Pope Vigilius and the 3 chapters

[eric3141]

An Eastern Orthodox fellow is challenging papal infallibility based on the controversy surrounding Pope Vigilius and the 3 chapters. Can you point me to a reliable, orthodox defense against this?

 

[John_Taylor]

An Eastern Orthodox fellow is challenging papal infallibility based on the controversy surrounding Pope Vigilius and the 3 chapters. Can you point me to a reliable, orthodox defense against this?

From: THE DUTY TO RESIST by Atila Sinke Guimaraes
Taken from The Remnant, March 15, March 31, April 15, 2000

6. Vigilius was a kind of puppet of the Empress Theodora. He was the one who gave the order to Belisarius, one of the principal generals of Justinian, to depose Pope Silverius (536-537). Silverius was exiled to Asia, returned to Rome, and then newly exiled to the island of Palmaria where he died, abandoned. After Silverius, Vigilius himself was raised to the Pontifical Throne (537-555). At that time the question of the “Three Chapters” was a much-discussed topic. In summary, this referred to a position in relation to the Council of Chalcedon, which condemned the heresy of Eutiques, monophysitism. To condemn the “Three Chapters” was equivalent to condemning the Council and approving monophysitism.

Reply by I. Shawn McElhinney
Refutation of Appendix 1 (And the Credibility of Atila Sinke Guimaraes)

No it was not. And in condemning the Three Chapters, Constantinople II also upheld Chalcedon in the process. Or as Monsignor Phillip Hughes noted in his work “A History of the General Councils” when discussing Constantinople II:

The Emperor Justinian wanted the Council of Chalcedon to be condemned. At first, Pope Vigilius took a firm attitude. For this, he was made prisoner and exiled to Constantinople. After years of struggle, in which he suffered ridicule and physical violence, Vigilius gave in. On the orders of Justinian, a new council of Constantinople was convoked and the "Three Chapters" were condemned, that is to say, it adhered to monophysitism. Vigilius, who wanted to end this exile, asked Justinian permission to return to Rome. The Emperor made the condition that the Pope approve the decisions of the recent Council. Vigilius turned from his former orthodox position, wrote a letter of retraction, condemned the "Three Chapters" and launched an anathema against its authors. After this reconciliation with Justinian, Vigilius was rewarded with concessions that would have allowed him to reorganize the government of Rome and Italy. He left Constantinople, but he never carried out his plans, because he died before he reached Rome…

Just a brief interjection here before resuming with Msr. Hughes source.It is interesting to note how strange (since Constantinople II is recognized as Ecumenical by the West and the East and General Councils have always been recognized as infallible) that Mr. Guimaraes - and presumably the “Hammer triplets” for using his article agree with him - are claiming that two General Councils contradicted!!! Did they??? No they did not but to realize how will involve actual reading up and studying which are anathema to the “trad” who prefers to read a Davies book (or the garbage of Fr. Wathen) and then strut around as self-anointed “experts.”

(continued)

 

[John_Taylor]

Refutation of Appendix 1 (And the Credibility of Atila Sinke Guimaraes) by I. Shawn McElhinney

matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendix1.html

(continued)

With the eighth sentence the council [II Constantinople] comes to grips with the Monophysites, for it quotes verbatim the much controverted formula of St. Cyril,[27]** AND DETERMINES THE, CATHOLIC, SENSE IN WHICH HE USED IT, A SENSE THAT FITS WITH EPHESUS AS WELL AS WITH CHALCEDON.** This formula, it is now said, should not be understood to mean that the unity by which Christ is one being is the effect of a fusion between the divine and the human natures; the two natures remain two natures in the union, and the union is a union in a single person. Those who thus fuse the natures are as erroneous as those who speak of them as separate beings. Both are condemned by this sentence 8. It is the turn of the Nestorians again in 9–their practical direction is condemned, that Christ should be worshipped with a double worship simultaneously directed, first to the divine in Him, and then to the human. To balance this the single adoration of Christ in the sense of Eutyches-- i.e., as though before the adorer there were present God alone and this being, neither man nor God, who cannot be adored–is also condemned. The doctrinal decision of Pope John II, twenty years ago now, is repeated in sentence 10; it is correct to say, “One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh for us.” The eleventh sentence strings together a list of heresiarchs from Origen to Eutyches, and with all others condemned already “by the four holy synods”[28] condemns them and their supporters anew…

Chalcedon was not in conflict with Ephesus. The fourteen "chapters" of the council just dissolved seem to have established this clearly, with, if anything, a little more favour for the Alexandrian way of speech than that of Antioch. But had one alleged conflict been extinguished only for another to spring from its ashes? Was the council just dissolved at cross purposes with Chalcedon? The West seems to have thought so, and the action of those who for years deprecated the condemnation of the Three Chapters had been compromised by this fear that Chalcedon must, thereby, be compromised inevitably. And certainly Askidas and his party--the crypto-Monophysites of the court--hoped that Chalcedon must, thereby, be so compromised. But this was never any part of the emperor's plan. How could he have intended such a wholesale surrender? Nor, among the great majority of the eastern bishops-- better equipped to deal with these matters than their Latin brethren--did the name of Chalcedon suffer. As to the Monophysites, they already, and for a hundred years, had the worst possible opinion of Chalcedon. Moreover--as we, with what is called "hindsight," can so easily see--the Monophysites had by now washed their hands of the Catholic Church, and what its councils decided would no longer have any interest for them." [11]

As is obvious, Vigilius condemned the 3 Chapters as they related to Cyril’s work AFTER CONSTANTINOPLE II HAD SET FORTH THE PROPER SENSE OF CYRIL’S WRITINGS THAT HARMONIZED EPHESUS AND CHALCEDON!!! For crying out loud you ignorant and obstinate “trads”, get an education before you start throwing around citations the meanings of which you clearly do not understand. Pope Vigilius changed his mind on the condemnations because the SENSE of the condemnations had changed from what it was previously.

 

[John_Taylor]

Father John A. Hardon, S.J. Archives
therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_031.htm

Vigilius’ Change of Mind. When the Emperor Justinian published a decree against the Nestorian Three Chapters of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, Pope Vigilius (537-555) began by refusing to condemn the Three Chapters, and then in 548 he did so, while at the same time confirming the Council of Chalcedon which the Nestorian document compromised. At once the bishops of north Italy, Dalmatia and Africa were furious. When Justinian asked for a general council, Virgilius withdrew the condemnation. Later on, when the Council of Constantinople met and reprobated the Three Chapters, Vigilius returned to his first position and concurred in the council’s action. He died on his way back to Rome after an “exile” of nine years. In all this vacillation, there was no intention on Vigilius’ part to make a doctrinal pronouncement. If he failed, it was in firmness of character on a matter of expediency, whether it is prudent to condemn writers long since dead and provoke a hostile reaction that can be avoided. But here, as in the case of Liberius, the pope was under such pressure from both sides as would account for his instability without excusing it, and deprive him of that liberty of action which is the conditio sine qua non of any dogmatic definition.

 

[John_Taylor]

Infallibility - From the Catholic Encyclopedia
catholicity.com/encyclopedia/i/infallibility.html

…seems the issue must be judged according to the conditions necessary for papal infallibility to be operative. In the instance of Pope Vigilius, the lack of freedom from violent outside coercion would explain his vacillation and prevented the exercise of papal infallibility in, I suppose, much like a “shot gun wedding” prevents the free will needed for a valid exchange of wedding vows.

please let us know what you eventually conclude.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[Randy_Carson]

An Eastern Orthodox fellow is challenging papal infallibility based on the controversy surrounding Pope Vigilius and the 3 chapters. Can you point me to a reliable, orthodox defense against this?

Patrick Madrid covered this in his book, “Pope Fiction” and the audio series of his talks from the book are available in the Electronic Sticky section of this forum. You can download and listen to Patrick’s MP3 files. I think it’s talk 11 or 12, but that’s a rough guess…I was listening to this exact talk in my car today.

If I remember correctly, Vigilius was not a model of heroism under pressure, but the fact that his actions were taken under duress absolves him of any guilt. There was no violation of papal infallibility since Vigilius was not acting freely.