No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

[Vico]

…

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.
…

Not posted yet from that Leter is Pope Vigilius statement that he was always in doctrinal agreement with the prior councils:No one is ignorant of the scandals which the enemy of the human race has stirred up in all the world: so that he made each one with a wicked object in view, striving in some way to fulfill his wish to destroy the Church of God spread over the whole world, not only in his own name but even in ours and in those of others to compose diverse things as well in words as in writing; in so much that he attempted to divide us who, together with our brethren and fellow bishops, are stopping in this royal city, and who defend with equal reverence the four synods, and sincerely persist in the one and the same faith of those four synods, by his sophistries and machinations he tried to part from them; so that we ourselves who were and are of the same opinion as they touching the faith, went apart into discord, brotherly love being despised.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

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:

No, I didn’t omit it because I knew that this little snippet is the whole basis for the non-Catholic position. Interestingly, there is scholarly dispute whether this portion of the Acts is genuine. I don’t know why they dispute it, but I know why I would.

Following the part you quoted about striking the name of the Pope from the diptychs, the Fathers of the Council supposedly wrote this:
“The Holy Synod said: What has seemed good to the most pious emperor is congruent to the labours which he bears for the unity of the churches. Let us preserve unity to the Apostolic See of the most holy Church of ancient Rome, carrying out all things according to the tenor of what has been read.”

Let me ask you, Cavaradossi: How does one maintain unity with a See if you have anathematized its legitimate bishop? That goes against the entire ecclesiology of the Catholic Church from the beginning since St. Ignatius of Antioch. A See is ontologically connected to its bishop. If the bishop is heretical, you depose and replace him to preserve the sanctity of the See. But this was never done with Pope Vigilius. And further, you have yet to give a valid reason why they appealed to his name POSITIVELY in their Final Sentence, as one who had often condemned in word and deed the Three Chapters.

You have yet to explain how it is that Pope Vigilius was not deposed if he was anathematized by the Council (as you have claimed). You have yet to explain how the Fathers of the Council could have appealed to Pope Vigilius’ name positively in their Final Sentence if they had indeed anathematized him. Now you have another question to answer (bolded in red above). I hope you can answer these three questions, or just drop what is a rather untenable position.

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.

Already answered by brother Vico. The snippet you provided don’t stand up to the entire context. The entire context demonstrates that what Pope Vigilius meant was that they were at one in the Faith, but there were those who were using his writings to suggest otherwise and cause division. So he annuls his writings that were being misused by those who were sowing disunity in the Church. It was not as if he believed anything differently than the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum and was retracting those previous beliefs.

Given these things, it is clear that the proof-text which you have pulled from the sentence of the Council does not mean what you want it to mean. It is clear that what the fathers of the council meant by the small passage you have quoted is that they invited pope Vigilius to the council (and history shows of course that he did not show up or participate actively).

What I quoted specifically states that he was present at all the proceedings, not just invited and “did not show up.” It appears you are avoiding the plain text. I think you might be confusing Pope Vigilius’ well-known disapproval of the proceedings, and simply presumed he was not present at the proceedings. As the Acts of Session VII indicate, the Fathers regularly reported the proceedings to Pope Vigilius, so he was certainly fully involved.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

No, I didn’t omit it because I knew that this little snippet is the whole basis for the non-Catholic position. Interestingly, there is scholarly dispute whether this portion of the Acts is genuine. I don’t know why they dispute it, but I know why I would.

Following the part you quoted about striking the name of the Pope from the diptychs, the Fathers of the Council supposedly wrote this:
“The Holy Synod said: What has seemed good to the most pious emperor is congruent to the labours which he bears for the unity of the churches. Let us preserve unity to the Apostolic See of the most holy Church of ancient Rome, carrying out all things according to the tenor of what has been read.”

Let me ask you, Cavaradossi: How does one maintain unity with a See if you have anathematized its legitimate bishop? That goes against the entire ecclesiology of the Catholic Church from the beginning since St. Ignatius of Antioch. A See is ontologically connected to its bishop. If the bishop is heretical, you depose and replace him to preserve the sanctity of the See. But this was never done with Pope Vigilius. And further, you have yet to give a valid reason why they appealed to his name POSITIVELY in their Final Sentence, as one who had often condemned in word and deed the Three Chapters.

You have yet to explain how it is that Pope Vigilius was not deposed if he was anathematized by the Council (as you have claimed). You have yet to explain how the Fathers of the Council could have appealed to Pope Vigilius’ name positively in their Final Sentence if they had indeed anathematized him. Now you have another question to answer (bolded in red above). I hope you can answer these three questions, or just drop what is a rather untenable position.

Already answered by brother Vico. The snippet you provided don’t stand up to the entire context. The entire context demonstrates that what Pope Vigilius meant was that they were at one in the Faith, but there were those who were using his writings to suggest otherwise and cause division. So he annuls his writings that were being misused by those who were sowing disunity in the Church. It was not as if he believed anything differently than the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum and was retracting those previous beliefs.

What I quoted specifically states that he was present at all the proceedings, not just invited and “did not show up.” It appears you are avoiding the plain text. I think you might be confusing Pope Vigilius’ well-known disapproval of the proceedings, and simply presumed he was not present at the proceedings. As the Acts of Session VII indicate, the Fathers regularly reported the proceedings to Pope Vigilius, so he was certainly fully involved.

Blessings,
Marduk

Surely what they meant when they said that they were striking Vigilius from the diptychs but maintaining unity with Rome was just that. They would cease to commemorate Vigilius, but not break communion with the other clergy in Rome.

Also, I am almost positive that the passage you quoted out of context refers to Vigilius’ original condemnations in his judicatum. What they are saying is that he agreed to show up, but instead published the constitutm and refused to submit to the council, leading to him being struck from the diptychs. All accounts I have read describe Vigilius first giving assent to hold the council, but later withdrawing his assent. Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, says that Vigilius, “refused to participate.” The Catholic encyclopedia also supports my statement that Pope Vigilius defended the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia in his Constitutum, any defense of whom was amathematized in the sentence of the council which I produced several posts earlier.

newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Surely what they meant when they said that they were striking Vigilius from the diptychs but maintaining unity with Rome was just that. They would cease to commemorate Vigilius, but not break communion with the other clergy in Rome.

Nice theory, but falls flat on its face, given the fact that Western Christendom (apparently not knowing the theological nuances of the debate according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) refused to condemn the Three Chapters. It is useless for you to claim that the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum were willing to maintain communion with the Apostolic See when all the clergy in that See were on the side of Vigilius. It seems this claim that the Pope was struck from the diptychs must have been an interpolation of someone who did not understand the basic ecclesiology of the Church. You have not yet answered the original question. How do you maintain communion with a See while simultaneously anathemizing its orthodox bishop? Try again.

Also, I am almost positive that the passage you quoted out of context refers to Vigilius’ original condemnations in his judicatum.

What statements am I taking out of context? Please be specific.

What they are saying is that he agreed to show up, but instead published the constitutm and refused to submit to the council, leading to him being struck from the diptychs.

Where does the Final Sentence of the Fifth Council indicate that Pope Vigilius was struck from the diptychs? Please respond. You are depending completely on an excerpt of text that is not contained in the Final Sentence, an excerpt which likewise is not consistently contained in all the sources (i.e., the Emperor’s request that Pope Vigilius’ name be struck from the diptychs). Aside from that debatable excerpt, there is no indication anywhere else in the Council’s Acts that Pope Vigilius was actually anathematized or struck from the diptychs.

All accounts I have read describe Vigilius first giving assent to hold the council, but later withdrawing his assent.

To be more precise, he withdrew his assent to the holding of the Council under the terms of the Emperor, since the Council would not be representative of all of Christendom.

Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, says that Vigilius, “refused to participate.”

Yes, he refused to participate as a protest to the Emperor’s heavy-handed tactics which did not give equal representation to Western bishops. But that does not mean that when the ball got rolling, he did not intend to be part of the conciliar proceedings. After all, the council still needed his confirmation. In fact, the Pope gave his own judgment (the first Constitutum) in a collegial manner.

The Catholic encyclopedia also supports my statement that Pope Vigilius defended the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia in his Constitutum, any defense of whom was amathematized in the sentence of the council which I produced several posts earlier.

newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

Pope Vigilius’ Constitutum was promulgated before the Final Sentence. It followed very closely the results of the Council of Chalcedon. The only thing different from Chalcedon was the theological condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s doctrines, information no doubt obtained from the proceedings of the Fifth Council (proof positive that he was working with the Council Fathers, contrary to your claim). It was not until almost three weeks later that the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum promulgated its Final Sentence which gave a detailed analysis of the the doctrinal issues as well as their rationale for condemning persons who died at peace with the Church.

There was no difference between the Faith held by Pope Vigilius and that of the Fifth Ecum, so they had no basis upon which to condemn him. The only real issue was the condemnation of persons who died at peace with the Church. The Final Sentence evinces that this was a keen issue at the Council, probably brought about by Pope Vigilius’ own first Constitutum. The Fathers of the Fifth Ecum knew that the issues raised by the first Constitutum were legitimate, so they had to defend their position on the condemnation of the persons by appealing to prior sources.

You also have to remember that Pope Vigilius did not understand Greek. In his final Constitutum, he plainly admits that he was not aware of all the facts, and only after becoming aware of everything did he confirm the Council’s Sentence.

There is no basis to believe the claim that Pope Vigilius was anathematized by the Fifth Council. What we have is a case of the body working with their recognized head until consensus was reached.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Nice theory, but falls flat on its face, given the fact that Western Christendom (apparently not knowing the theological nuances of the debate according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) refused to condemn the Three Chapters. It is useless for you to claim that the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum were willing to maintain communion with the Apostolic See when all the clergy in that See were on the side of Vigilius. It seems this claim that the Pope was struck from the diptychs must have been an interpolation of someone who did not understand the basic ecclesiology of the Church. You have not yet answered the original question. How do you maintain communion with a See while simultaneously anathemizing its orthodox bishop? Try again.

What statements am I taking out of context? Please be specific.

Where does the Final Sentence of the Fifth Council indicate that Pope Vigilius was struck from the diptychs? Please respond. You are depending completely on an excerpt of text that is not contained in the Final Sentence, an excerpt which likewise is not consistently contained in all the sources (i.e., the Emperor’s request that Pope Vigilius’ name be struck from the diptychs). Aside from that debatable excerpt, there is no indication anywhere else in the Council’s Acts that Pope Vigilius was actually anathematized or struck from the diptychs.

To be more precise, he withdrew his assent to the holding of the Council under the terms of the Emperor, since the Council would not be representative of all of Christendom.

Yes, he refused to participate as a protest to the Emperor’s heavy-handed tactics which did not give equal representation to Western bishops. But that does not mean that when the ball got rolling, he did not intend to be part of the conciliar proceedings. After all, the council still needed his confirmation. In fact, the Pope gave his own judgment (the first Constitutum) in a collegial manner.

Pope Vigilius’ Constitutum was promulgated before the Final Sentence. It followed very closely the results of the Council of Chalcedon. The only thing different from Chalcedon was the theological condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s doctrines, information no doubt obtained from the proceedings of the Fifth Council (proof positive that he was working with the Council Fathers, contrary to your claim). It was not until almost three weeks later that the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum promulgated its Final Sentence which gave a detailed analysis of the the doctrinal issues as well as their rationale for condemning persons who died at peace with the Church.

There was no difference between the Faith held by Pope Vigilius and that of the Fifth Ecum, so they had no basis upon which to condemn him. The only real issue was the condemnation of persons who died at peace with the Church. The Final Sentence evinces that this was a keen issue at the Council, probably brought about by Pope Vigilius’ own first Constitutum. The Fathers of the Fifth Ecum knew that the issues raised by the first Constitutum were legitimate, so they had to defend their position on the condemnation of the persons by appealing to prior sources.

You also have to remember that Pope Vigilius did not understand Greek. In his final Constitutum, he plainly admits that he was not aware of all the facts, and only after becoming aware of everything did he confirm the Council’s Sentence.

There is no basis to believe the claim that Pope Vigilius was anathematized by the Fifth Council. What we have is a case of the body working with their recognized head until consensus was reached.

Blessings,
Marduk

I have provided plenty of scholarly work to support my assertion. I stand by my timeline, which you can find is corroborated by the Catholic Encyclopedia:

• The emperor had an agreement of some sort with Pope Vigilius to convene a council
• Pope Vigilius withdraws his assent when it becomes clear that Justinian does not wish to hold the council in the West or invite an even number of Eastern and Western bishops
• On the fifth of May, Justinian calls a council without Vigilius’ assent
• Vigilius did not participate
• He “remained faithful” to his decision not to participate (i.e., he did not participate even after the council started)
• On the 14th of May, he submitted to the Emperor a document, his Constitutum, signed by sixteen other bishops, in which he forbids the condemnation of the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, or Ibas.
• During the seventh session of the council, Vigilius’ name is struck from the diptychs
• The council releases its own judgment, declaring anathema upon the writings and person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, The writings of Theodoret, and the Letter of Ibas, and all those who would defend them.
• On the Emperor’s orders, Vigilius and other clergy who do not comply are to be banished to either upper Egypt or an island in the Propontis.
• The people of Rome, having repelled the Goths, request for the return of their bishop, to which Justinian agrees on the condition that Vigilius accept the will of the Council
• Vigilius agrees, sending on the eighth of December a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople (the letter quoted in my post above), and a second constitutum
• Vigilius dies before reaching Rome

newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

If you disagree with this timeline, then provide some scholarly resource which corroborates your version of events.

By the way, this article from the Catholic encyclopedia mentions that the reason why the acts’ authenticity was called into doubt was because some parts seem to be in favor of monothelitism. Nowhere does it call into question that Vigilius was struck from the diptychs.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

I have provided plenty of scholarly work to support my assertion. I stand by my timeline, which you can find is corroborated by the Catholic Encyclopedia:

• The emperor had an agreement of some sort with Pope Vigilius to convene a council
• Pope Vigilius withdraws his assent when it becomes clear that Justinian does not wish to hold the council in the West or invite an even number of Eastern and Western bishops
• On the fifth of May, Justinian calls a council without Vigilius’ assent
• Vigilius did not participate
• He “remained faithful” to his decision not to participate (i.e., he did not participate even after the council started)
• On the 14th of May, he submitted to the Emperor a document, his Constitutum, signed by sixteen other bishops, in which he forbids the condemnation of the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, or Ibas.
• During the seventh session of the council, Vigilius’ name is struck from the diptychs
• The council releases its own judgment, declaring anathema upon the writings and person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, The writings of Theodoret, and the Letter of Ibas, and all those who would defend them.
• On the Emperor’s orders, Vigilius and other clergy who do not comply are to be banished to either upper Egypt or an island in the Propontis.
• The people of Rome, having repelled the Goths, request for the return of their bishop, to which Justinian agrees on the condition that Vigilius accept the will of the Council
• Vigilius agrees, sending on the eighth of December a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople (the letter quoted in my post above), and a second constitutum
• Vigilius dies before reaching Rome

newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

If you disagree with this timeline, then provide some scholarly resource which corroborates your version of events.

I guess you are missing the point. Your timeline is fine. It’s your constant claim that Vigilius was anathematized that has no support from the sources. At best, you have a request from the Emperor to have his name removed (an excerpt of text that is conspicuously not contained in ALL the sources), but there is no indication ANYWHERE ELSE in the Acts that the removal was done or that he was anathematized.

By the way, this article from the Catholic encyclopedia mentions that the reason why the acts’ authenticity was called into doubt was because some parts seem to be in favor of monothelitism.

Stop avoiding the issue. The issue with the Monothelite portions was from a different part of the Acts, not the one we’re talking about.

Nowhere does it call into question that Vigilius was struck from the diptychs.

I see you still haven’t answered my question. Your argument is a fallacy called “appeal to authority.” I don’t care if the Catholic Encylopedia claims it. Show me something from the Acts of the Fifth that demonstrate that Pope Vigilius was actually anathematized. Where is his name mentioned with anathema in the Final Sentence? Certainly, other Ecum Councils had no problem anathematizing patriarchs by name. That’s a fourth question that you should think about, btw. Take all the time you want answering the questions. For now, your non-Catholic theory has no consistent logic behind it and is worthless as an apologetic.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

I guess you are missing the point. Your timeline is fine. It’s your constant claim that Vigilius was anathematized that has no support from the sources. At best, you have a request from the Emperor to have his name removed (an excerpt of text that is conspicuously not contained in ALL the sources), but there is no indication ANYWHERE ELSE in the Acts that the removal was done or that he was anathematized.

Stop avoiding the issue. The issue with the Monothelite portions was from a different part of the Acts, not the one we’re talking about.

I see you still haven’t answered my question. Your argument is a fallacy called “appeal to authority.” I don’t care if the Catholic Encylopedia claims it. Show me something from the Acts of the Fifth that demonstrate that Pope Vigilius was actually anathematized. Where is his name mentioned with anathema in the Final Sentence? Certainly, other Ecum Councils had no problem anathematizing patriarchs by name. That’s a fourth question that you should think about, btw. Take all the time you want answering the questions. For now, your non-Catholic theory has no consistent logic behind it and is worthless as an apologetic.

Blessings,
Marduk

No Marduk, you are avoiding the issue. Referring to a sourced article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is not an appeal to authority, it’s called substantiating a claim by showing that a scholarly work provides evidence that your claim is correct. So far, I do not think that you have provided any evidence to substantiate your claim that Vigilius was not struck from the diptychs.

 

[mardukm]

No Marduk, you are avoiding the issue. Referring to a sourced article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is not an appeal to authority, it’s called substantiating a claim by showing that a scholarly work provides evidence that your claim is correct. So far, I do not think that you have provided any evidence to substantiate your claim that Vigilius was not struck from the diptychs.

So why haven’t you answered the four questions I have asked you?

Appealing to scholarly work is a fallacy in terms of proving something in the art of rhetoric. You need to appeal to sources. You have yet to show me anywhere from the Acts, apart from the REQUEST by the Emperor (a request that is not contained in all the sources), that being struck from the diptychs was actually done.

In any case, please answer the four questions I asked:
(1) Since it was Traditional for Councils to depose Patriarchs who were in opposition to the doctrinal Decrees of Councils (e.g., Patriarchs Nestorius and Dioscorus), why was not Pope Vigilius deposed?
(2) Why would a Council in its Final Sentence posiitively appeal BY NAME to a Pope who it supposedly anathematized?
(3) How do you maintain communion with a See while simultaneously anathematizing its orthodox bishop?
(4) Where is Pope Vigilius’ name mentioned with anathema in the Final Sentence? Certainly, other Ecum Councils had no problem anathematizing patriarchs by name.

You claim I am avoiding the issue, but you have not provided any solid proof, and you keep avoiding answering these straight questions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

So why haven’t you answered the four questions I have asked you?

Appealing to scholarly work is a fallacy in terms of proving something in the art of rhetoric. You need to appeal to sources. You have yet to show me anywhere from the Acts, apart from the REQUEST by the Emperor (a request that is not contained in all the sources), that being struck from the diptychs was actually done.

In any case, please answer the four questions I asked:
(1) Since it was Traditional for Councils to depose Patriarchs who were in opposition to the doctrinal Decrees of Councils (e.g., Patriarchs Nestorius and Dioscorus), why was not Pope Vigilius deposed?
(2) Why would a Council in its Final Sentence posiitively appeal BY NAME to a Pope who it supposedly anathematized?
(3) How do you maintain communion with a See while simultaneously anathematizing its orthodox bishop?
(4) Where is Pope Vigilius’ name mentioned with anathema in the Final Sentence? Certainly, other Ecum Councils had no problem anathematizing patriarchs by name.

You claim I am avoiding the issue, but you have not provided any solid proof, and you keep avoiding answering these straight questions.

Blessings,
Marduk

Where is your proof for your position? I have provided more sources than you have on this matter. By the way, I have ordered via interlibrary loan the acts of the Second Council of Constantinople with related conciliar documents translated into English in their entirety. I will post more when more is available to me. I am sure, however, that the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this matter, which is quite well-sourced, probably presents an accurate picture of what happened.

 

[Sepp]

Where is your proof for your position? I have provided more sources than you have on this matter. By the way, I have ordered via interlibrary loan the acts of the Second Council of Constantinople with related conciliar documents translated into English in their entirety. I will post more when more is available to me. I am sure, however, that the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this matter, which is quite well-sourced, probably presents an accurate picture of what happened.

In fairness, I think Marduk is asking some important questions that aren’t answered in the texts mentioned in this thread. I still don’t understand how the council allegedly excommunicated the Pope but remained in communion with Rome. The only way I can imagine this making sense is if they deposed him, or if the clergy in Rome broke communion with Vigilius. But this did not happen, as far as I can tell.

How do you excommunicate a bishop but remain in communion with his followers…who are still in communion with him? This suggests to me that there is something seriously amiss with this story, even though I am not sure what the full answer is.

 

[Vico]

Sepp, this is the timeline of the Three Chapters and Pope Vigilius :

1. Emperor Justinian I edicted an anathematization of the Three Chapters. (543 A.D.)
2. Catholic theologians decided that some of the writings conclusions were based upon language misunderstandings.
3. Many eastern bishops were coerced to agree with Justinian I, with punishments to those that did not.
4. Vigilius could not decide upon the matter since he did not understand Greek well, and he and the entire West, deemed were in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites, if he agreed.
5. Vigilius issued Judicatum (548 A.D.) condemning the Three Chapters, but withdrew it.
6. Justinian pledged to a general council to decide the matter, with Pope Vigilius, but instead issued another edict as before (551 A.D.).
7. Pope Vigilius tried to get agreement to a council with good western representation, but Justinian would not agree.
8. A council did eventually meet, called by Justinian, without Vigilius, and condemned the Three Chapters. (553 A.D.)
9. Vigilius studied and then condemned the Three Chapters (554 A.D.) after 6 months in captivity, ratifying the council.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Sepp, this is the timeline of the Three Chapters and Pope Vigilius :

1. Emperor Justinian I edicted an anathematization of the Three Chapters. (543 A.D.)
2. Catholic theologians decided that some of the writings conclusions were based upon language misunderstandings.
3. Many eastern bishops were coerced to agree with Justinian I, with punishments to those that did not.
4. Vigilius could not decide upon the matter since he did not understand Greek well, and he and the entire West, deemed were in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites, if he agreed.
5. Vigilius issued Judicatum (548 A.D.) condemning the Three Chapters, but withdrew it.
6. Justinian pledged to a general council to decide the matter, with Pope Vigilius, but instead issued another edict as before (551 A.D.).
7. Pope Vigilius tried to get agreement to a council with good western representation, but Justinian would not agree.
8. A council did eventually meet, called by Justinian, without Vigilius, and condemned the Three Chapters. (553 A.D.)
9. Vigilius studied and then condemned the Three Chapters (554 A.D.) after 6 months in captivity, ratifying the council.

See what happens when politics and religion are mixed? And we’re still debating these consequences nearly 1,500 years later!

 

[Vico]

See what happens when politics and religion are mixed? And we’re still debating these consequences nearly 1,500 years later!

So what do you make of this from year 538 A.D., four years before his first edict to Anathemize the Three Chapters (it this authentic?).

THE CODE OF OUR LORD THE MOST SACRED EMPEROR JUSTINIAN:

 The following is the text of the letter of the Emperor Justinian,  Victorious, Pious, Happy, Renowned, Triumphant, always Augustus, to  John, Patriarch, and most Holy Archbishop of the fair City of Rome:

 With honor to the Apostolic See, and to your Holiness, which is, and  always has been remembered in Our prayers, both now and formerly, and honoring your  happiness, as is proper in the case of one who is considered as a father, We hasten to bring  to the knowledge of Your Holiness everything relating to the condition of the Church, as We  have always had the greatest desire to preserve the unity of your Apostolic See, and the  condition of the Holy Churches of God, as they [pg. 12] exist at the present time, that they may  remain without disturbance or opposition. Therefore, We have exerted Ourselves to unite  all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness, and hence the  questions which have at present arisen, although they are manifest and free from doubt,  and according to the doctrines of your Apostolic See, are constantly firmly observed and  preached by all priests, We have still considered it necessary that they should be brought  to the attention of Your Holiness. For we do not suffer anything which has reference to the  state of the Church, even though what causes difficulty may be clear and free from doubt,  to be discussed without being brought to the notice of Your Holiness, because you are the  head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way (as has already  been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your See.

biblelight.net/jus-code.htm

 

[ByzCathCantor]

So what do you make of this from year 538 A.D., four years before his first edict to Anathemize the Three Chapters (it this authentic?).

I’m not sure what you are asking me my friend. If the question is as simple as stated above parenthetically, I would answer by stating that I’m not a historian, but we know each other well enough by now from our exchanges here on the CAF that I do not doubt the authenticity of anything you would post.

That said, I made a general comment, which came to mind after reading the points comprising the chronology in your referenced post - politics and religion should never mix IMHO, yet it was a fact of life in those days after for centuries thereafter. We’re still sorting out the mess.

Yet in this rather interesting passage the Emperor Justinian, as a servant of God and the Holy Church, seems to amply recognize the Church of Rome and the Pontiff in a manner consistent with basic Catholic belief in the primacy of the chair of St. Peter. He confirms to having endeavored to “unite the priests of the East” and “subject them” to the Holy See. This seems to confirm a relationship at that time between the Churches that is somewhat more profound than primus inter pares.

Did I misinterpret here?

 

[Vico]

I’m not sure what you are asking me my friend. If the question is as simple as stated above parenthetically, I would answer by stating that I’m not a historian, but we know each other well enough by now from our exchanges here on the CAF that I do not doubt the authenticity of anything you would post.

That said, I made a general comment, which came to mind after reading the points comprising the chronology in your referenced post - politics and religion should never mix IMHO, yet it was a fact of life in those days after for centuries thereafter. We’re still sorting out the mess.

Yet in this rather interesting passage the Emperor Justinian, as a servant of God and the Holy Church, seems to amply recognize the Church of Rome and the Pontiff in a manner consistent with basic Catholic belief in the primacy of the chair of St. Peter. He confirms to having endeavored to “unite the priests of the East” and “subject them” to the Holy See. This seems to confirm a relationship at that time between the Churches that is somewhat more profound than primus inter pares.

Did I misinterpret here?

I agree with you that politics is very difficult in combination with religion. It does seem more than primus inter pares, Justinian I (reign 527-565) was exerting much political pressure to do what he believed was in the best interest of the faithful, yet after he recognizes the authority of the Bishop of Rome he then attempts to force him to agree with his own judgements on the Three Chapters.

CCC 1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22

 

[Cavaradossi]

Stop avoiding the issue. The issue with the Monothelite portions was from a different part of the Acts, not the one we’re talking about.

This is an excerpt from the book The Acts of Constantinople 553 in two volumes, translated with commentary by Richard Price, and published by the University of Liverpool in 2009.

The Greek text of the acts of 553 has been lost, and we are dependent on the Latin version. This has come down to us in two editions, the first preserved in a single ninth- or tenth-century manuscript (Codex Parsinius Lat. 16832), and the second primarily in the editio princeps produced by Laurentius Surius in 1567, based on a now lost manuscript. One incomplete manuscript of this second edition (the ninth-century Codex Sangallensis 572) survives independently and confirms the authenticity of Surius’ version. The first of these two editions is the original one, the one adopted in ACO, and the one translated here.

The second edition (of which the apparatus criticus of ACO 4.1 gives the variants from the first editions) is an early revision that reveals that some parts of the original text were soon found inopportune and embarrassing. The chief difference is that it omits a substantial part of Session VII (which was devoted to proving the duplicity of Pope Vigilius), namely, three secret documents in which Vigilius had assured Justinian and Theodora of his condemnation of the Three Chapters (VII. 6,7,11) and also the text of the last part of the session in which there was read out and accepted by the bishops a decree of Justinian deleting Vigilius’ name from the diptyches, as a penalty for his issuing the first Constitutum, forbidding the condmnation of the chapters. Another alteration in the text is an abridgement of the introductory address by the quaestor Constantine, explaining his presentation to the council of the documents relating to Vigilius: in the abridged version the reference to the first Constitutum (the only one in the entire acts) is deleted. One may deduce that these changes were made after Vigilius had confirmed the condemnation of the chapters in his Second Letter to Eutychius of Constantinople and his second Constitutum; his first Constitutum could now be consigned to oblivion and his exclusion from the diptychs annulled. This was a tactful rewriting of the history of the council, to remove traces of the conflict between the pope and the council fathers. The most probable date for the production of this second edition is soon after the issuing of the second Constitutum, when the attitude of Vigilius to the work of the council was still of prime importance, which it ceased to be after his death in 555, since his successors stressed the authority of the council rather than the belated consent of a now discredited pope.

A terminus ante quem for the production of the Latin versions is provided by subsequent citation: Vigilius’ second Constitutum shows knowledge of the Latin version of the council’s canons condemning the Three Chapters, while the first citation of the Latin version of other parts of the text occurs in Pelagius II’s Third Letter to the bishops of Istria, dating to the 580s. But one may surely argue that once the second edition had appeared there would have been no motive to translate the first, in which case the original Latin translation can be brought back to the immediate aftermath of the council; to this one may add that in style and competence it is so close to the Latin versions of the Acts of Chalcedon, produced under Justinian, that it is plausible to date it no later. The production of the Latin version of the second edition is also likely to have followed hard on the appearance of the Greek.

The original Greek text is not, however, entirely lost. A short selection of excerpts survives, made up of the exchange of letters between Eutychius of Constantinople and Pope Vigilius that preceeded the council (Acts I. 10-11), the opening of the conciliar verdict that sums up the work of the council and introduces the canons (VIII. 4.1), the canons themselves (VIII. 5), and also the Second Letter of Vigilius to Eutychius of 8 December 553 in which he confirmed the condemnation of the Chapters. The editor of the ACO does not attempt to date this collection, noting simply that it must predate the twelfth-century manuscript in which it first appears. However, it is to be noted that its version of the canons, while displaying certain differences from that in the original acts as preserved in the Latin versions, agrees with that contained in the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649. This suggest an early date for the collection.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Continued…

Evidence for the transmission of the Greek acts is to be found in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 680-1, convened to condemn the monergist and monothelete heresies of asserting one energy (or operation) and one will in Christ. In its session III of 13 November 680 a copy of the acts of 553 was read out and found to contain three monergist or monothelete documents: inserted at the very beginning of the acts was a document entitled ‘A discourse by the sainted Archbishop Menas of Constantinople addressed to the most blessed Pope Vigilius of Rome on Christ’s possession of a single will’, while the acts of Session VII of 533 were found to contain two declarations of faith by Vigilius, one addressed to Justinian and the other to his consort Theodora, which professed belief that ‘Christ is one hypostasis and one person and one operation’. The manuscript was immediately examined by the emperor Constantine IV (chairing the council), his officials and the bishops, who found that the discourse of Menas came on pages that simply been stuck into the manuscript; it was agreed that a fuller examination of the latter would be carried out at an appropriate time. This further examination did not take place till Session XIV of 6 April 681, when it was found that the two declarations by Vigilius were likewise crude insertions into the manuscript read out in Session III; it was also revealed that on a scroll containing the acts solely of Session VII of 553 the offending additions to the text had been ‘written crosswise’ – that is, they were an addition written at right angles to the original text, presumably in the margin. As additional evidence of the spuriousness of all three inserted documents, a number of additional manuscripts were now produced that contained none of them.

What are we to make of all this? the discourse by Menas, whether genuine or a forgery, had no proper place in the acts of 553. but the evidence that the two declarations by Vigilius had likewise been clumsily stuck into the manuscript is more suspect: if this were so, why was the examination of the manuscript delayed for five months? It looks as if the evidence needed time to be concocted – by the simple device, it appears, of replacing a copy of the first edition, where the two declarations were integral parts of the text, by a copy of the second edition in which the two letters were indeed late insertions. And in fact, course, the two declarations were not spurious: they come in the first edition of the acts of 553 as preserved in our best Latin manuscript. On the other hand, the additions ‘written crosswise’ on the scroll must have been brief ones, which suggests that in this manuscript the two declarations were part of the original text but with the offending words ‘and one operation’ not in the main body of the text but in marginal annotation. But even if in this manuscript the phrase was an addition, this does not prove that it was absent from Vigilius’ original text, since a merely incidental use of monergist language is perfectly credible in the mid-sixth century. The manuscripts that did not contain any of the offensive documents prove othing, of course: they were clearly copies of the expurgated second edition discussed above. Taken together, the evidence suggests that the text produced and read out in November 680 was an authentic copy of the now lost first Greek edition of the acts of 553, in which, however, a monergist-monothelete profession attributed to Menas had been inserted. That there was delay before evidence could be produced to ‘prove’ the monergist version of Vigilius’ declarations a forgery, plus the preservation of this version independently in the extant Latin manuscript of the first edition, and also the confusion over whether the evidence was supposed to prove total forgery or simply interpolation, all suggests that Vigilus’ assertion of ‘one operation’ was original and authentic.

This should be sufficient evidence to show that you are mistaken on this matter. The authenticity of the seventh session was called into question because of a small sentence advocating monergism in a profession of faith given by Vigilius. Nowhere was it ever called into question because of Justinian demanding that Vigilius being struck from the diptychs. If you are so inclined, I can even supply the translated version of his statement of faith from the seventh session of the Latin first edition of the acts, where he says that Christ is, “one hypostasis, one person and one operation.” Furthermore, Price explains that the absence of Vigilius being struck from the diptychs in the Latin second edition is not unexpected because it was rather common for acts to be ‘cleaned up’ after the resolution of conflicts so as to make the proceedings look cleaner and more harmonious.

 

[Cavaradossi]

(1) Since it was Traditional for Councils to depose Patriarchs who were in opposition to the doctrinal Decrees of Councils (e.g., Patriarchs Nestorius and Dioscorus), why was not Pope Vigilius deposed?
(3) How do you maintain communion with a See while simultaneously anathematizing its orthodox bishop?

Price in his analysis of the Seventh Session answers both of these questions quite nicely.

As early as the first session (Acts I. 7.12) Justinian had informed the bishops of his intention to acquaint them with several of these documents (those in 8-10), to prove that Vigilius had repeatedly condemned the Three Chapters. What was novel, and represented a specific response to the Constitutum, was the addition of the secret documents with which Vigilius had supplied the emperor (6-7, 11): they proved that the issuing of the Constitutum involved not merely vacillation but perjury. This meant, as Constantine explained at the end of his speech, that the bishops could now proceed with confidence ‘to impose a rapid close on this case’ (4.7) by issuing a definitive condemnation of the chapters. The issue of Vigilius’ standing and status was not immediately raised.

Patriarch Eutychius responded by expressing thanks for documentation that proved Justinian’s consistency in defending orthodoxy, but postponed the issuing of a formal decree of condemnation of the Three Chapters till the next session (13). Constantine, however, declined to leave matters there. He delayed the close of the proceedings by revealing that during the reading a fresh decree had been received from Justinian (14), and this was now read out (15): it enacted that, because of the pope’s defence of the Three Chapters, which made him guilty of perjury and ‘alien to the catholic church’, i.e. a heretic, his name was to [be] removed from the diptychs read out at each celebration of the liturgy, though without a breach of communion with the Roman Church (16). Speaking in acceptance of the decree, Eutychius again avoided criticizing Vigilius, and emphasized that the churches were to remain in communion (17). Such a distinction between the see, still in communion with the other churches, and the holder of the see, excluded from that communion, implied that Vigilius was suspended from office. This fell short of a full condemnation, involving deposition and excommunication, that would have broken the communion between the eastern churches and the Roman see and thereby damaged the ecumenical status of the council. The decree is dated to 14 July, almost two months after the session, which shows that its wider publication was delayed, doubtless in the hope that Vigilius would capitulate and make its publication unnecessary. And indeed, when at the very end of the year, Vigilius finally assented to condemn the Three Chapters, a new edition of the conciliar acts was produced, from which this decree and other embarrassing documents contained in the record of Session VII, were expunged.

Here are the relevant sections from the acts, referenced in Price’s analysis:

1. The holy council said: ‘There has now been plainly revealed the mind, pleasing to God, of the pious and most serene emperor, who has always done and does everything to preserve the holy church and the orthodox doctrines, and who sent the documents that have just been read, and which themselves show (as has escaped no one) that the holy church of God was foreign from the beginning to the impiety of these chapters. The most Christian emperor will receive a reward for this from Christ the great God, who is wont to multiply them. We, however, who perform daily prayers for his serenity, shall with the help of God pronounce a conciliar sentence on the Three Chapters on another day.’

1. Constantine the most glorious quaestor said: ‘While I have been attending your holy council for the reading of the documents that have been made known to you, the most pious emperor has sent a decree to your holy council about the name of Vigilius, to the effect that in view of the impiety he has defended his name should no longer be included int he sacred diptychs of the church, and should neither be read out by you nor preserved either in the church of the imperial city or in the remaining churches entrusted to you and to the other bishops in [the territory of] the state assigned to him by God. Hearing this decree, may you again learn from it how greatly the most serene emperor cares for the unity of the holy churches and the purity of the holy mysteries.’

 

[Cavaradossi]

Continued:

1. The holy council said: ‘May the sacred decree be duly received and read.’

16 And when Stephen, deacon, notary and instrumentarius had received it, he read out:

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The emperor Caius Flavius Justinianus Almanicus, Gothicus, Francius, Germanicus, Anticus, Alanicus, Vandalicus, Africanus, pious, fortunate, glorious, triumphant victor, always Augustus, to the most blessed archbishops and patriarchs Eutychius of Constantinople, Apollinarius of Alexandria, Domnius of Theopolis, the most religious bishops Stephen, George and Damian, representing Eustochius the most blessed archbishop of Jerusalem and patriarch, and the other most religious bishops from various provinces, staying in this imperial city.

(1) The one salvation for Christians is with a pure heart and good conscience and unfeigned faith to come to the communion of the holy sacraments, for from this each person can hope for the forgiveness of sins, on receiving a share in the mysteries from the priests who worship God aright. This we have said because certain persons who advocate the impiety of Nestorius are trying to affix it to the Church of God by means of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his impious writings and also by means of the impious writings of Theodoret against the orthodox faith and the First Council of Ephesus and against the holy Cyril and his Twelve Chapters and in defence of the impious Nestorius and Theodore, and in addition by means of the impious letter that Ibas is said to have written to Mari the Persian, which in addition to other blasphemies contained in it calls heretics those who profess that God the Word became man, accuses the First Council of Ephesus of condemning Nestorius without trial and investigation, calls Cyril of holy memory a heretic and says that his Twelve Chapters are impious, and defends and praises the heretics Theodore and Nestorius, When a long time ago some matters were mooted about this, both your religiousness and numerous other priests judged the impiety of these chapters to be alien to the orthodox faith.

(2) When the most religious pope of Elder Rome arrived in this great city, all these things were made known to him. And when he had examined them, he both condemned them and declared his assurance in writings addressed both to ourselves and to our then spouse of pious memory; for we did not allow anyone who did not condemn this impiety to receive inviolable communion from him or from anyone whomsoever. He also swore dread oaths in writing that he would continue with the same purpose, condemning and anathematizing the aforesaid Three Chapters and would not attempt anything in any way or at any time to rebut the condemnation of the aforesaid impious Three Chapters. Moreover he often condemned the impious Three Chapters orally in the presence of most glorious officials and most religious bishops, as many of you who assembled know. He continued so acting for seven years. Afterwards letters passed between you and him, in which you mutually agreed to meet together and compose a condemnation of the aforesaid chapters in council. But afterwards, when invited both by us and by your religious council, he refused to meet in common, and contradicted his own intention by defending the tenets of the followers of Theodore and Nestorius. Moreover he made himself alien to the catholic church by defending the impiety of the aforesaid chapters, separating himself from your communion

(3) since therefore he has acted in this way, we have pronounced that his name is alien to Christians and is not to be read out in the sacred diptychs, lest we be found in this way sharing in the impiety of Nestorius and Theodore. Accordingly we earlier made this known to you by word of mouth, but now we inform you in writing through our [officials, that] his name is no longer to be included in the sacred diptychs. We ourselves, however, preserve unity with the apostolic see, and it is certain that you also will guard it. For the change to the worse in Vigilius or in anyone else cannot harm the peace of the churches. May the Godhead keep you safe for many years, holy and most religious fathers.

Issued on the day before the Ides of July at Chalcedon in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of the lord Justinian perpetual Augustus and in the twelfth year after the consulship of the most illustrious Basil.

1. The holy council said: ‘What has now seemed good to the most pious emperor is consonant with the labors he has borne for the unity of the holy churches. Let us therefore preserve unity with the apostolic see of the sacrosanct church of elder Rome, transacting everything according to the tenor of the texts that have been read. On the case before us let what we have already resolved proceed.’

 

[Cavaradossi]

(2) Why would a Council in its Final Sentence posiitively appeal BY NAME to a Pope who it supposedly anathematized?

They are not appealing by name to Pope Vigilius, this is a misinterpretation, probably based on the rather poor translation given in Philip Schaff text.

Price in his analysis of the Eighth Session summarizes the sentence in this manner:

There was first read out by a senior notary a summary of the work of the council (4), formally, we may imagine, the work of the chairman, Eutychius of Constantinople, but clearly with the assistance of Theodore Ascidas, since the summary relates closely to Ascidas’ own presentation of the case against the chapters in Sessions V and VI. It starts with repeating the favourite claim of Justinian’s, that condemnation of the chapters had been made necessary by machinations of the Nestorians (4.2). It then turns to Pope Vigilius, who is again criticized for failing to take part in the council, leaving the council with no option but to proceed without him (4.6). Vigilius’ name is stripped of all honorifics, including his papal title; even though he had not been formally deposed, the implication was that, if he refused to yield to the council, deposition would swiftly follow. Vigilius’ insistence on his authority to decide matters of the faith on his own, a traditional papal claim, is directly challenged by the statement, ‘It is not permissible in the case of the faith for anyone to anticipate the judgement of the Church in her totality, since each person needs the help of his neighbour’ (4.5).

Here is the relevant portion of the sentence

(3) It happened that Vigilius was staying in this imperial city and ought to have taken part in everything that was mooted concerning these Three Chapters, and had often condemned them both orally and in writing; afterwards he also agreed in writing to attend the council and discuss these Three Chapters together with us, so that we might all produce in common a decree corresponding to the orthodox faith. So our most pious emperor, in accordance with what had been resolved among u s, urged both Vigilius and ourselves to meet together, since it is appropriate for priests to impose a common solution on common problems. Accordingly, we necessarily besought his reverence to fulfil his written promises, saying that it was not right that the cause of stumbling arising from these Three Chapters should increase and thereby unsettle the church of God. But when, although often invited both by us all and in addition by the most glorious officials sent to him by the most pious emperor, he postponed heeding these requests and admonitions and attending, we recalled to his memory the great example of the apostle sand the traditions of the fathers. For even though individual apostles abounded with the grace of the Holy Spirit so that they did not need the advice of others over what had to be transacted, yet they had no wish to decide in any other way the question that was mooted, whether the Gentiles out to be circumcised, before they met together and each of them confirmed his statements from the testimonies of the divine scriptures. Accordingly it was in common that they all pronounced judgement on the matter, writing to the Gentiles and stating in a declaration that 'when we all assembled together it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose no other burden on you except these necessary things, that you abstain from what has been offered to idols, from blood from what has been strangled, and from fornication

(4) The holy fathers also who convened at various times in the holy four councils followed ancient precedent and decreed in common on the heresies and problems that had arisen, since it is certain that it is through joint examination, when there is expounded what needs to be discussed on both sides, that the light of truth dispels the darkness of lies.

(5) For neither is it permissible in the case of the faith for anyone to anticipate the judgement of the church in her totality, since each person needs the help of his neighbour, as Solomon says in Proverbs, ‘A brother who provides help to his brother will be raised up like a fortified city, and is strong like a kingdom with foundations,’ and again he says in Ecclesiastes, ‘Two are better than one, and they have a good reward for their labour, because if one falls his comrade will raise him up; and woe to that single man when he falls and there is no second man to raise him up,’ and again, ‘Even if one man would prevail, two resist him, and a triple cord is not easily broken.’ And the Lord himself says, ‘Verily I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about any matter for which you ask, it will be given to you by my Father in heaven, for wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there am I with them in the midst of them.’

(6) when, however, even after mention of examples of this kind he postponed meeting together with us, we took to heart the apostle’s warning that ‘each person will render and account of himself to God,’ and were in fear both of the judgement with which those are threatened who cause offence to one of the little ones – how much more when those offended are the most Christian emperor and whole congregations and churches – and also of what was uttered by God to Paul, ‘Do not fear, but speak and do not keep silence, because I am with you and no one will be able to harm you.’ Accordingly we assembled together and before anything else professed in summary that we hold the faith that our Lord Jesus Christ true God handed down to his holy apostles and through them to the holy churches, and which the holy fathers and doctors of the church who came after them handed down to the congregations entrusted to them.