Universal Jursidiction

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11196412:

Since none of the fourteen condemnations from the conciliar decrees specifically mention Vigilius, rather skeptical how he could still be considered guilty of heresy?

The council anathematized anybody who would defend the Three Chapters and the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia (and they did this knowing that Pope Vigilius had done both). Pope Vigilius did both in his First Constitution, and in return, also anathematized anybody who would posthumously anathematize the those who died at peace with the Church. The council, according to Vigilius’ Constitution not only fell under anathema but was completely null and void. Vigilius, in return, according to the eight session of the Council, fell under anathema, since he defended the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Three Chapters. One need not name those who fall under an anathematism in order for the anathematism to apply to them.

If one hypothetically grants your inferences were actually correct Cavaradossi, then it remains most implausible how one could realistically maintain unity with the See of Rome de facto if her legitimate incumbent has supposedly been excommunicated for heresy de jure? As per:
“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.’” (The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553: With Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, p. 101).

 

[Cavaradossi]

How so? Seems the excommunication of such a prominent bishop purportedly guilty of heresy would be basically meaningless unless he were also promptly deposed from his see? As the extant acts from Constantinople II manifest no particular desire of Justinian I to conclude the conciliar proceedings within some preconceived time frame, “there simply was not enough time to take motions against Pope Vigilius before the close of the council” appears to be speculative conjecture?

Firstly, it is you who inviting me to engage speculative conjecture with your own speculative questions. Again, this is specious reasoning which you use. From Justinian’s edict, we gather that Vigilius’ name was struck from the diptychs and declared alien to all Christians, for the reason that he had engaged in the impieties of Nestorius and Theodore. The council approved this request. That is a fact.

Then where is the evidence [from the primary sources] to conclusively establish Justinian I had similar qualms exerting imperial pressure for deposing Vigilius’ predecessor (i.e., Pope Silverius in 537) or nominating his successor (i.e., Pelagius I in 556)?

Justinian did not depose Silverius. It was Belisarius who did so, and his actions caused quite a mess in the Roman See, which was only solved by Pope Silverius’ rather conveniently timed death. The risk, when you depose a bishop of a see by force is that the clergy in that diocese will refuse to recognize whomsoever is elected or appointed to be his successor. If Justinian’s plans were to unify everybody within his newly reconquered empire under one imperial cultus (as the Fifth Ecumenical Council’s seeming concessions to the non-Chalcedonians would imply, and as historians are quite inclined to believe), then acting too swiftly would definitely not have been in Justinian’s best interests.

As for Justinian’s nomination of Pelagius, this only occurred after Vigilius died. It was quite commonplace for the emperor to nominate a candidate for a high ranking see, because as the civil authority, he (and later the Exarch of Ravenna), reserved the right to reject any candidate for the episcopacy in Rome (look up the ‘byzantine papacy’). He certainly would not have had qualms about doing so, because this was already common practice.

Not sure how one can infer any attempted evasion when no statement has been made contradicting these conciliar enactments? Apparently Vigilius’ primary concern was that the condemnation of the Three Chapters could tacitly be acknowledged to undermine the doctrinal authority of Chalcedon? Although Vigilius’ own retraction evidently speaks for itself with regard to your questions, the subsequent schism that occurred in the West strongly demonstrates his apprehension appears valid?

Again, you dodge the question. In his first Constitution, Pope Vigilius wrote: “We anathematize everyone in ecclesiastical orders who on the grounds of the above-mentioned impieties decides to impose or inflict contumely in any way on the fathers and doctors the the Church.”
He follows this with a long defense of the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and later follows up with an even stronger statement: “But if in in the name of anyone with ecclesiastical dignity and rank there has been, or will have been, done, said and written, by whomsoever and wheresoever it so transpire, anything in breach of what we have here declared and enacted concerning these Three Chapters, this we totally annul with the authority of the apostolic see over which by the grace of God we preside.”
The Council explicitly condemns the person of Theodore of Mospusestia in its 12th anathematism, stating: If anyone therefore defends the said most impious Theodore and his impious writings, in which he poured forth both the aforesaid blasphemies and innumerable others against our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and if he does not anathematize him and his impious writings as well as all those who accept or defend him or assert that his teaching was orthodox, both those who wrote in his support and held the same tenets as he and also those who write in support of him and his impious writings, as well as those who hold or ever held tenets like his and who persisted or persist in this impiety till death: let him be anathema
The Council also contradicts Vigilius’ First Constitution in its 13th and 14th anathematisms, (which I have not posted for reasons of length, but will certainly post on request), anathematizing Theodoret’s anti-Cyrillian writings, and the Letter of Ibas, while Vigilius defended both.

If, as you contend, Vigilius was under duress when he annulled his First Constitution, then that act would be invalid, meaning that his First Constitution is still in effect. So who then is correct? Is it Vigilius who is correct, and the Fifth Ecumenical Council which is anathema, or is it the Fifth Ecumenical Council which is correct and Pope Vigilius who is anathema?

 

[Cavaradossi]

If Vigilius has been truly excommunicated, how would he then have possessed any moral standing to have been manipulated by Justinian I for the future election of the next pope?

No, that is not what I wrote. He would likely have kept him imprisoned as a bargaining chip with the clergy in Rome, because if he would have been able to convince the clergy of Rome that Vigilius had been justly imprisoned for his own duplicity and impiety, then the clergy there would have been open to electing a new bishop, since Vigilius, being justly imprisoned for these moral failings, would have been incapable of ministering to his flock, and also no longer eligible for the episcopate, according to the canons.

The other option, freeing Vigilius to return to Rome, was obviously most disadvantageous to Justinian, because if he was allowed to return to Rome, it would have provided ample opportunity for Vigilius to cause a schism in Rome from the Imperial Church, thus causing disunity in Justinians’ newly conquered acquisitions in Italy, and threatening his plans for restoring the historical territories of the Western Roman Empire.

Besides, posing such valid questions ought to be expected when one engages in personal conjecture beyond the stated facts, is it not?

Stating that Vigilius was struck from the diptychs or that his First Constitution contradicts the findings of the Council is in no way speculation.

Given the fact Vigilius was only released from close confinement upon subscribing to the condemnation of the Three Chapters in his Second Constitutum, appears any speculation that his detention was somehow related to some hypothetical future deposition does appear rather tenuous?

No, because if he approved of the Council, then Justinian got what he wanted out of him (fostering his plans for a grand imperial unity under one confession of faith), and he would have no reason to keep him suspended from his faculties as bishop (that is struck from the diptychs and excommunicate) nor any reason to try and depose him.

If one hypothetically grants your inferences were actually correct Cavaradossi, then it remains most implausible how one could realistically maintain unity with the See of Rome de facto if her legitimate incumbent has supposedly been excommunicated for heresy de jure? As per:
“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.’” (The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553: With Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, p. 101).

Justinian’s own edict explains what that means. Since therefore he [Vigilius] has acted in this way, we have pronounced that his name is alien to all 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 anyone else cannot harm the peace of the churches.

In other words, they are declaring the bishop of Rome to be excommunicate and suspended of his faculties (for reason of his sharing in the impieties of Theodore and Nestorius), but not the same of the clergy under him, with whom they maintain unity. They broke communion with him as the holder of the see, but not with his own see itself. This is also Price’s analysis (since it seems that you have gained access to his translation of the acts), who understands that Justinian was suspending Vigilius from his faculties, and that Vigilius could have been deposed, had he remained obdurate (see his commentary on the Seventh and Eight Sessions).

 

[LionHeart777]

Cavaradossi,

On my end, I no longer see a need to keep debating the 5th Ecumenical Council after my previous post about it. I will relay some info though:

1. As the Protestant authors of “The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church” write in their “EXCURSUS ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS OF THE FIFTH COUNCIL”:

“Some suspicion has arisen with regard to how far the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council may be relied upon. Between the Roman Manuscript printed by Labbe and the Paris manuscript found in Mansi there are considerable variations and, strange to say, some of the most injurious things to the memory of Pope Vigilius are found only in the Paris manuscript. Moreover we know that the manuscript kept in the patriarchal archives at Constantinople had been tampered with during the century that elapsed before the next Ecumenical Synod, for at that council the forgeries and interpolations were exposed by the Papal Legates.
At the XIVth Session of that synod the examination of the genuineness of the acts of the Second Council of Constantinople was resumed. It had been begun at the XIIth Session. Up to this time only two MSS. had been used, now the librarian of the patriarchate presented a third MS. which he had found in the archives, and swore that neither himself nor any other so far as he knew had made any change in these MSS. These were then compared and it was found that the two first agreed in containing the pretended letter of Mennas to Pope Vigilius, and the two writings addressed by Vigilius to Justinian and Theodora; but that none of these were found in the third MS. It was further found that the documents in dispute were in a different hand from the rest of the MS, and that in the first book of the parchment MS., three quarternions had been inserted, and in the second book between quarternions 15 and 16, four unpaged leaves had been placed. So too the second MS. had been tampered with. The council inserted these particulars in a decree, and ordered that ‘these additions must be quashed in both MSS., and marked with an obelus, and the falsifiers must be smitten with anathema.’ Finally the council cried out, ‘Anathema to the pretended letters of Mennas and Vigilius! Anathema to the forger of Acts! Anathema to all who teach, etc.’
From all this it would seem that the substantial accuracy of the rest of the acts have been established by the authority of the Sixth Synod, and Hefele and all recent scholars follow Mansi’s Paris MS.
It may be well here to add that a most thorough-going attack upon the acts has been made in late years by Professor Vincenzi, in defence of Pope Vigilius and of Origen. The reader is referred to his writings on the subject: In Sancti Gregorii Nysseni et Originis scripta et doctrinam nova defensio; Vigil., Orig., Justin. triumph., in Synod V. (Romae, 1865.) The Catholic Dictionary frankly says that this is ‘an attempt to deny the most patent facts, and treat some of the chief documents as forgeries,’ and ‘unworthy of serious notice.’(1)”

1. In the same work there is the following written before “THE DECRETAL LETTER OF POPE VIGILIUS”, (which you seem to have quoted from in your last response—Vigilius to Eutychius):

“(The manuscript from which this letter was printed was found in the Royal Library of Paris by Peter de Marca and by him first published, with a Latin translation and with a dissertation. Both of these with the Greek text are found in Labbe and Cossart’s Con-cilia, Tom. V., col. 596 et seqq.; also in Migne’s Patr. Lat., Tom. LXIX., col. 121 et seqq. Some doubts have been expressed about its genuineness and Harduin is of opinion that the learned Jesuit, Garnerius, in his notes on the Deacon Leberatus’s Breviary, has proved its supposititious character. But the learned have not generally been of this mind but have accepted the letter as genuine.)” (Ibid.)

Source: The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, trans H. R. Percival, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, (repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), XIV, 300-323

As taken from: fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp

I seem to have a less rigorous standard than you regarding manuscripts which there are doubts about, judging by our exchange in this thread and another.

…But that reduces papal infallibility to meaninglessness because every bishop then, and indeed even every layman speaks infallibly and truthfully when he is not an heretic. But this defense does little for any defender of the First Vatican Council, because if the pope could be judged for heresy by an ecumenical council (not to mention the later depositions of Simoniacal Popes performed by the West alone after the schism) then this indicates that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff in the first millennium (and even in the early second) was understood firstly as a primacy of mediate jurisdiction (in contradiction of the primacy of immediate jurisdiction claimed by the First Vatican Council), and that the infallible doctrinal decisions of the papacy (which Bishop Gasser numbered in the thousands) are in fact in some sense contingent upon the consent of the Church, because with the body of the Church lies the power to determine if a Pope is an heretic (by your own admission).

Papal infallibility and specifics about jurisdiction were outside the scope of my thesis, so these are red herrings. I’ll resist commenting on this section except to say that, just as a side note I neither affirmed nor rejected St. Bellarmine’s 5th opinion in my post.)

I do plan on getting back to the topic of the 7th Ecumenical Council inasmuch as to respond to your last post about it though.

 

[Cavaradossi]

1. As the Protestant authors of “The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church” write in their “EXCURSUS ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS OF THE FIFTH COUNCIL”:

“Some suspicion has arisen with regard to how far the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council may be relied upon. Between the Roman Manuscript printed by Labbe and the Paris manuscript found in Mansi there are considerable variations and, strange to say, some of the most injurious things to the memory of Pope Vigilius are found only in the Paris manuscript. Moreover we know that the manuscript kept in the patriarchal archives at Constantinople had been tampered with during the century that elapsed before the next Ecumenical Synod, for at that council the forgeries and interpolations were exposed by the Papal Legates.
At the XIVth Session of that synod the examination of the genuineness of the acts of the Second Council of Constantinople was resumed. It had been begun at the XIIth Session. Up to this time only two MSS. had been used, now the librarian of the patriarchate presented a third MS. which he had found in the archives, and swore that neither himself nor any other so far as he knew had made any change in these MSS. These were then compared and it was found that the two first agreed in containing the pretended letter of Mennas to Pope Vigilius, and the two writings addressed by Vigilius to Justinian and Theodora; but that none of these were found in the third MS. It was further found that the documents in dispute were in a different hand from the rest of the MS, and that in the first book of the parchment MS., three quarternions had been inserted, and in the second book between quarternions 15 and 16, four unpaged leaves had been placed. So too the second MS. had been tampered with. The council inserted these particulars in a decree, and ordered that ‘these additions must be quashed in both MSS., and marked with an obelus, and the falsifiers must be smitten with anathema.’ Finally the council cried out, ‘Anathema to the pretended letters of Mennas and Vigilius! Anathema to the forger of Acts! Anathema to all who teach, etc.’
From all this it would seem that the substantial accuracy of the rest of the acts have been established by the authority of the Sixth Synod, and Hefele and all recent scholars follow Mansi’s Paris MS.
It may be well here to add that a most thorough-going attack upon the acts has been made in late years by Professor Vincenzi, in defence of Pope Vigilius and of Origen. The reader is referred to his writings on the subject: In Sancti Gregorii Nysseni et Originis scripta et doctrinam nova defensio; Vigil., Orig., Justin. triumph., in Synod V. (Romae, 1865.) The Catholic Dictionary frankly says that this is ‘an attempt to deny the most patent facts, and treat some of the chief documents as forgeries,’ and ‘unworthy of serious notice.’(1)”

I agree with the Catholic Dictionary, and the general tenor of scholars, who make a compelling case for the authenticity of the Paris manuscript. The Paris manuscript agrees with what was read from the supposedly tampered with manuscripts at the Sixth Ecumenical Council (aside from the forged letter of Menas, which did not even belong in the acts of this Ecumenical Council), and given the unlikelihood of this document having been tampered with in an identical fashion in Latin, and given the unlikelihood that this document was a copy of the acts which were allegedly tampered with (since these documents were destroyed once discovered), this is likely a genuine copy of the first edition of the acts. Its credibility is only helped by the fact that most Roman Catholic scholars have chosen to accept this manuscript as genuine.

1. In the same work there is the following written before “THE DECRETAL LETTER OF POPE VIGILIUS”, (which you seem to have quoted from in your last response—Vigilius to Eutychius):

“(The manuscript from which this letter was printed was found in the Royal Library of Paris by Peter de Marca and by him first published, with a Latin translation and with a dissertation. Both of these with the Greek text are found in Labbe and Cossart’s Con-cilia, Tom. V., col. 596 et seqq.; also in Migne’s Patr. Lat., Tom. LXIX., col. 121 et seqq. Some doubts have been expressed about its genuineness and Harduin is of opinion that the learned Jesuit, Garnerius, in his notes on the Deacon Leberatus’s Breviary, has proved its supposititious character. But the learned have not generally been of this mind but have accepted the letter as genuine.)” (Ibid.)

As noted, most “learned” accept this letter as genuine.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Damn.

 

[cath4alltime]

Is cussing necessary

 

[Randy_Carson]

Golly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But that reduces papal infallibility to meaninglessness because every bishop then, and indeed even every layman speaks infallibly and truthfully when he is not an heretic.

Truthfully, yes; infallibly, no.

Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that the bishop or layman who is not a heretic speaks unerringly rather than infallibly?

I might get a perfect score on a theology test, but that simply means that I did my homework and knew the correct answers…the result does not suggest that I was prevented from giving an incorrect answer.

A pope might not get a perfect score on the same test; he might leave some answers blank. But the Holy Spirit prevents him from answering incorrectly (assuming that he was speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals in his capacity as shepherd of the universal church…etc, etc. )

 

[Randy_Carson]

Cavaradossi-

I’m enjoying your interaction with LionHeart777 and SanctusPeccator…kinda like a weekend duffer enjoys watching Tiger and Phil tee it up at Augusta, you know? You’re playing at a different level, and I am awed by your knowledge of historical events. Truly, I am. :clapping:

I’m just an amateur apologist and a simple guy, so I’m glad that these other folks have been able to provide better discussion for you than I ever could. However, I do have a couple of simple questions for you.

First, in the seventeenth chapter of John, Jesus prays for His disciples:

I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me (John 17:20-23).

Based on this passage, I believe that the unity of Christians was supposed to testify powerfully to unbelievers that the Gospel message is true. As a result of the schism that separates our two churches, Cavaradossi, some of the efficacy of that witness has been diminished and souls are lost as a result. Now, in light of Jesus’ desire for unity, what will you say to Him on your particular day of judgment when He asks you why you were separated from your (Roman) Catholic brothers and sisters? Will you really attempt to argue the case against Vigilius to Him?

My second question hinges upon the first: if you would not cite these canons and councils in your defense before God, then what is the real, bedrock, all-other-things-aside, this is non-negotiable reason that you, as a member of an Orthodox Church cannot be fully and formally re-united with and subject to the Roman Pontiff? You are obviously arguing vigorously in a thread on Universal Jursidiction, but is that really the line that cannot be crossed for you?

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful reply.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t believe it does. By way of comparison, consider the statement “No heretic could have written a book of the bible.” Does that reduce the infallibility of scripture to meaninglessness?

**But that reduces papal infallibility to meaninglessness **because every bishop then, and indeed even every layman speaks infallibly and truthfully when he is not an heretic. But this defense does little for any defender of the First Vatican Council, because if the pope could be judged for heresy by an ecumenical council (not to mention the later depositions of Simoniacal Popes performed by the West alone after the schism) then this indicates that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff in the first millennium (and even in the early second) was understood firstly as a primacy of mediate jurisdiction (in contradiction of the primacy of immediate jurisdiction claimed by the First Vatican Council), and that the infallible doctrinal decisions of the papacy (which Bishop Gasser numbered in the thousands) are in fact in some sense contingent upon the consent of the Church, because with the body of the Church lies the power to determine if a Pope is an heretic (by your own admission).

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11196662:

How so? Seems the excommunication of such a prominent bishop purportedly guilty of heresy would be basically meaningless unless he were also promptly deposed from his see? As the extant acts from Constantinople II manifest no particular desire of Justinian I to conclude the conciliar proceedings within some preconceived time frame, "there simply was not enough time to take motions against Pope Vigilius before the close of the council

" appears to be speculative conjecture?
Firstly, it is you who inviting me to engage speculative conjecture with your own speculative questions. Again, this is specious reasoning which you use. From Justinian’s edict, we gather that Vigilius’ name was struck from the diptychs and declared alien to all Christians, for the reason that he had engaged in the impieties of Nestorius and Theodore. The council approved this request. That is a fact.

If some of your own initial assertions are derived from speculative conjecture, how should this then be unexpected? Besides, seems correctly distinguishing objective historical data from subjective conjectural speculation would be readily understood? When advancing assertions based upon personal inferences of the evidence, how is it specious to ascertain the accuracy and/or validity of these claims by additional inquiry?

SanctusPeccator;11196662:

Then where is the evidence [from the primary sources] to conclusively establish Justinian I had similar qualms exerting imperial pressure for deposing Vigilius’ predecessor (i.e., Pope Silverius in 537) or nominating his successor (i.e., Pelagius I in 556)?

Justinian did not depose Silverius. It was Belisarius who did so, and his actions caused quite a mess in the Roman See, which was only solved by Pope Silverius’ rather conveniently timed death. The risk, when you depose a bishop of a see by force is that the clergy in that diocese will refuse to recognize whomsoever is elected or appointed to be his successor. If Justinian’s plans were to unify everybody within his newly reconquered empire under one imperial cultus (as the Fifth Ecumenical Council’s seeming concessions to the non-Chalcedonians would imply, and as historians are quite inclined to believe), then acting too swiftly would definitely not have been in Justinian’s best interests.

“Exerting imperial pressure” is a general phrase to designate the aggregate political machinations tangentially instigated by those in the administrative bureaucracy, imperial family, and military of the Byzantine Empire. While you are correct to note Belisarius immediately supervised Pope Silverius’ depostion, Procopius of Caesarea’s The Anecdota, or Secret History notes this was done at the behest of Belisarius’ wife [Antonina] at the instructions of Empress Theodora I. As Belisarius’ precipitous action was never countermanded by Justinian I, seems the Emperor tacitly accepted Silverius’ deposition as a fait accompli regardless of any unintended consequences?

As for Justinian’s nomination of Pelagius, this only occurred after Vigilius died. It was quite commonplace for the emperor to nominate a candidate for a high ranking see, because as the civil authority, he (and later the Exarch of Ravenna), reserved the right to reject any candidate for the episcopacy in Rome (look up the ‘byzantine papacy’). He certainly would not have had qualms about doing so, because this was already common practice.

Granted, but this seemingly overlooks this particular period of Byzantine dominance over the papacy was a recent phenomenon only introduced with the Byzantine reconquest of Italy following the Gothic War of 535-554? Certainly many of the indigenous Romans would not have accepted the protracted conflict – let alone Byzantine occupation – to be a beneficial blessing from their newly-established rulers?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11196662:

Not sure how one can infer any attempted evasion when no statement has been made contradicting these conciliar enactments? Apparently Vigilius’ primary concern was that the condemnation of the Three Chapters could tacitly be acknowledged to undermine the doctrinal authority of Chalcedon? Although Vigilius’ own retraction evidently speaks for itself with regard to your questions

, the subsequent schism that occurred in the West strongly demonstrates his apprehension appears valid?
Again, you dodge the question. In his first Constitution, Pope Vigilius wrote: “We anathematize everyone in ecclesiastical orders who on the grounds of the above-mentioned impieties decides to impose or inflict contumely in any way on the fathers and doctors the Church.”
He follows this with a long defense of the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and later follows up with an even stronger statement: “But if in in the name of anyone with ecclesiastical dignity and rank there has been, or will have been, done, said and written, by whomsoever and wheresoever it so transpire, anything in breach of what we have here declared and enacted concerning these Three Chapters, this we totally annul with the authority of the apostolic see over which by the grace of God we preside.”
The Council explicitly condemns the person of Theodore of Mospusestia in its 12th anathematism, stating: If anyone therefore defends the said most impious Theodore and his impious writings, in which he poured forth both the aforesaid blasphemies and innumerable others against our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and if he does not anathematize him and his impious writings as well as all those who accept or defend him or assert that his teaching was orthodox, both those who wrote in his support and held the same tenets as he and also those who write in support of him and his impious writings, as well as those who hold or ever held tenets like his and who persisted or persist in this impiety till death: let him be anathema
The Council also contradicts Vigilius’ First Constitution in its 13th and 14th anathematisms, (which I have not posted for reasons of length, but will certainly post on request), anathematizing Theodoret’s anti-Cyrillian writings, and the Letter of Ibas, while Vigilius defended both.

Again, how is there any evasion when the underlined independent clause above “Although Vigilius’ own retraction evidently speaks for itself with regard to your questions” has already provided a satisfactory answer?

If, as you contend, Vigilius was under duress when he annulled his First Constitution, then that act would be invalid, meaning that his First Constitution is still in effect. So who then is correct? Is it Vigilius who is correct, and the Fifth Ecumenical Council which is anathema, or is it the Fifth Ecumenical Council which is correct and Pope Vigilius who is anathema?

Appears there is an apparent inability to recognize the validity of Vigilius’ ratification for the condemnation of the Three Chapters [in the *Second Constitutum] is quite distinct from legitimately questioning the sincerity of his approval?

SanctusPeccator;11196662:

If Vigilius has been truly excommunicated, how would he then have possessed any moral standing to have been manipulated by Justinian I for the future election of the next pope? Besides, posing such valid questions ought to be expected when one engages in personal conjecture beyond the stated facts, is it not?

No, that is not what I wrote. He would likely have kept him imprisoned as a bargaining chip with the clergy in Rome, because if he would have been able to convince the clergy of Rome that Vigilius had been justly imprisoned for his own duplicity and impiety, then the clergy there would have been open to electing a new bishop, since Vigilius, being justly imprisoned for these moral failings, would have been incapable of ministering to his flock, and also no longer eligible for the episcopate, according to the canons.

Not aware of any direct evidence [from the primary sources] substantiating your claim this course of action was even considered by Justinian I? Given the initial negative reception of Constantinople II by the Roman clergy, there apparently is no indication they would have freely countenanced any willingness to accede to such an intricate scheme?

The other option, freeing Vigilius to return to Rome, was obviously most disadvantageous to Justinian, because if he was allowed to return to Rome, it would have provided ample opportunity for Vigilius to cause a schism in Rome from the Imperial Church, thus causing disunity in Justinians’ newly conquered acquisitions in Italy, and threatening his plans for restoring the historical territories of the Western Roman Empire.

Except the schism ultimately transpired regardless of the status of Vigilius’ freedom, n’est-ce pas?

Stating that Vigilius was struck from the diptychs or that his First Constitution contradicts the findings of the Council is in no way speculation.

Where is it specifically said they are?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11196662:

Given the fact Vigilius was only released from close confinement upon subscribing to the condemnation of the Three Chapters in his Second Constitutum

, appears any speculation that his detention was somehow related to some hypothetical future deposition does appear rather tenuous?
No, because if he approved of the Council, then Justinian got what he wanted out of him (fostering his plans for a grand imperial unity under one confession of faith), and he would have no reason to keep him suspended from his faculties as bishop (that is struck from the diptychs and excommunicate) nor any reason to try and depose him.

Curious that . . . how does your underlined statement above not implicitly acknowledge Vigilius’ captivity [on Prokonnesos] was then contingent on his approval of the conciliar decrees from Constantinople II?

SanctusPeccator;11196681:

If one hypothetically grants your inferences were actually correct Cavaradossi, then it remains most implausible how one could realistically maintain unity with the See of Rome de facto if her legitimate incumbent has supposedly been excommunicated for heresy de jure? As per:
“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.’

” (The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553: With Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, p. 101).
Justinian’s own edict explains what that means. Since therefore he [Vigilius] has acted in this way, we have pronounced that his name is alien to all 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 anyone else cannot harm the peace of the churches.

In other words, they are declaring the bishop of Rome to be excommunicate and suspended of his faculties (for reason of his sharing in the impieties of Theodore and Nestorius), but not the same of the clergy under him, with whom they maintain unity. They broke communion with him as the holder of the see, but not with his own see itself. This is also Price’s analysis (since it seems that you have gained access to his translation of the acts), who understands that Justinian was suspending Vigilius from his faculties, and that Vigilius could have been deposed, had he remained obdurate (see his commentary on the Seventh and Eight Sessions).

While it is an objective historical fact the name of Vigilius was struck from the dipthychs, is it not [your] subjective inference deducing this could only necessarily signify his excommunication? Seems you are unaware Richard M. Price himself does not concur with your claim?
“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 Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553: With Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, p. 74).
Further, this questionable distinction of non sedem sed sedentem – which is primarily manifested in its contemporary form by ultra-traditional sedevacantists of the Roman Rite – does appear rather dubious as the Roman clergy remained steadfast to Vigilius even after the edict [from the Seventh Session of 26 May 553] was generally published on 14 July 553? So again, how could one realistically maintain unity with the Roman clergy when they were already in fundamental agreement with their bishop who was allegedly excommunicated?

 

[Cavaradossi]

While it is an objective historical fact the name of Vigilius was struck from the dipthychs, is it not [your] subjective inference deducing this could only necessarily signify his excommunication? Seems you are unaware Richard M. Price himself does not concur with your claim?
“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 Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553: With Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, p. 74).
Further, this questionable distinction of non sedem sed sedentem – which is primarily manifested in its contemporary form by ultra-traditional sedevacantists of the Roman Rite – does appear rather dubious as the Roman clergy remained steadfast to Vigilius even after the edict [from the Seventh Session of 26 May 553] was generally published on 14 July 553? So again, how could one realistically maintain unity with the Roman clergy when they were already in fundamental agreement with their bishop who was allegedly excommunicated?

You are equivocating (and you are being quite presumptuous, as you seem to presume that I have not read the very book I am citing; in general, I must say that the tenor of your responses to me seems to have become increasingly rude, and I am quite disinclined to continue corresponding with you if this is intentional). Price here means excommunication in the sense of anathema (which is why he mentions a “full condemnation”), which is being cut off from the flock entirely. Lesser degrees of excommunication involve breaking eucharistic communion, and this the council most certainly did with Pope Vigilius, by striking him from the diptychs. Even today, in modern Orthodoxy, if a bishop were to be struck from the diptychs, should he approach for communion, he would be denied, since he would have been severed from Eucharistic communion with those bishops who struck him from the diptychs. He would be considered excommunicate, but he would not yet be considered deposed, nor entirely cut off from the flock of Christ (in common practice, this is done in order to give such a bishop an impetus to repent, and accept whatever discipline the synod wishes to impose upon him for whatever action incurred the excommunication; it serves as a warning shot, of sorts, before deposition is pursued).

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11206089:

While it is an objective historical fact the name of Vigilius was struck from the dipthychs, is it not [your] subjective inference deducing this could only necessarily signify his excommunication? Seems you are unaware Richard M. Price himself does not concur with your claim?
“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 Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553: With Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, p. 74).
Further, this questionable distinction of non sedem sed sedentem – which is primarily manifested in its contemporary form by ultra-traditional sedevacantists of the Roman Rite – does appear rather dubious as the Roman clergy remained steadfast to Vigilius even after the edict [from the Seventh Session of 26 May 553] was generally published on 14 July 553? So again, how could one realistically maintain unity with the Roman clergy when they were already in fundamental agreement with their bishop who was allegedly excommunicated?
You are equivocating (and you are being quite presumptuous, as you seem to presume that I have not read the very book I am citing; in general, I must say that the tenor of your responses to me seems to have become increasingly rude, and I am quite disinclined to continue corresponding with you if this is intentional).

Most unfortunate perception, as it appears your response is mistakenly inferring “equivocating (and you are being quite presumptuous…” from genuine rational inquiry?

Price here means excommunication in the sense of anathema (which is why he mentions a “full condemnation”), which is being cut off from the flock entirely. Lesser degrees of excommunication involve breaking eucharistic communion, and this the council most certainly did with Pope Vigilius, by striking him from the diptychs.

Seems your interpretation [of Price’s commentary] would be undeniably correct had he unequivocally written “This fell short of a full condemnation, involving deposition and anathemization,” in this instance?

Even today, in modern Orthodoxy, if a bishop were to be struck from the diptychs, should he approach for communion, he would be denied, since he would have been severed from Eucharistic communion with those bishops who struck him from the diptychs. He would be considered excommunicate, but he would not yet be considered deposed, nor entirely cut off from the flock of Christ (in common practice, this is done in order to give such a bishop an impetus to repent, and accept whatever discipline the synod wishes to impose upon him for whatever action incurred the excommunication; it serves as a warning shot, of sorts, before deposition is pursued).

While essentially correct in modern times, what evidence [from the extant acts of Constantinople II] explicitly states this was the precise meaning and identical understanding in 553?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Most unfortunate perception, as it appears your response is mistakenly inferring “equivocating (and you are being quite presumptuous…” from genuine rational inquiry?

Equivocation is not genuine rational inquiry; it is a fallacy.

Seems your interpretation [of Price’s commentary] would be undeniably correct had he unequivocally written “This fell short of a full condemnation, involving deposition and anathemization,” in this instance?

There is no need for him to have written anathematization. There are multiple types of excommunication (even the Roman Catholic Church used to distinguish between major and minor excommunications), and Price there refers to major excommunication (which unlike the minor excommunication never fell into disuse), which is in effect equivalent to an anathematization (i.e., it cuts one off from the flock entirely). Being struck from the diptychs can be a disciplinary measure (although at other times it could also function as a condemnation, such as the removal of Patriarch Acacius name from the diptychs posthumously), akin to a minor excommunication, signalling that one has been removed from the sacramental life of the Church (in other words, that he is no longer in communion with the bishops and clergy who struck his name from the diptychs).

While essentially correct in modern times, what evidence [from the extant acts of Constantinople II] explicitly states this was the precise meaning and identical understanding in 553?

The practice of the Church has always been this way (and really, it is quite fallacious to demand that we limit the scope of things to the acts of this council, since one needs to look at the general practice of the Church through history to see how important the diptychs were). The dyptichs contained the names of bishops (and of other notable Christians too, who may not have been of episcopal rank), both living and dead, to be read out and commemorated during the liturgy. To strike one’s name from the dyptichs was a “grave ecclesiastical penalty” (in the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia), and this was so because it literally meant that one’s name was deliberately being removed from the list of Christians who were prayed for during the liturgy, signalling a disruption of ecclesiastical communion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Cavaradossi-
2nd Request

I’m enjoying your interaction with LionHeart777 and SanctusPeccator…kinda like a weekend duffer enjoys watching Tiger and Phil tee it up at Augusta, you know? You’re playing at a different level, and I am awed by your knowledge of historical events. Truly, I am. :clapping:

I’m just an amateur apologist and a simple guy, so I’m glad that these other folks have been able to provide better discussion for you than I ever could. However, I do have a couple of simple questions for you.

First, in the seventeenth chapter of John, Jesus prays for His disciples:

I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me (John 17:20-23).

Based on this passage, I believe that the unity of Christians was supposed to testify powerfully to unbelievers that the Gospel message is true. As a result of the schism that separates our two churches, Cavaradossi, some of the efficacy of that witness has been diminished and souls are lost as a result. Now, in light of Jesus’ desire for unity, what will you say to Him on your particular day of judgment when He asks you why you were separated from your (Roman) Catholic brothers and sisters? Will you really attempt to argue the case against Vigilius to Him?

My second question hinges upon the first: if you would not cite these canons and councils in your defense before God, then what is the real, bedrock, all-other-things-aside, this is non-negotiable reason that you, as a member of an Orthodox Church cannot be fully and formally re-united with and subject to the Roman Pontiff? You are obviously arguing vigorously in a thread on Universal Jursidiction, but is that really the line that cannot be crossed for you?

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful reply.

 

[Novocastrian]

Cavaradossi-
2nd Request

what is the real, bedrock, all-other-things-aside, this is non-negotiable reason that you, as a member of an Orthodox Church cannot be fully and formally re-united with and subject to the Roman Pontiff?

I would imagine that it is the Roman Church’s non-profession of [Eastern] Orthodoxy. The same way that you won’t reunite with Constantinople until it professes the dogmatic teaching of Roman Catholicism.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m enjoying your interaction with LionHeart777 and SanctusPeccator…kinda like a weekend duffer enjoys watching Tiger and Phil tee it up at Augusta, you know? You’re playing at a different level, and I am awed by your knowledge of historical events. Truly, I am. :clapping:

I’m just an amateur apologist and a simple guy, so I’m glad that these other folks have been able to provide better discussion for you than I ever could. However, I do have a couple of simple questions for you.

First, in the seventeenth chapter of John, Jesus prays for His disciples:

I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me (John 17:20-23).

Based on this passage, I believe that the unity of Christians was supposed to testify powerfully to unbelievers that the Gospel message is true. As a result of the schism that separates our two churches, Cavaradossi, some of the efficacy of that witness has been diminished and souls are lost as a result. Now, in light of Jesus’ desire for unity, what will you say to Him on your particular day of judgment when He asks you why you were separated from your (Roman) Catholic brothers and sisters? Will you really attempt to argue the case against Vigilius to Him?

My second question hinges upon the first: if you would not cite these canons and councils in your defense before God, then what is the real, bedrock, all-other-things-aside, this is non-negotiable reason that you, as a member of an Orthodox Church cannot be fully and formally re-united with and subject to the Roman Pontiff? You are obviously arguing vigorously in a thread on Universal Jursidiction, but is that really the line that cannot be crossed for you?

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful reply.

Do you not think it perhaps to be slightly presumptuous that you are telling me what God will say to me on the day of judgment? Leave what is God’s to God, and what pertains to men to men. At any rate, I disagree with your interpretation of Christ’s prayer for unity, because to assert that the Church is not one is to deny the efficacy of Christ’s prayer. Christ, in other words, did not pray that 2000 years in the future, the various groups which would have by then sprung up in his name (but without having received his commission) should be one, but rather he gave his prayer as an earnest of unity to the Church, by which he vouchsafed that the Church throughout the ages might remain one. Either I am in His Church, or I am not, but to say that I have not heeded Christ’s call to unity is not the purview of man (for it encroaches upon what is God’s alone to judge), and I frankly do not believe that it is consistent with the meaning of Christ’s prayer for unity for He did not call for a false unity which does not proceed from unity in faith.

You ask why the Orthodox cannot be united with the Roman Catholics. The answer we have is simple, and that is that the faith of the Roman Catholic Church, as defined by the Council of Florence, the First Vatican Council, and the Second Vatican Council, is unacceptable to us. We do not accept the doctrine that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit’s subsistent being, we do not accept that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex-cathedra (or that he has universal immediate jurisdiction, and is the ordinary of the entire world), and we do not accept an ecclesiology of degrees of communion whereby everybody who is baptized outside of the confines of the Church enters into a state of impeded union with the Church. And as long as we disagree on these matters, we simply cannot be in union.