Getting back to (^ this) original question …
The Bishop of Rome accepts or rejects the conciliar decisions without need to be present, or even to have legates. Historically this occurred with the local eastern council in 381.
It doesn’t exist, not from a Council at least, if some Bishops or even Bishops said such things some times, maybe, possible, I’ve read many such quotes, at one time Pope Leo was flattered by the Greeks so much (in order to get him to agree on the Canon 28) that he wanted to capture the moment and claim supremacy and put them to the test to see if they mean what they say…well… the results were that they turned their backs without saying a word and they went ahead with the 28th Canon anyhow.
How could a council at which so many bishops excommunicated the reigning pope ever become ecumenical by the consent of the man holding that office at the time or later on?
My response would be the same. How many bishops can support Arianism? Just because a Bishop, or Bishops, does something wrong does not make it a matter of faith. That’s why conciliar documents or early teachings are all I am concerned with, because churchmen’s actions are often worthless, sinful, or ambigous.
I understand. But if what the bishops did at the gathering in question was so sinful, why do we now call it the fifth ecumenical council? The pope should have vetoed the bishops’ erroneous decisions; right-thinking clergy and laity should have followed his lead in condemning their mistakes and sins; another council should have been held to discuss the matter (cf. the 449 Robber Council vs. the 451 Council of Chalcedon).
That’s definitely not a declaration of a council, nor is it an affirmation that a council cannot be ecumenical without a pope presiding. As it was pointed out earlier in this thread, the First Council of Constantinople eventually reached ecumenical status, even though it was conducted without any involvement of the pope.
All right. What positive evidence exists for the pope playing a vital role before, during, and/or after the fifth council? Examining potential text- and event-based early-church support for the modern papacy is so tedious because of (1) the widespread use of flowery language in letters between clerics and among hierarches and emperors, and (2) the opaque character of the motives of people living over a millennium ago in very different political and theological circumstances.
This argument on whether or not pope Vigilius was excommunicated has come up several times on this board. Here are the facts behind the matter: firstly, pope Vigilius wrote concerning the Three Chapters his Constitutum in which he defended the orthodoxy of the Letter of Ibas and declared that neither Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, or Ibas should be anathematized in person; secondly, the Council anathematized those who “have written or do write in defence of [the Three Chapters or the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia].” It is my opinion that this statement was almost certainly aimed at Pope Vigilius, who defended the orthodoxy of the Letter of Ibas and the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia in his Constitutum. Others may interpret the facts differently, of course, but it seems rather self-evident to me.
The first council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) was ratified by Pope Vigilius when he ratified the second council of Constantinople (~554 A.D.).
But we also see that First Constantinople was declared ecumenical by the Council of Chalcedon, which seemed to incur no protest from the legates of Pope Leo I.
I could not find any verification of that. The Catholic Encyclopedia has:
Interesting.
Catholic: … Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second “Constitutum” of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. …The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites.
Our Eastern Orthodox brother typically does not tell the whole story, or perhaps it is just a matter of his own sources being rather bias in its reporting of the facts: Here are the full and actual facts of the matter:
How does a Council posiitively BY NAME appeal to one it supposedly anathematized?
You have omitted the part of the story where Vigilius was struck from the diptychs for his defense of the Three Chapters. From the seventh session of the Council:Here is the Final Sentence of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and its statements on Pope Vigilius (given several months before the Pope finally confirmed the Acts of the Council):
“And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in the royal city was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters, that a suitable definition of the right faith might be set forth by us all.”
Gee, no mention of an anathema on Pope Vigilius here.
It is also a fact that Patriarchs who were judged to be in opposition to Ecum Councils were DEPOSED (e.g., Nesotorius and Pope St. Dioscorus of Alexandria). Was Pope Vigilius deposed? If he was supposedly anathematized (as some EO like to pretend), why was he not deposed? Brother Trebor, that’s a question you have to seriously consider before granting any validity to the non-Catholic rhetoric.
Blessings,
Marduk
Now how about a quotation straight from Pope Vigilius’ pen after he decided that approving of the council was better than being struck from the diptychs:
This isn’t just a letter in which pope Vigilius approves of the council’s actions, this is a full-blown retraction of his prior defense of the Three Chapters. Even he himself admits the possibility that he wrote in defense of the Three Chapters.
The very first ecumenical council of the Church was held in Saint James’ diocese in Jerusalem, which His Holiness Saint Peter presided over. When he spoke all the rest “fell silent”; that is, they talked, he listened and decided.