How does the case of Vigilius not disprove Vatican I?

[TheLostCoin]

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.

Dogmatic canons of Ecumenical Councils - in the Roman Catholic Tradition - are part of promulgating doctrine.

From Trent:
"If anyone says that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ, let him be anathema."

This is to be believed for all time.

According to my source (which could be incorrect or me reading it incorrectly), the Pope declares that the writings are Orthodox, and that nobody is permitted to discuss it any further by Apostolic Authority.

Canon 14 of the 5th Ecumenical Council:
"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 Godincarnate 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 defense 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."

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Dogmatic canons of Ecumenical Councils - in the Roman Catholic Tradition - are part of promulgating doctrine.

From Trent:
"If anyone says that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ, let him be anathema."

This is to be believed for all time.

According to my source (which could be incorrect or me reading it incorrectly), the Pope declares that the writings are Orthodox, and that nobody is permitted to discuss it any further by Apostolic Authority.

Canon 14 of the 5th Ecumenical Council:
"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 Godincarnate 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 defense 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."

I don't understand what your concern is.

The three chapters are a letter from Ibas, and writings by Theodoret and Theodore of Mopsuesta. Two of these bishops were restored to their sees by Chalcedon (4th ecumenical council) after condemning Nestorius. In this way, condemning them was seen as undermining Chalcedon, but Chalcedon never declared them and any writings of theirs, sacrosant.

Vigilius supported the Three Chapters until opposition from Justinian and translations into Latin of the writings were presented to him, and Justinian unilaterally calling the 5th ecumenical council. Vigilius was then browbeat into confirming said council. So no dogmatic canon of any ecumenical council was abrogated by Vigilius' initial support of the Three Chapters.

Anything a Pope says is not considered an ex cathedra pronouncement, and papal bulls and such have been set aside multiple times in the past - such as giving the New World to Spain and Portugal, or calling for the overthrow of the English throne. This is why ex cathedra is a nuanced thing, which all papal encyclicals or pronouncements do not necessarily amount to. I found now that Pope Pius XII said so explicitly.

According to Vatican I, something is ex cathedra if done in office as supreme pontiff, defines a doctrine on faith or morals and propogates it to the entire Church. So no, Vigilius and the Three Chapters do not technically infringe on papal infallibility as no doctrine was defined nor promulgated thereby. I don't understand why "no Catholic apologist could answer this", as the terms from Vatican I couldn't be clearer to my mind and obviously exclude the Three Chapters controversy. But I don't have any skin in the game here, so maybe I am missing some nuance.

 

[Markie Boy]

It's a mess. I have been down this road of sorts. If Papal Infallibility existed from the early Church, it should be fairly reasonable to see throughout history. But nobody can agree on what statements fit the criteria, so we have no list at all that would support it historically.

So we have two statements that are very recent that have come from the dogma of Infallibility.

I can't get it to pass the test of being Apostolic teaching. Now the fruit of it is more problematic - as there is not much they could have done to hurt unity with Protestants or Orthodox than make this dogma. And we know Jesus wants us to be one.

There are other cases like Honorius that are problematic as well.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don't understand what your concern is.

The three chapters are a letter from Ibas, and writings by Theodoret and Theodore of Mopsuesta. Two of these bishops were restored to their sees by Chalcedon (4th ecumenical council) after condemning Nestorius. In this way, condemning them was seen as undermining Chalcedon, but Chalcedon never declared them and any writings of theirs, sacrosant.

Vigilius supported the Three Chapters until opposition from Justinian and translations into Latin of the writings were presented to him, and Justinian unilaterally calling the 5th ecumenical council. Vigilius was then browbeat into confirming said council. So no dogmatic canon of any ecumenical council was abrogated by Vigilius' initial support of the Three Chapters.

Anything a Pope says is not considered an ex cathedra pronouncement, and papal bulls and such have been set aside multiple times in the past - such as giving the New World to Spain and Portugal, or calling for the overthrow of the English throne. This is why ex cathedra is a nuanced thing, which all papal encyclicals or pronouncements do not necessarily amount to. I found now that Pope Pius XII said so explicitly.

According to Vatican I, something is ex cathedra if done in office as supreme pontiff, defines a doctrine on faith or morals and propogates it to the entire Church. So no, Vigilius and the Three Chapters do not technically infringe on papal infallibility as no doctrine was defined nor promulgated thereby. I don't understand why "no Catholic apologist could answer this", as the terms from Vatican I couldn't be clearer to my mind and obviously exclude the Three Chapters controversy. But I don't have any skin in the game here, so maybe I am missing some nuance.

You actually nailed it. Nothing much to see in the case of Vigilius vs infallibility.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

You actually nailed it. Nothing much to see in the case of Vigilius vs infallibility.

It's a lot like today.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It's a lot like today.

Nothing yet from pope Francis has blown infallibility out of the water. The Catechism death penalty thing may have come closest actually, but still misses that level by a little bit. I am NOT endorsing everything pope Francis has said. It's just that he has yet to botch infallibility. Some people who have an overactive sense of infallibility may think he has botched it, but I have tried to keep my understanding if infallibility a bit more rooted in the actual doctrine.

I wonder if answering the dubia would be an infallible act? Maybe it has not been answered because an answer pope Francis might want to give simply is not allowable by the Holy Spirit. I wonder.

 

[Markie Boy]

This is sort of the problem with infallibility. If we go back thru history nobody can agree on what is and isn't infallible.

There are only two agreed on statements, and they both are post 1850. So this raises the question - where was this idea for 1800 years if nobody can come up with a list of infallible statements? It's obviously not as clearly taught and understood as they'd like to make it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

This is sort of the problem with infallibility. If we go back thru history nobody can agree on what is and isn't infallible.

There are only two agreed on statements, and they both are post 1850. So this raises the question - where was this idea for 1800 years if nobody can come up with a list of infallible statements? It's obviously not as clearly taught and understood as they'd like to make it.

No, but then the statement 'Roma locuta, causa finita est' is an old one.

The saying goes back to Augustine, who actually said:
"Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est." Sermon 131.10

The idea of appeals to Rome is even earlier. St. Athanasius, when booted out of Alexandria, appealed to the Church in Rome. But he wasn't by any means the first to do so. That doesn't 'prove' infallibility, only that Rome was the place final appeals went to. The approval of Rome mattered.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Nothing yet from pope Francis has blown infallibility out of the water. The Catechism death penalty thing may have come closest actually, but still misses that level by a little bit. I am NOT endorsing everything pope Francis has said. It's just that he has yet to botch infallibility. Some people who have an overactive sense of infallibility may think he has botched it, but I have tried to keep my understanding if infallibility a bit more rooted in the actual doctrine.

I wonder if answering the dubia would be an infallible act? Maybe it has not been answered because an answer pope Francis might want to give simply is not allowable by the Holy Spirit. I wonder.

I was comparing the election of Francis to how Vigilius was elected.

 

[Markie Boy]

No, but then the statement 'Roma locuta, causa finita est' is an old one.

The saying goes back to Augustine, who actually said:
"Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est." Sermon 131.10

The idea of appeals to Rome is even earlier. St. Athanasius, when booted out of Alexandria, appealed to the Church in Rome. But he wasn't by any means the first to do so. That doesn't 'prove' infallibility, only that Rome was the place final appeals went to. The approval of Rome mattered.

Agree - it was the court of high appeal. But that different than things today. It used to be bishops were appointed from the local area - now the pope move anyone around the globe at will.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I was comparing the election of Francis to how Vigilius was elected.

Some differences though. And despite every crazy thing pope Francis has done, or will likely do, I'm not going down that anti-pope Francis rabbit hole. We all need each other to pray our way through this growing mess and that seems like a dead end to me.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Agree - it was the court of high appeal. But that different than things today. It used to be bishops were appointed from the local area - now the pope move anyone around the globe at will.

One of the reforms that may come out of this mess we're in now is that bishops will move much less, most bishops will stay in one diocese for their whole lives, that 'auxiliary' bishops will be rare, and that dioceses will be split up and not have millions of Catholics in them. At least that's something I have been reading about.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Some differences though. And despite every crazy thing pope Francis has done, or will likely do, I'm not going down that anti-pope Francis rabbit hole. We all need each other to pray our way through this growing mess and that seems like a dead end to me.

St Robert Bellarmine taught that a legitimately elected pope remains the pope until he dies.

And he taught that there can only be one validly elected living pope.

 

[chevyontheriver]

St Robert Bellarmine taught that a legitimately elected pope remains the pope until he dies.

And he taught that there can only be one living pope.

But even before Robert Bellarmine there was a pope who resigned. Celestine V resigned in 1294, but before that he decreed that popes could resign. He is a canonized saint and a pope and says papal resignations are possible. I think a sainted pope trumps a sainted cardinal in determining whether a pope can resign.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

But even before Robert Bellarmine there was a pope who resigned. Celestine V resigned in 1294, but before that he decreed that popes could resign. He is a canonized saint and a pope and says papal resignations are possible. I think a sainted pope trumps a sainted cardinal in determining whether a pope can resign.

It's been very rare for a validly elected pope to step down. I've seen people come up with an inflated number by including antipopes who stepped down to try to make it seem normal. But if a legitimate pope steps down under pressure then the man replacing him is an antipope. And St Robert Bellarmine explained further by teaching that the pope who stepped down must be dead before the next one can be valid. That's how St Robert Bellarmine can view Vigilius as an antipope but then say that he was a legitimate pope after Pope Saint Sylverius died.

 

[Markie Boy]

I think a sainted pope trumps a sainted cardinal in determining whether a pope can resign.

Sounds like a card game to me!

Seriously - neither trumps the other - both have been wrong, neither is infallible.

 

[Rhamiel]

This is sort of the problem with infallibility. If we go back thru history nobody can agree on what is and isn't infallible.

There are only two agreed on statements, and they both are post 1850. So this raises the question - where was this idea for 1800 years if nobody can come up with a list of infallible statements? It's obviously not as clearly taught and understood as they'd like to make it.

Where was this idea?

It was in two ideas
1. The indefectibility of the Church
2. The idea of Papal supremacy

You see this in how Popes acted towards councils they did not agree with, teaching that a doctrine was binding on all Christians, reprimanding other Patriarchs

These things were not super common
But it is not like the idea was not just made up from whole cloth in 1850


It boils down to two questions, is the Church infallible? And can the Pope, acting as supreme Pontiff, speak on behalf of the Church?

 

[Markie Boy]

Where was this idea?

It was in two ideas
1. The indefectibility of the Church
2. The idea of Papal supremacy

You see this in how Popes acted towards councils they did not agree with, teaching that a doctrine was binding on all Christians, reprimanding other Patriarchs

These things were not super common
But it is not like the idea was not just made up from whole cloth in 1850


It boils down to two questions, is the Church infallible? And can the Pope, acting as supreme Pontiff, speak on behalf of the Church?

1. The Church can be indefectible in council, as the early Church was, without using papal infallibility.
2. Papal primacy can be seen in the early Church - but papal supremacy seems absent, or unclear at best.

If someone can provide a list of the Infallible statements from the year 33 AD to 1870 would be helpful - but it does not exist.

To state the thing was there, but provide no evidence for it being there is highly problematic.

Can someone provide the list of infallible statements please?

 

[TheLostCoin]

Where was this idea?

These things were not super common
But it is not like the idea was not just made up from whole cloth in 1850


It boils down to two questions, is the Church infallible? And can the Pope, acting as supreme Pontiff, speak on behalf of the Church?

The idea of "Papal Infallibility" is just a logical deduction from the idea that nobody can judge the Pope, an idea which was heavily promoted (and essentially made a dogma) by Pope Innocent III - when added to the idea of Papal Supremacy and Church Indefectability.

If the Pope is the highest authority in the Church, nobody has the authority to judge his decisions, and the Church cannot fall into heresy, ergo it must be the case that the Pope's decisions on dogma and faith cannot be heretical.

However, this theological ground becomes contradictory in cases where the Early Church clearly judged the dogmatic statements of Popes and judged Popes for heresy. It seems to be the case that the Early Church didn't hold to the doctrinal ground that the Pope can't be judged being the "sole" "Successor of Peter."

There's also the case of Vatican II and the contradictions there (which you will encounter regardless if you believe it's legitimate, if you believe in the SSPX position, or you are a Sedevacantist), but that's not salient for this thread.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Sounds like a card game to me!

Seriously - neither trumps the other - both have been wrong, neither is infallible.

I wanted it to sound a little like a card game where I would see him one cardinal and raise him one pope. We have been going round and round earlier about the opinions of Robert Bellarmine (whom I admire greatly) and I thought he might like that approach.

And you are right that pope Celestine V is not known for any infallible statements. He did state, all official like, that a pope could resign ... and ... then he resigned.