LivingWordUnity
Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
He was an antipope based on the fact that the legitimate pope was unlawfully forced out.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.
The Catholic Encyclopedia does NOT list him as an antipope but as a pope.He was an antipope based on the fact that the legitimate pope was unlawfully forced out.
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.The Catholic Encyclopedia does NOT list him as an antipope but as a pope.
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
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 PontificioSt. 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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'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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Try reading the following: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
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.The Catholic Church doesn't teach that everything a pope teaches is infallible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?