Pope Vigilius contracitory Ex Cathedra Statement and Excommunicated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Livenotonevil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Livenotonevil

Guest
Pope Vigilius, issued his Constitutum, in which he declared the innocence of Ibas and Theodore, and condemned some of the writings of Theodoret
concluding with:


“We ordain and decree that it be permitted to no one who stands in ecclesiastical order or office, to write or bring forward, or undertake, or teach anything contradictory to the contents of this Constitutum in regard to the three chapters, or, after this declaration, begin a new controversy about them. And if anything has already been done or spoken in regard of
the three chapters in contradictions of this our ordinance, by anyone whomsoever, this we declare void by the authority of the apostolic see.”

In addition to disobeying the Pope’s direct “orders,” the 5th Ecumenical Council stated:
“If anyone shall defend that letter which Ibas is said to have written to Maris the Persian, in which he denies that the Word of God incarnate of Mary, the Holy Mother of God and ever-virgin, was made man, but says that a mere man was born of her, whom he styles a Temple, as though the Word of God was one Person and the man another person; in which letter also he reprehends St. Cyril as a heretic, when he teaches the right faith of Christians, and charges him with writing things like to the wicked Apollinaris. In addition to this he vituperates the First Holy Council of Ephesus, affirming that it deposed Nestorius without discrimination and without examination. The aforesaid impious epistle styles the XII. Chapters of Cyril of blessed memory, impious and contrary to the right faith and defends Theodore and Nestorius and their impious teachings and writings. If anyone therefore shall defend the aforementioned epistle and shall not anathematize it and those who defend it and say that it is right or that a part of it is right, or if anyone shall defend those who have written or shall write in its favour, or in defence of the impieties which are contained in it, as well as those who shall presume to defend it or the impieties which it contains in the name of the Holy Fathers or of the Holy Synod of Chalcedon, and shall remain in these offenses unto the end: let him be anathema.”

To which Pope Vigilius responded:
“And further we annul and evacuate by this present written definition of ours whatever has been said by me (a me) or by others in defense of the aforesaid Three Chapters.”

How does this not disprove Papal Infallibility?
 
Last edited:
In the third place, infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree: (a) The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal. (b) Then it is only when in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV). (c) Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see Theological Definition). These are well-recognized formulae by means of which the defining intention may be manifested. (d) Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church, to demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei), according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.
Click to expand...
 
Note what papal infallibility applies to. There have only been 2 ex cathedra statements in the last 200 years. They are rare. They must apply to all Christians, so as to by the entire church, and they must be concerning a doctrine in itself. The pope must be acting in his supreme role as successor to Peter and pastor of the entire Christian people.

I’m not totally familiar with the event you’re addressing, but I’ve quickly researched it enough to know that this was not an excercise of papal infallibility. There was no ex cathedra statement. And the pope was not binding the entire church to a doctrinal definition.
 
Last edited:
This demonstrates, that, regardless of human fallibility, the Holy Spirit wins out in the Catholic faith. The gift of infallibility is given to preclude error from entering the faith, and Vigilius was quite effectively stopped from doing so. A similar situation occurred between Peter and Paul in Galatians 2. The point is that the head of the church was corrected, acknowledged it, and the truth was upheld.
 
Vigilius’s decree is not a definitive judgment as to any doctrine. He feared that the Three Chapters controversy would confuse and distract from the judgment of the Council of Chalcedon and therefore refused to let it be subject to debate. The Emperor Justinian was urging the condemnation of the Three Chapters which were ambiguous at best (leaning towards Nestorianism at worst). He put a lot of duress on both Vigilius and the bishops of the East. While the Three Chapters could rightly be condemned, Vigilius’ main concern was protecting the integrity of Chalcedon which Justinian was trying to undermine to please the monophysites–Vigilius saw a strong condemnation of the Three Chapters as potentially overshadowing the Chalcedonian definition (rather than keeping it equal to Ephesus).

Vigilius ultimately relented and confirmed the acts of the Council (Constantinople II).

There was no reversal as to any truth (e.g. he did not definitively judge Nestorianism to true and then definitively judge it to be false–that’s the kind of the thing that would disprove papal infallibility).
 
Last edited:
Which fills all the criteria of an Ex Cathedra statement as defined by Vatican I. If this isn’t an Ex Cathedra statement, what is?

Emperor Justinian (who is a Saint in the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Catholic Churches)
responded “I invited you to take measures in common with the other patriarchs and bishops with respect to the three chapters. You have refused this, and now wish, for yourself alone, to give a judgment in writing. But, if you have, in this, condemned the three chapters, I have no need of this new document, for I have from you many others of the same content. If, however, you have, in this document, departed from earlier declarations, you have condemned yourself.”

(Which seems to suggest Justinian had no conception whatsoever of Papal Supremacy or Papal Infallibility).

The Fifth Ecumenical Council, composed of entirely Eastern anti-Three Chapter bishops, then proceeded on to discuss about the Three Chapters:

“When, for example, Vigilius, Pope of Old Rome, came hither, he, in answer to our questions, repeatedly anathematised in writing the Three Chapters, and confirmed his steadfastness in this view by much, even by the condemnation of his deacons, Rusticus and Sebastian. We possess still his declarations in his own hand. Then he issued his Judicatum, in which he anathematised the Three Chapters, with the words, Et quoniam, etc. You know that he not only deposed Rusticus and Sebastian because they defended the Three Chapters, but also wrote to Valentinian, bishop of Scythia, and Aurelian, bishop of Arles, that nothing might be undertaken against the Judicatum. When you afterwards came hither at my invitation, letters were exchanged between you and Vigilius in order to a common assembly. But now he had altered his view, would no longer have a synod, but required that only the three patriarchs and one other bishop (in communion with the Pope and the three bishops about him) should decide the matter. In vain we sent several commands to him to take part in the synod. He rejected also our two proposals, either to call a tribunal for decision, or to hold a smaller assembly, at which, besides him and his three bishops, every other patriarch should have place and voice, with from three to five bishops of his diocese.”

“Constantine, the most glorious Quæstor, said: While I am still present at your holy council by reason of the reading of the documents which have been presented to you, I would say that the most pious Emperor has sent a minute (formam), to your Holy Synod, concerning the name of Vigilius, that it be no more inserted in the holy diptychs of the Church, on account of the impiety which he defended. Neither let it be recited by you, nor retained, either in the church of the royal city, or in other churches which are entrusted to you and to the other bishops in the State committed by God to his rule. And when you hear this minute, again you will perceive by it how much the most serene Emperor cares for the unity of the holy
churches and for the purity of the holy mysteries.”
 
Here is how the First Vatican Council defined it:
…we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
Click to expand...
It’s a logical deduction from the doctrine as to the general infallibility of the whole Church and the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Essentially, the Pope needs to be laying down the law of belief for the whole Church–to be giving the final say.

Here’s an example–this is a good one for comparison because Benedict XII had to issue it to end confusion caused by some opinions his predecessor, John XXII, proposed in some sermons (but nowhere giving any kind of definitive judgment on the whole Church). As a result, Benedict XII had to definitively confirm the law of faith for the whole Church.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b12bdeus.htm

Nowhere in the Three Chapters controversy did Vigilius do this. In my previous post, at the end, I gave you an example of what you are looking for (but which you won’t find).

continued…
 
Last edited:
continued from above…

As to the rest of your post, Justinian of course wanted himself to be supreme in these matters–but the bishops there didn’t see it that way ultimately.

The controversy centered around the the fact that Vigilius in his earlier judgments (which were most likely under duress and/or forged by the deacon Pelagius anyway) did not condemn the Three Chapters in their entirety on doctrinal grounds. He only condemned some Nestorian propositions as well as some individual statements of Theodore (without impugning his person), but not Theodoret or Ibas. Nor did he excommunicate on doctrinal grounds those who either condemned or supported the three chapters, but instead treated it as a matter of freedom (until after he ratified the Council, of course).

As I said in my prior post, Vigilius’ main concern was protecting the integrity of Chalcedon which the Emperor Justiniun was trying to undermine to please the monophysites–he saw a strong condemnation of the Three Chapters as potentially overshadowing the Chalcedonian definition (rather than keeping it equal to Ephesus). It was Justinian who was urging the condemnation of the Three Chapters which were ambiguous at best (leaning towards Nestorianism at worst). He put a lot of duress on both Vigilius and the bishops of the East.

The Council was convened by the emperor, but the bishops needed Vigilius to come (knowing what was needed for their decisions to have real authority), but he was fearful of doing so since no Western bishops would be there (they were forbidden by Justinian). The bishops of the Council reassured Vigilius that he would be treated as he deserves to be if he comes and participates in the Council: they will treat him as their head. To further this point, they still sent the acts of the Council to him for his ratification even though he didn’t show up. Anyway, when he didn’t come Justinian forced the Council to go forward and to strike Vigilius’ name from the diptychs–they complied, but only with the condition that it was done without prejudice to communion with the Roman See itself. His “excommunication” was essentially just an angry act by the emperor that ended up having no legal or even practical effect since,as I noted earlier, the acts of the Council were still sent to Vigilius for confirmation and the acts were not imposed until he signed off on them.

Finally, after much persuasion from the emperor and the bishops, Vigilius ratified the acts, which were then imposed with pretty extreme imperial violence.

The whole reason the authority of this Council was not consistently agreed upon for a long while afterward was the duress the bishops and Pope were under and the fact that, just as Vigilius initially feared, it caused unnecessary strife and dissensions based on monophysite interpretations it was given. This is why St. Gregory the Great, for example, for the sake of peace, tolerated dissent about the Three Chapters themselves provided the orthodox faith itself, as defined at Ephesus and Chalcedon, was maintained.
 
Last edited:
This was a statement about Faith made by the Pope in virtue of his Apostolic Authority, and the Ecumenical Council cut him from the Church, thinking
they had the authority to do so, to which he apologized for it.

Go into detail as to how this can’t be an Ex Cathedra statement.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Note what papal infallibility applies to. There have only been 2 ex cathedra statements in the last 200 years. They are rare. They must apply to all Christians, so as to by the entire church, and they must be concerning a doctrine in itself. The pope must be acting in his supreme role as successor to Peter and pastor of the entire Christian people.
Click to expand...
This is not really correct - what an Ex Cathedra statement is is rather vague, but there have been online “for sure” two Ex Cathedra statements since Vatican I.

Vatican I said:

"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

Pope Vigilius said:
“We ordain and decree that it be permitted to no one who stands in ecclesiastical order or office, to write or bring forward, or undertake, or teach anything contradictory to the contents of this Constitutum in regard to the three chapters, or, after this declaration, begin a new controversy about them. And if anything has already been done or spoken in regard of
the three chapters in contradictions of this our ordinance, by anyone whomsoever, this we declare void by the authority of the apostolic see.”

How is this not Ex Cathedra?
 
It demonstrates that the Pope is not the final authority of the Catholic Church.
 
I have already explained this to you in my prior posts, which you haven’t addressed at all… What is the proposition–the point of truth–being definitively condemned or proclaimed? I don’t see one. He’s forbidding people causing debates/controversies about particular writings. In fact, he is not even condemning the work or definitively declaring it to be orthodox–he’s just saying to leave it alone. Again, see my previous posts for why he thought this was the appropriate approach.
 
Last edited:
As for this incident showing that the Pope is not the final authority, it shows the opposite. Why did the emperor and the council he was influencing go to such great lengths and issue such threats to get the Pope to show up and participate and confirm their acts? They didn’t do this to any other bishop–in fact, he’s was the only Western bishop the emperor would even allow to come, not to mention being the only one coerced into coming. If the Pope was just another bishop, then who cares if he didn’t participate or formally confirm the Council’s acts?
 
No Orthodox Christian considers Popes and Patriarchs as “Just another bishop”, they are the center of unity of the Local Churches (Patriarchates).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top