Citat:
În prealabil postat de Erethorn
Aahh, vechiul narav al scoaterii din context.....
Va rog sa interpretati atunci, acest paragraf din aceeasi scrisoare:
And indeed with regard to this matter, weighty letters were addressed to your Holiness by my predecessor Pelagius of holy memory; in which he annulled the acts of the synod, which had been assembled among you in the case of our once brother and fellow-bishop Gregory, because of that execrable title of pride, and forbade the archdeacon whom he had sent according to custom to the threshold of our lord, to celebrate the solemnities of mass with you. But after his death, when I, unworthy, succeeded to the government of the Church, both through my other representatives and also through our common son the deacon Sabinianus, I have taken care to address your Fraternity, not indeed in writing, but by word of mouth, desiring you to restrain yourself from such presumption.
|
Acum mi-a atras atentia mesajul asta. In acea perioada Roma si Constantinopolul se aflau in mari neintelegeri, in principal si datorita monofizismului. Patriarhul Constantinopolului facuse un sinod local (in 588) prin care, printre altele, isi luase titlul de patriarh universal. Iar Papa Pelagius II nu a recunoscut acel sinod.
De asemenea, Papa Pelagius II a condamnat monofizismul, pe cand papii Vigilius si Pelagius I au condamnat exprimarea ortodoxa si au semnat pentru aprobarea monofizismului (inca o dovada a "infailibilitatii" papale).