How does the case of Vigilius not disprove Vatican I?

[LivingWordUnity]

I'd be interesting in knowing what the Catholic answer is too. Bad popes and patriarches are expected, but declaring him an antipope seems to be a conveniently easy answer that doesn't seem to reflect the church's viewpoint historically.

He was an antipope based on the fact that the legitimate pope was unlawfully forced out.

 

[chevyontheriver]

He was an antipope based on the fact that the legitimate pope was unlawfully forced out.

The Catholic Encyclopedia does NOT list him as an antipope but as a pope.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The Catholic Encyclopedia does NOT list him as an antipope but as a pope.

St. Robert Bellarmine considers Vigilius an antipope. And he carries more weight than whoever listed Vigilius as a pope in the Catholic encyclopedia. Also, it doesn't make sense to consider Vigilius as a legitimate pope when he was given the position by way of the legitimate pope being unlawfully forced out.

 

[TheLostCoin]

I'd be interesting in knowing what the Catholic answer is too. Bad popes and patriarches are expected, but declaring him an antipope seems to be a conveniently easy answer that doesn't seem to reflect the church's viewpoint historically.

One possible answer is here, but it doesn't really go into detail that much over the council itself.

Infallibility and the Case of Pope Vigilius

I've seen this article before with this question, but this doesn't sufficiently answer my questions in regards to the contradiction between Vigilius's dogmatic decree "with Apostolic Authority",

and it's a bit disingenuous in what happened in the Council - for one, this article ignores the fact that in the Council, Vigilius's name was ordered struck from the Diptychs by command of Justinian, and for two, it preys on ignorance towards how Ecumenical Councils and Saints dealt with heretics during the 1st millennium.

During the dispute with Nestorius, Saint Cyril of Alexandria referred to Nestorius as "His Holiness," and the Council of Ephesus referred to him as the legitimate bishop of Constantinople during the proceedings. Does this mean it was impossible that Nestorius would have been condemned?

Simply because the Council didn't call Vigilius a heretic right off the back, doesn't mean it's impossible that he could've been condemned for heresies.

New Advent offers texts from the Proceedings of this Council to read it all in context.

CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)

Also a passage worth quoting, which was apparently said to Pope Vigilius himself:
"We invited you to meet together with the most blessed patriarchs and other religious bishops, and with them in common to examine and judge the Three Chapters. But since you have refused to do this, and you say that you alone have written by yourself somewhat on the Three Chapters; if you have condemned them, in accordance with those things which you did before, we have already many such statements and need no more; but if you have written now something contrary to these things which were done by you before, you have condemned yourself by your own writing, since you have departed from orthodox doctrine and have defended impiety"

 

[chevyontheriver]

St. Robert Bellarmine considers Vigilius an antipope. And he carries more weight than whoever listed Vigilius as a pope in the Catholic encyclopedia. Also, it doesn't make sense to consider Vigilius as a legitimate pope when he was given the position by way of the legitimate pope being unlawfully forced out.

Robert Bellarmine does have weight indeed. But the Catholic Encyclopedia (early 1900's version) carries a lot of weight too as a careful record. So I think I would have to go with the Catholic Encyclopedia. You may disagree. But then the Catholic Encyclopedia takes it's list from the Annuario Pontificio

As to forcing a legitimate pope out invalidating the next pope, I'm not sure that always works. I'm willing to keep an open mind about it but I think it is all too neat to just say Vigilius was antipope. He is listed as pope in the Annuario Pontificio but then Silverius was pope in some overlapping dates. Interesting.

None of this is to say that Vigilius was a good man or a good theologian or should have been pope or anything like that.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Robert Bellarmine does have weight indeed. But the Catholic Encyclopedia (early 1900's version) carries a lot of weight too as a careful record. So I think I would have to go with the Catholic Encyclopedia. You may disagree. But then the Catholic Encyclopedia takes it's list from the Annuario Pontificio

As to forcing a legitimate pope out invalidating the next pope, I'm not sure that always works. I'm willing to keep an open mind about it but I think it is all too neat to just say Vigilius was antipope. He is listed as pope in the Annuario Pontificio but then Silverius was pope in some overlapping dates. Interesting.

The Catholic encylopedia carries weight, but Robert Bellarmine carries more weight because he is a saint, cardinal, scholar, historian, and doctor of the universal Church. Whoever wrote in the Catholic encyclopedia was not all of those things. And if a legitimate pope can be unlawfully forced out and replaced it would destroy the credibility of the office of the papacy because it would be susceptible to the controlling whims of worldly powers.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Catholic encylopedia carries weight, but Robert Bellarmine carries more weight because he is a saint, cardinal, scholar, historian, and doctor of the universal Church. Whoever wrote in the Catholic encyclopedia was not all of those things. And if a legitimate pope can be unlawfully forced out and replaced it would destroy the credibility of the office of the papacy because it would be susceptible to the controlling whims of worldly powers.

If the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine actually carried the weight you attribute to it I really do think the Catholic Encyclopedia would have noted it. Just saying. They aren't equal authorities, in fact the Catholic Encyclopedia is no authority at all in itself except in what it quotes and chronicles. But in neither quoting nor chronicling anything about Vigilius as antipope my suspicions are raised about your reliance on St. Robert Belarmine to determine he was not a pope but an antipope.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

If the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine actually carried the weight you attribute to it I really do think the Catholic Encyclopedia would have noted it. Just saying. They aren't equal authorities, in fact the Catholic Encyclopedia is no authority at all in itself except in what it quotes and chronicles. But in neither quoting nor chronicling anything about Vigilius as antipope my suspicions are raised about your reliance on St. Robert Belarmine to determine he was not a pope but an antipope.

It's a fact that St. Robert Bellarmine carries a lot of weight. If the Catholic encyclopedia overlooked him it shows that the Catholic encyclopedia is not perfect.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It's a fact that St. Robert Bellarmine carries a lot of weight. If the Catholic encyclopedia overlooked him it shows that the Catholic encyclopedia is not perfect.

Consider that your understanding of Robert Bellarmine might also be imperfect, and too that even a Doctor of the Church can miss a few things. Thomas Aquinas even missed a few things. Robert Bellarmine was masterful at many things, but I'm not putting him up there with divine revelation.

The early 1900's Catholic Encyclopedia is a solid secondary source for everything Catholic, far better than the much shorter 1960's Catholic Encyclopedia. You shouldn't race to put it down.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Consider that your understanding of Robert Bellarmine might also be imperfect, and too that even a Doctor of the Church can miss a few things. Thomas Aquinas even missed a few things. Robert Bellarmine was masterful at many things, but I'm not putting him up there with divine revelation.

The early 1900's Catholic Encyclopedia is a solid secondary source for everything Catholic, far better than the much shorter 1960's Catholic Encyclopedia. You shouldn't race to put it down.

I'm just saying the Catholic encyclopedia is wrong in this particular case and doesn't carry the weight of St. Robert Bellarmine since it was compiled by someone with less weight than him. And it makes no sense for Vigilius to be counted as a legitimate pope when he was put in place unlawfully.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I'm just saying the Catholic encyclopedia is wrong in this particular case and doesn't carry the weight of St. Robert Bellarmine since it was compiled by someone with less weight than him. And it makes no sense for Vigilius to be counted as a legitimate pope when he was put in place unlawfully.

OK. I hear you. I'm just saying that a high quality reference work says Vigilius was a pope and not an antipope, irrespective of what you say Robert Bellarmine said. If what he said was such a great argument, Vigilius would now be listed as an antipope. And he's not. Bellarmine had an interesting opinion, probably a rational opinion, and in the end that opinion was found not convincing to future historians and theologians. So he's listed as a pope. Maybe subsequent historians and theologians were wrong. Maybe Bellarmine's case for him being an antipope needs to be reopened. But it was actually closed close to 500 years ago, in the negative for Bellarmine. He lost. Saint and scholar that he was. It can be either reopened now, or it is left as an interesting historical curiosity.

I'd be in favor of giving it a new look, particularly in the light of the current pope. But at present it's not much more than an old opinion that wasn't accepted at the time it was given. Maybe it should have been, but it wasn't.

 

[Bob Crowley]

For anyone like me, who is not only a former Protestant and therefore a tyro when it comes to ancient Church history, but who has no familiarity with the vagaries of ancient politics (when we've got enough weirdness of our own to deal with in local and world politics), there's a summary of Pope Vigilus and the bun-fight he had with Emperor Justinian I over the monophysite / dual nature controversy.

Vigilius | pope

I'm not an admirer of the "Papal Infallibility" bit, although when it's limited to ex-Cathedra statements on matters of faith and morals which affect the whole church, it's probably correct. Since it's declaration, it's only been formally invoked twice in my understanding, in nearly 150 years. My lack of admiration is that as far as I'm concerned, it's another barrier to eventual Catholic / Protestant reunification.

But if someone wants to base their estimate of Catholic "infallibility" on a political dog-fight which took place 1500 years ago, well, good on 'em.

I'm not interested myself. I had my old (deceased) Protestant pastor turn up in a brief vision one night and all he said was "The Catholic Church is closest to the truth", with a distinct emphasis on the word "closest". That's good enough for me.

As for the expectation of "TheLostCoin" that we resolve Catholic "infallibility" with the actions of a long dead Pope (or maybe anti-Pope) living in turbulent times who had an ambitious Emperor with an equally ambitious imperial wife, Ostrogoths, Monophysites, the Dual Nature crowd, and Western versus Eastern Church antipathy all breathing down his neck, I doubt if any of us are going to satisfy him completely.

But at least the Catholic Church is still a going concern, showing a pretty much continuous existence ever since Christ declared Peter the "rock" on which He would found His church, and over which the "proud gates of Hell" would not prevail. It's still there.

All Luther managed to do was to split the church will millions of dead as a result of "religious" wars (somewhere between 5 million and 16 million, out of maybe 80 million inhabitants, depending on which authority you believe - all the killing and massacres done in the name of a purely ideological faith versus works of course), and the Protestants have been splitting up more and more ever since.

I'll stick with the Catholic Church - we might be made up of exactly the same flawed human material as every other Church, but I think it's "closest" to the truth.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

OK. I hear you. I'm just saying that a high quality reference work says Vigilius was a pope and not an antipope, irrespective of what you say Robert Bellarmine said. If what he said was such a great argument, Vigilius would now be listed as an antipope. And he's not. Bellarmine had an interesting opinion, probably a rational opinion, and in the end that opinion was found not convincing to future historians and theologians. So he's listed as a pope. Maybe subsequent historians and theologians were wrong. Maybe Bellarmine's case for him being an antipope needs to be reopened. But it was actually closed close to 500 years ago, in the negative for Bellarmine. He lost. Saint and scholar that he was. It can be either reopened now, or it is left as an interesting historical curiosity.

I'd be in favor of giving it a new look, particularly in the light of the current pope. But at present it's not much more than an old opinion that wasn't accepted at the time it was given. Maybe it should have been, but it wasn't.

Last night I read more on this, and according to the book I have, it was while Pope Saint Sylverius was alive that St. Robert Bellarmine considered Vigilius an antipope. But St. Robert Bellarmine argues that Vigilius became a legitimate pope after Saint Sylverius died. So I guess in that way his view can be reconciled with how the Catholic encyclopedia lists Vigilius as a pope.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Last night I read more on this, and according to the book I have, it was while Pope Saint Sylverius was alive that St. Robert Bellarmine considered Vigilius an antipope. But St. Robert Bellarmine argues that Vigilius became a legitimate pope after Saint Sylverius died. So I guess in that way his view can be reconciled with how the Catholic encyclopedia lists Vigilius as a pope.

Given all of that and his mushy positions, I would not call him a great pope by any means. More a creature of the Empire. A great reason not to have caesaropapism.

 

[TheLostCoin]

Last night I read more on this, and according to the book I have, it was while Pope Saint Sylverius was alive that St. Robert Bellarmine considered Vigilius an antipope. But St. Robert Bellarmine argues that Vigilius became a legitimate pope after Saint Sylverius died. So I guess in that way his view can be reconciled with how the Catholic encyclopedia lists Vigilius as a pope.

Then the 5th Ecumenical Council was confirmed by a legitimate Pope, contradicting his dogmatic proclamation.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Then the 5th Ecumenical Council was confirmed by a legitimate Pope, contradicting his dogmatic proclamation.

Try reading the following:

Council of Chalcedon

The Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in 451, from 8 October until 1 November inclusive, at Chalcedon, a city of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Its principal purpose was to assert the orthodox Catholic doctrine against the heresy of Eutyches and the Monophysites, although ecclesiastical discipline and jurisdiction also occupied the council's attention.

Scarcely had the heresy of Nestorius concerning the two persons in Christ been condemned by the Council of Ephesus, in 431, when the opposite error of the Nestorian heresy arose. Since Nestorius so fully divided the Divine and the human in Christ that he taught a double personality or a twofold being in Christ, it became incumbent on his opponents to emphasize the unity in Christ and to exhibit the God-man, not as two beings but as one. Some of these opponents in their efforts to maintain a physical unity in Christ held that the two natures in Christ, the Divine and the human, were so intimately united that they became physically one, inasmuch as the human nature was completely absorbed by the Divine. Thus resulted one Christ not only with one personality but also with one nature. After the Incarnation, they said, no distinction could be made in Christ between the Divine and the human. The principal representatives of this teaching were Dioscurus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and Eutyches, an archimandrite or president of a monastery outside Constantinople. The Monophysitic error, as the new error was called (Gr. mone physis, one nature), claimed the authority of St. Cyril, but only through a misinterpretation of some expressions of the great Alexandrine teacher. More​

.

 

[TheLostCoin]

Try reading the following:

Council of Chalcedon

The Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in 451, from 8 October until 1 November inclusive, at Chalcedon, a city of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Its principal purpose was to assert the orthodox Catholic doctrine against the heresy of Eutyches and the Monophysites, although ecclesiastical discipline and jurisdiction also occupied the council's attention.

Scarcely had the heresy of Nestorius concerning the two persons in Christ been condemned by the Council of Ephesus, in 431, when the opposite error of the Nestorian heresy arose. Since Nestorius so fully divided the Divine and the human in Christ that he taught a double personality or a twofold being in Christ, it became incumbent on his opponents to emphasize the unity in Christ and to exhibit the God-man, not as two beings but as one. Some of these opponents in their efforts to maintain a physical unity in Christ held that the two natures in Christ, the Divine and the human, were so intimately united that they became physically one, inasmuch as the human nature was completely absorbed by the Divine. Thus resulted one Christ not only with one personality but also with one nature. After the Incarnation, they said, no distinction could be made in Christ between the Divine and the human. The principal representatives of this teaching were Dioscurus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and Eutyches, an archimandrite or president of a monastery outside Constantinople. The Monophysitic error, as the new error was called (Gr. mone physis, one nature), claimed the authority of St. Cyril, but only through a misinterpretation of some expressions of the great Alexandrine teacher. More​

.

Wrong Council.

I think you mean this one.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Second Council of Constantinople

"In the meantime Vigilius had sent to the emperor (14 May) a document known as the first "Constitutum" (Mansi, IX, 61-106), signed by himself and sixteen, mostly Western, bishops, in which sixteen heretical propositions of Theodore of Mopsuestia were condemned, and, in five anathematisms, his Christological teachings repudiated; it was forbidden, however, to condemn his person, or to proceed further in condemnation of the writings or the person of Theodoret, or of the letter of Ibas."

"Vigilius, together with other opponents of the imperial will, as registered by the subservient court-prelates, seems to have been banished (Hefele, II, 905), together with the faithful bishops and ecclesiastics of his suite, either to Upper Egypt or to an island in the Propontis. Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11)..."

New Advent tries to correct this discrepancy by stating:

"His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West."


However, the Constitum states that Theodoret and Ibas were orthodox (A history of the councils of the church : from the original documents), and says this:

"We ordain and decree that it be permitted to no one belonging to any ecclesiastical order or office to write or bring forward or compose or teach anything contrary to the contents of this Constitutum in regard to the Three Chapters, or after this present definition to move any further question. And if anything has been done, said, or written by anyone anywhere about the Three Chapters contrary to what we here assert and decree...this in all ways we refute by the authority of the Apostolic See in which by the grace of God we preside."

Moreover, even if this was correct, New Advent doesn't seem to answer the question of how an Ecumenical Council can judge a Pope.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The Catholic Church doesn't teach that everything a pope teaches is infallible.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Catholic Church doesn't teach that everything a pope teaches is infallible.

Exactly. And that's why we don't have to accept every utterance of a pope as infallible. Which is why pope Vigilius is not the biggest deal around. It's sketchy enough what he said, what it meant, what he retracted, what that meant, for us to be going around saying his capers prove or disprove anything.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

As a Protestant butting in, I would just like to point out that the Three Chapters were in Greek and the principal Western players were all Latin-speakers with a questionable grasp thereof, and they were discussing weighty theology where precision was required.

Anyway, the affirmation of someone as Pope or Antipope seems quite difficult on occasion. I am thinking about the Western Schism where the Pisa popes were often consider legitimate, as well as the Roman ones. I can even understand Benedict XIII's argument that he was the last cardinal appointed outide of the taint of Schism and thus the 'most legitimate'.

I think the case for Vigilius being an Antipope quite strong, as Belisarius had his predecessor deposed for aiding the Goths and Procopius says he then had Vigilius appointed in his stead. An Imperial general installing a Pope is classic Antipope territory.

From what little I know about this, I never really connected it to Papal Infallibility, as the Three Chapters was about condemning certain writings, rather than promulgating doctrine. It does not seem to me to fit the criteria of Ex Cathedra. That being said, I have no skin in the game, so maybe I haven't understood the nuances here.