That being?

I meant wider question: whether anyone who had not been anathematised in his lifetime could be anathematised after his death. Without mentioning any names. It seems that Vigilius's decision on this question in his Constitutum contradicts the dogma of papal infallibility. Hefele:

The Pope said, he had further inquired carefully what his predecessors had said on the question, whether anyone who had not been anathematised in his lifetime could be anathematised after his death. Against such harshness Leo and Gelasius had, in particular, declared themselves, saying that the dead should be left to the judgment of God. The Roman Church, too, had always, in practice, followed this rule <...>

To repeat: Card. Hergenröther says in his comment, that "... positive dogmatic purport of the judicatum, of the constitutum, and of his last decree, is not involved in contradiction". But this question, if to read carefully the definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (the quotation that I cited in this post), — is an important tradition of the Church.

And in that same post I quoted definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, according to which, anyone who tries to spurn the traditions of the Church, is under anathema of this Council. And according to the Bible: “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you” (I Cor. 11:2). And: “Hold on to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether orally or through an epistle of ours” (II Thess. 2:15).

By the way, you pointed to the fact that Fifth Ecumenical Council referred to tradition of the Roman Church in its definition ("... 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"). But Pope Vigilius also referred in his Constitutum to the tradition of the Roman Church (in the first quotation of this message), but made wrong conclusion, because he misunderstood the words of St. Leo. So again, I think that we should focus our attention not so much on particular quotations or historical facts, as on general methods or procedures, how these quotations were analysed by the Ecumenical Councils, and which mistakes were always made by all kinds of heretics in their analysis of patristic texts. Mistakes made by Vigilius seem to be the same as were later made by the Latins during East-West Schism.

If what Hefele says is not enough, you can also read the letter of Pope Pelagius II to Istrian bishops, in which he begged them to accept the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Istrian bishops referred, in particular, to Pope Vigilius. Pelagius II replied to this argument, that Latins erred because of their bad knowledge of Greek.

It's not that "what Hefele says is not enough." It's that I don't see this AT ALL in Hefele. And... I'd prefer to not move on to other references until I understand where you got this idea from Hefele.

You said, " Pope Vigilius, as he himself describes in his Constitutum, — you can read it in the book by Hefele, — didn't make careful inquiry whether letter of Ibas "agree with the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers" or not, and, since that, made wrong final decision..."

However, Hefele NEVER SAID THIS. Where did Hefele, or Pope Vigilius himself, say that Pope Vigilius didn't make a careful inquiry about the Ibas letter? Also, where did Hefele, or Pope Vigilius himself, say that Pope Vigilius made a wrong decision?

Or, in other words, you are asking, what is the formal principle that makes Orthodoxy one Church? The answer you can find in the book of Orthodox Canon law, called Pedalion in Greek, or the Rudder in English. Here you can download it (227 MB), although introduction in this scan is lacking, and some pages grayed.

Canon VI of the Second Ecumenical Council (p. 212-213) gives formal definition of what is heresy or schism:

... We call heretics those who have of old been proscribed from the Church, and those who have thereafter been anathematized by us; and in addition to these, those who, though pretending to confess the sound faith, have schismatically separated and have gathered congregations in opposition to our canonical Bishops.

Main words here are "canonical Bishops", i. e. bishops, ordination of which was made according to the canons. These bishops all together are visible sign of an Orthodox Church, like the cells of the body are visible sign of the body. There are also many texts of the Saints which prove this criterion.

So there is clear criterion. The disunion sometimes happens simply because some people don't respect the canons. For example, even the Anglicans (i. e. the most conservative kind of protestants, at least in XIX century) tried to distort this canon in this book: The Definitions of Faith, and Canons of Discipline of the Six Œcumenical Councils (New York 1844), p. 66, 73:

3. Canonical Bishops. Beveridge shows satisfactorily that the word Canonical (...) is probably a corrupt reading, inasmuch as that title, though proper to all the other Clergy, was never given to Bishops, and that we ought to read ..., the Bishops in communion with us, a phrase which is often used with reference to orthodox Bishops.

Another example is the disunity with the Roman Catholic Church: it is also connected with disrespect to the canons. It started when Roman Bishops began to cite forged canons, or to distort the sense of existing canons.

So what is one to make of Photius, whose ordination was certainly not according to the canons (he did not observe the Interstices and was consecrated by an excommunicate)? Why would the Orthodox continue to hold such an uncanonical usurper in high regard?

Vadim?

I'm sorry, I'm very busy now, but will return when I have a free time.

You was asking:



In order to reply to this, I need to read the letter of Pelagius II, in which he gives correct interpretation to the same quotations. For example, as Hefele says (p. 319), Vigilius referred to Leo to prove that it is not legal to anathematize dead heretics, but Pelagius II says that Leo doesn't teach so. Another example is on p. 322: Hefele says, that Vigilius said, that Leo "had also repeatedly declared that nothing was to be altered in the decrees of Chalcedon." Pelagius II gives another explanation to those quotations.

Also I want to look at an article that you proposed here, and those which HalJordan proposed (Newman and Soloviev).

So I need some time to read that. But I can already summarize what I have already read in the recently opened thread. Then possibly I'll try to answer some questions that were asked here, which don't require any additional reading.

OK, but please remember that this is what I'm asking:

Where did Hefele, or Pope Vigilius himself, say that Pope Vigilius didn't make a careful inquiry about the Ibas letter? Also, where did Hefele, or Pope Vigilius himself, say that Pope Vigilius made a wrong decision?

What is your source for the Pope Pelagius II (579-590) information? I didn't see anything in Hefele about this.

(Nevertheless - regardless of what Pope Pelagius II said about Pope Vigilius, or Pope Leo I - in the final analysis Pope Vigilius upheld the findings of the 5th Ecumenical Council.)

Let us imagine that similar situation takes place in future: there are two Popes, but no one knows which of them is legal one. And these Popes refuse to convoke a Council, or to attend a Council convoked by agreement of all the cardinals and bishops, in order to determine, which Pope is legal one. Or each Pope convokes his one small Council instead of attending the great Council convoked by agreement of all the cardinals and bishops.

Will then it be legal in these cases for a Council convoked by argeement of all the cardinals and bishops to depose both Popes, if they refuse to attend their great Council?

No.


Now, with that answer you would say, "well, that's why Orthodox is better. Because Orthodox would say 'yes' and the problem would be solved."

But then again if we are talking with improbable scenarios I could just conjure up a scenario where Orthodox would be in the same boat. How? Well, instead of two popes imagine that there are only TWO BISHOPS left in the world (let's just say that the rest were killed in persecution).



So, knowing our Lord's promise to His Church, those two scenarios would never happen.

Official Roman Catholic teaching says "yes". Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner:

COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE
...
SESSIONS RATIFIED BY THE POPE
...
Session 39—9 October 1417
...
Provision to guard against future schisms

If it happens—though may it not!—that a schism arises in the future in such a way that two or more persons claim to be supreme pontiffs, then the date of the council, if it is more than a year off, is to be brought forward to one year ahead; calculating this from the day on which two or more of them publicly assumed the insignia of their pontificates or on which they began to govern. <...> Each of those claiming to be the Roman pontiff is bound to announce and proclaim the council as taking place at the end of the year, as mentioned, in the previously assigned place; he is bound to do this within a month after the day on which he came to know that one or more other persons had assumed the insignia of the papacy or was administering the papacy; and this is under pain of eternal damnation, of the automatic loss of any rights that he had acquired in the papacy, and of being disqualified both actively and passively from all dignities.

If those two popes in your example are hell bent on becoming the pope, then they both could circumvent that decree by abrogating it. Now, we don't know which one is the pope, but if both abrogated that decree then it is abrogated because one of them must be the true pope (and a pope has the power to abrogate disciplinary canon).


And again I would say that a similar problem is also possible with Orthodox governing system.

What if these two popes will simply act according to scenario described by this canon, without any such new tricks. Would you then recognize the third Pope, elected by the Council, as a legal one, if two other rival popes will be deposed by the Council? As this canon prescribes to you. Or you would follow one of the two deposed popes, the one which would seem more likely to you to be a legal Pope?

Huh?

If the council deposes a pope, and he is in fact not the true pope, then it simply doesn't mean what you want it to mean. That is a council could depose a pope (since he's not a pope, then the council does not depose a pope).

If the council deposes a pope, and in fact he is the true pope, then their deposition is invalid. You can't depose a pope. (you can ask him, nicely, to abdicate tho)


Let's sing it Vadim, la~la~la no one, no council fa~la~la could ever ever EVER depose a valid pope bam~bam~bam .

Beng, you also used inaccurate formulation in your previous post:

But there cannot be "two popes" simultaneously, only one of them is Pope.

I can formulate more accurately, if you want:

Let us imagine—though may it not!—that a schism arises in the future in such a way that two or more persons claim to be supreme pontiffs, say, A and B. What if each of those claiming to be the Roman pontiff refuse to announce and proclaim the council within a month after the day on which he came to know that one or more other persons had assumed the insignia of the papacy or was administering the papacy? Let us imagine, that then a Council will be convoked by the agreement of all the Cardinals and bishops. And this Council will proclaim that both persons claiming to be supreme pontiffs automatically had lost any rights that they had acquired in the papacy, and are disqualified both actively and passively from all dignities.

And then this Council will elect Pope C. Would you then recognize C as a Pope? Or you would follow one of A a B — the one which would seem more likely to you to be a Pope?



And yet some improbable situations are sometimes imagined in order to "prove" that Orthodox Church doesn't have strict visible discipline. Say, "what if there would be two rival Councils pretending to be Ecumenical? What then Orthodox would do without a Pope?" Then I may similarly ask: "what if there would be two rival persons pretending to be a Pope? What then Roman Catholic would do without a Council?". Councils are "more visible" then Popes.