- Sep 29, 2016
- 1,507
- 822
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
So, this is a question that I wanted to bring up - and that is the case of Pope Vigilius, to which no Roman Catholic, online or elsewhere, has been able to solve for me, for the solutions that they bring up in order to resolve this contradiction lead to another contradiction.
Here's the backdrop - during the Council of Chalcedon, three Bishops - Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodore, all had their names cleared, and some of their writings - known as the "Three Chapters" which were heretical (Nestorian) in content were seen as accepted. There was a controversy, as the Emperor Justinian, reading these texts, realized how heretical and blasphemous they were, and had the Eastern bishops examine them, and they agreed to condemn it. Then Justinian asked the Pope of Rome at the time, Pope Vigilius.
In response, Pope Vigilius said "no, they are Orthodox." Enraged, the Emperor Justinian sent soldiers over to Rome, and while Pope Vigilius was serving Mass, they captured him, took him to Constantinople, and imprisoned him till he condemned it.
After the Pope was released, a lot of the Western Church was enraged over this, and even a Council in North Africa excommunicated him, led by Reparatus of Carthage.
Pope Vigilius then withdrew his "Judicatum" (his "Judgment" on the Three Chapters), and issued another Judgment known as the "Constitutum," where he seems to explicitly condemn some writings of Theodore, but argues that the writings of Theodoret and Ibas were Orthodox.
At the end of his "Constitutum," the Pope writes the following:
"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."
This statement seems to fit the criteria of the supposed "Ex Cathedra" dogma of Vatican I.
So this is what happens next.
The Emperor Justinian convenes a Council in the East, the 5th Ecumenical Council, without the Pope or any Papal Legate, to which they stated the following:
"As, however, the heretics are resolved to defend Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius with their impieties, and maintain that that letter of Ibas was received by the Synod of Chalcedon, so do we exhort you to direct your attention to the impious writings of Theodore, and especially to his Jewish Creed which was brought forward at Ephesus and Chalcedon, and anathematized by each synod with those who had so held or did so hold; and we further exhort you to consider what the holy Fathers have written concerning him and his blasphemies, as well as what our predecessors have promulgated, as also what the Church historians have set forth concerning him. You will thence see that he and his heresies have since been condemned and that therefore his name has long since been struck from the diptychs of the Church of Mopsuestia."
...
"When you afterwards came hither at my invitation, letters were exchanged between you and Vigilius in order to a common assembly. But now he had altered his view, would no longer have a synod, but required that only the three patriarchs and one other bishop (in communion with the Pope and the three bishops about him) should decide the matter. In vain we sent several commands to him to take part in the synod. He rejected also our two proposals, either to call a tribunal for decision, or to hold a smaller assembly, at which, besides him and his three bishops, every other patriarch should have place and voice, with from three to five bishops of his diocese."
...
"And when he (Vigilius) had heard these things from us, he sent Servus Dei the Subdeacon, who now awaits the answer of your serenity. And when his Piety had heard this, he commanded through the aforesaid most religious and glorious men, the before-named subdeacon to carry back this message to the most religious Vigilius: We invited him (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. And how can you expect us to receive such a document from you?"
...
"Constantine, the most glorious Quæstor, said: While I am still present at your holy council by reason of the reading of the documents which have been presented to you, I would say that the most pious Emperor has sent a minute (formam), to your Holy Synod, concerning the name of Vigilius, that it be no more inserted in the holy diptychs of the Church, on account of the impiety which he defended. Neither let it be recited by you, nor retained, either in the church of the royal city, or in other churches which are entrusted to you and to the other bishops in the State committed by God to his rule. And when you hear this minute, again you will perceive by it how much the most serene Emperor cares for the unity of the holy churches and for the purity of the holy mysteries."
And Vigilius writes the following in response:
"Therefore we anathematize and condemn the aforesaid impious Three Chapters, to-wit, the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia and his impious writings; And all that Theodoret impiously wrote, as well as the letter said to have been written by Ibas, in which are contained the above mentioned profane blasphemies. We likewise subject to anathema whoever shall at any time believe that these chapters should be received or defended; or shall attempt to subvert this present condemnation.
And further we define that they are our brethren and fellow priests who ever keep the right faith set forth by those afore-mentioned synods, and shall have condemned the above-named Three Chapters, or even do now condemn them.
And further we annul and evacuate by this present written definition of ours whatever has been said by me or by others in defense of the aforesaid Three Chapters."
So, to summarize.
- Justinian sees that there are certain writings of people who died at peace in the Church which are blasphemous.
- Justinian and the Eastern Bishops condemn these writings as heretical and blasphemous.
- The Pope refuses, and says that two of the three writings are completely Orthodox, saying that such doctrine is Orthodox in an "Ex Cathedra" matter.
- A Council of Eastern Bishops excommunicates the Pope for heresy.
- The Pope apologizes and annuls this "Ex Cathedra" declaration, and confirms this council, and recognizes it as the 5th Ecumenical Council.
The solutions that I've heard for the Roman Catholic point of view is
1. The 5th Ecumenical Council made a dogmatic mistake in regards to the Three Chapters.
2. Pope Vigilius's Constitum wasn't Ex Cathedra, and the 5th Ecumenical Council made a mistake in trying to excommunicate the Pope.
If 1 is correct, then that means that an Infallible, Ecumenical Council is erroneous, which can't be the case.
If 2 is correct, then nothing else can be an Ex Cathedra statement, because the Pope made a dogmatic decision that is binding on the whole Church, and Vatican 1 is heretical.
Thoughts?
Here's the backdrop - during the Council of Chalcedon, three Bishops - Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodore, all had their names cleared, and some of their writings - known as the "Three Chapters" which were heretical (Nestorian) in content were seen as accepted. There was a controversy, as the Emperor Justinian, reading these texts, realized how heretical and blasphemous they were, and had the Eastern bishops examine them, and they agreed to condemn it. Then Justinian asked the Pope of Rome at the time, Pope Vigilius.
In response, Pope Vigilius said "no, they are Orthodox." Enraged, the Emperor Justinian sent soldiers over to Rome, and while Pope Vigilius was serving Mass, they captured him, took him to Constantinople, and imprisoned him till he condemned it.
After the Pope was released, a lot of the Western Church was enraged over this, and even a Council in North Africa excommunicated him, led by Reparatus of Carthage.
Pope Vigilius then withdrew his "Judicatum" (his "Judgment" on the Three Chapters), and issued another Judgment known as the "Constitutum," where he seems to explicitly condemn some writings of Theodore, but argues that the writings of Theodoret and Ibas were Orthodox.
At the end of his "Constitutum," the Pope writes the following:
"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."
This statement seems to fit the criteria of the supposed "Ex Cathedra" dogma of Vatican I.
So this is what happens next.
The Emperor Justinian convenes a Council in the East, the 5th Ecumenical Council, without the Pope or any Papal Legate, to which they stated the following:
"As, however, the heretics are resolved to defend Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius with their impieties, and maintain that that letter of Ibas was received by the Synod of Chalcedon, so do we exhort you to direct your attention to the impious writings of Theodore, and especially to his Jewish Creed which was brought forward at Ephesus and Chalcedon, and anathematized by each synod with those who had so held or did so hold; and we further exhort you to consider what the holy Fathers have written concerning him and his blasphemies, as well as what our predecessors have promulgated, as also what the Church historians have set forth concerning him. You will thence see that he and his heresies have since been condemned and that therefore his name has long since been struck from the diptychs of the Church of Mopsuestia."
...
"When you afterwards came hither at my invitation, letters were exchanged between you and Vigilius in order to a common assembly. But now he had altered his view, would no longer have a synod, but required that only the three patriarchs and one other bishop (in communion with the Pope and the three bishops about him) should decide the matter. In vain we sent several commands to him to take part in the synod. He rejected also our two proposals, either to call a tribunal for decision, or to hold a smaller assembly, at which, besides him and his three bishops, every other patriarch should have place and voice, with from three to five bishops of his diocese."
...
"And when he (Vigilius) had heard these things from us, he sent Servus Dei the Subdeacon, who now awaits the answer of your serenity. And when his Piety had heard this, he commanded through the aforesaid most religious and glorious men, the before-named subdeacon to carry back this message to the most religious Vigilius: We invited him (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. And how can you expect us to receive such a document from you?"
...
"Constantine, the most glorious Quæstor, said: While I am still present at your holy council by reason of the reading of the documents which have been presented to you, I would say that the most pious Emperor has sent a minute (formam), to your Holy Synod, concerning the name of Vigilius, that it be no more inserted in the holy diptychs of the Church, on account of the impiety which he defended. Neither let it be recited by you, nor retained, either in the church of the royal city, or in other churches which are entrusted to you and to the other bishops in the State committed by God to his rule. And when you hear this minute, again you will perceive by it how much the most serene Emperor cares for the unity of the holy churches and for the purity of the holy mysteries."
And Vigilius writes the following in response:
"Therefore we anathematize and condemn the aforesaid impious Three Chapters, to-wit, the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia and his impious writings; And all that Theodoret impiously wrote, as well as the letter said to have been written by Ibas, in which are contained the above mentioned profane blasphemies. We likewise subject to anathema whoever shall at any time believe that these chapters should be received or defended; or shall attempt to subvert this present condemnation.
And further we define that they are our brethren and fellow priests who ever keep the right faith set forth by those afore-mentioned synods, and shall have condemned the above-named Three Chapters, or even do now condemn them.
And further we annul and evacuate by this present written definition of ours whatever has been said by me or by others in defense of the aforesaid Three Chapters."
So, to summarize.
- Justinian sees that there are certain writings of people who died at peace in the Church which are blasphemous.
- Justinian and the Eastern Bishops condemn these writings as heretical and blasphemous.
- The Pope refuses, and says that two of the three writings are completely Orthodox, saying that such doctrine is Orthodox in an "Ex Cathedra" matter.
- A Council of Eastern Bishops excommunicates the Pope for heresy.
- The Pope apologizes and annuls this "Ex Cathedra" declaration, and confirms this council, and recognizes it as the 5th Ecumenical Council.
The solutions that I've heard for the Roman Catholic point of view is
1. The 5th Ecumenical Council made a dogmatic mistake in regards to the Three Chapters.
2. Pope Vigilius's Constitum wasn't Ex Cathedra, and the 5th Ecumenical Council made a mistake in trying to excommunicate the Pope.
If 1 is correct, then that means that an Infallible, Ecumenical Council is erroneous, which can't be the case.
If 2 is correct, then nothing else can be an Ex Cathedra statement, because the Pope made a dogmatic decision that is binding on the whole Church, and Vatican 1 is heretical.
Thoughts?
