Gregory Vs Gregory

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Gregory VII and his propagandists mutilating Gregory the Great's Moralia, Gelasius' Duo sunt[/quote]

I got this info of a contradiction or something from a friend online that didn't respond back yet. I think I can find it myself. So then I will have something else to debate other than the "false decretals".

Till then you have time to search too.

[MorphRC]

...

[MorphRC]

This is all I got up:

Cum ad verum is a letter written by Gelasius, the bishop of Rome from 494 to 496 A.D. As in his similar letter Duo sunt, Gelasius posited and expounded a distinction of "two powers" within a single unified Christian society: the spiritual power and the temporal power. These two powers are, according to Gelasius, supposed to remain independent of interference from each other's agents, but are also required to cooperate regarding difficult areas of jurisdictional overlap. Like Duo sunt, Cum ad verum became a widely-used text of Christian thinkers during the Middle Ages, and its principles lay behind every major Church-State controversy throughout the era.

One major thinker, Huggucio of Pisa, picked up on Cum ad verum in his commentaries on the canon law of the 12th century, and strongly emphasized the distinction of the two powers at just the point in time when the Papal Monarchy was reaching its zenith of aspiration and power under Huggucio's own pupil, Pope Innocent III. The text of Cum ad verum1 is as follows:

--Since, indeed, some have transgressed into more than what is their own, the Emperor is not to conspire to take up the rights of the Pontiff, nor the Pontiff to usurp the name of the Emperor. Seeing thus that the mediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus, has thus by his own special acts and offices separated the obligations of power with distinct offices, wishing by his very own treatment of humility for the high and mighty to be buried and not by human arrogance again to be plunged into hell. Thus, he wished that Christian emperors should always need the Priests for eternal life and the Priests make use of the imperial laws only for the things of the temporal world, since spiritual activity should stand apart from attack by worldly things. For that reason [someone] serving as a soldier for God should be minimally involved in the work of the world, and again, the Emperor, who ought to be involved in worldly affairs, should not seem to preside over the divine ones.

[url="http://www.societaschristiana.com/Encyclopedia/C/CumAdVerum.html"]http://www.societaschristiana.com/Encyclop...CumAdVerum.html[/url]

[MorphRC]

And this:

Societas Christiana Encyclopedia

Duo Sunt



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 494 A.D., Gelasius, a bishop of Rome (r. 492-496 A.D.), wrote a very influential letter that we know as Duo sunt (from the first two Latin words of the text) to the Eastern Emperor Anastasius. This letter fairly set in stone the categories by which Christian thinkers would conceive of and live out ecclesiopolitical matters for the next thousand years. Gelasius laid down a distinction between "two powers", which he called the "holy authority of bishops" (auctoritas sacrata pontificum) and the "royal power" (regalis potestas). These two powers were, he said, to be considered independent in their own spheres of operation, yet able and required to work cooperatively together in whatever areas of jurisdictional overlap might arise. This principle, sometimes called political dualism, formed the backdrop for all of the Church-State controversies throughout the Middle Ages. Indeed, various positions held by both the Church and the State frequently veered away from the "mean" set down by Gelasius, and thus tended to embrace equal and opposite extremes which often both fomented society-endangering controversy and prevented successful resolutions.

The text of Duo sunt1 reads as follows:

As you see, O august Emperor, there are two by which this world is principally governed: the authority of the sacred Pontiff, and the royal power. Between these two the greater burden is that of the priest, as indeed he will have to render an account for the kings of men regarding divine matters. A few small points on this:

§ 1. Among these things you know that you are to listen attentively to judgments from the priests, and not to those things which are rendered by your own will.

§ 2. Supported by many great customs and a good many authorities the Pontiffs have excommunicated both kings and emperors.

For instance, if a few specific examples of princes are required, [I offer these]. Pope Innocent excommunicated Emperor Arcadius because he had conspired to drive out St. John Chrysostom from his see. Also Ambrose, thought to be holy yet not the bishop of the Universal Church, did not seem to the other priests to be oppressive when he excommunicated Emperor Theodosius the Great for his faults and excluded him from the Church.

Ambrose indeed pointed out in his own writings that because gold is not of such great value if it is mixed with lead, how can the royal power be of higher dignity than the sacerdotal? He wrote this rule around the beginning of his pastorate: Brothers, honor the sublimity of the episcopate for nothing is able to be adequately compared with it. If the king is compared to the flashing of lightning and the prince to preeminence, they will be far inferior, just as if lead is compared to the glitter of gold. Obviously, since you see that the necks of kings and the princes of the nations should be submitted to the priests, and indeed the kings ought to pledge with their mouths that they will believe themselves to be established by the priests's prayers.

[MorphRC]

[url="http://www.societaschristiana.com/Encyclopedia/D/DuoSunt.html"]http://www.societaschristiana.com/Encyclop.../D/DuoSunt.html[/url]