The same could be said about pretty much any other dogmatic concept, not to mention the Orthodox view of primacy now. ANy of the criticisms against Patriarch Bartholomew, for example, or even the more recent and completely bizarre claims of Moscow as acceding to Constantinople's position.

Probably by another cryptic red herring quote...

Do you mean to summarize everything or only my previous post? It's hard to summarize everything in a single post, so I'll try to do it in several posts.

I think that the fastest way to understand which side is right is to focus our attention on certain procedures. Why? Because they are visible signs of love, and love is visible sign of truth: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." (John 13:35). Here are some procedures and why they are signs of love:

1) When one carefully investigates whether doctrines of his Church correspond to the teaching of the Church Fathers, — а procedure which is said to be necessary by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, — he thus shows his love to the Church Fathers, especially in our time, when their writings have become available online in the internet. This is explained well in the famous treatise of St. Vincent of Lerins against novelties. This criterion, "novelties", was not his own invention, — it was approved by the Third Ecumenical Council.

2) Let's assume that there is someone infallible who "has all knowledge". But what if he doesn't care for his spiritual children who fall in heresy or in schism, doesn't love them? "And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:2). "But if any man have not care of his own and especially of those of his house, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel." (1 Timothy 5:8).

For example: why Council of Pisa deposed both Popes? Because they refused to arrive at the Council and thus showed that they didn't care for their spiritual children. There was real necessity of participating of the popes in the Council of Pisa, because during Western Schism, as Catholic Encyclopedia says (article Western Schism), even saints were divided:

The saints themselves were divided: St Catherine of Siena, St. Catherine of Sweden, Bl. Peter of Aragon, Bl. Ursulina of Parma, Philippe d'Alencon, and Gerard de Groote were in the camp of Urban; St. Vincent Ferrer, Bl. Peter of Luxemburg, and St. Colette belonged to the party of Clement.

So if one of popes arrived at the Council and gave some explanations, he would help half of his spiritual children to leave the schism.

(To be continued...)

I'm not sure you understand the office of the papacy.

Just your previous post. What are you saying that Congar is saying about St. John Chrysostom, and how does this disagree with what Soloviev said about St. Chrysostom?

Hey, I hope some of you Orthodox will go over to my Petra/Petros thread and weigh in... That would be great.

Sorry, I'm very busy now, but will return after some time.

Meanwhile, I'd like to share two articles of 2011 year that prof. Aristeides Papadakis sent me by post. I've scanned them and he allowed me to share them (to download - enter the number and press on the green button):
http://narod.ru/disk/37453792001/Papada ... s.pdf.html

They describe important point which I've mentioned above:

Arbitration of the whole Church in council, used in the past to settle differences between churhes, was rejected by the West as being out of date.

Also I found online two more of his articles, first one dedicated to the same question, and second observes history of the Orthodox Church:
http://orthocath.files.wordpress.com/20 ... entury.pdf
http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/history.html

The most important point concerning him is that, according to Catholic Encyclopedia (article The Pope), St. Epiphanius "misunderstood" those famous words of St. Irenaeus:

Epiphanius ("Haer." 27:6) would indeed seem to suggest the divided episcopate; but he has apparently merely misunderstood the words of Irenaeus.

He "misunderstood" because if to read that passage in its full context, then it becomes evidently that it has another meaning.