Church History
Papal Supremacy: The Fifth Ecumenical Council (553)
The Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (553) was convened during a time when the Christian world was ravaged by the heresy of monophysitism: the doctrine that Christ had only one nature as a mixture or replacement of the Divine nature with Christ’s humanity, or vice versa. Though the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon had condemned this position in 451, many of the eastern Churches found this to be a vindication of heresies that had been condemned in the councils before, leaning towards language that distinguished too greatly — in their eyes — the two natures of Christ. The Council was called by Emperor Justinian to condemn the Three Chapters, a series of works by fifth-century authors which included statements too close to the heresy of Nestorianism.
Today the Fifth Ecumenical is remembered for a very different reason. The treatment of Pope Vigilius by Emperor Justinian at the Council, and even the Council fathers’ subscription to personally excommunicating the Pope, is seen as a vindication of anti-Roman interpretations of the Patristic age. Divorcing the Council from its context in the middle of intense dispute and chaotic politics, this interpretation insists that such a history is incompatible with the later definition of ‘Papal Supremacy’: an ecumenical Council here seems to judge the See of Rome, which the Roman Church would later condemn as contrary to the rights and privileges afforded to that See. The confession that “It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convene councils, preside over them, and to confirm them” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 22) seems in stark contrast to the reality of Pope Vigilius’ day.
Yet just as with the Council of Constance (1414–1418), which had attempted to recognize the Ecumenical Council’s authority over the Pope of Rome, the statements made in Constantinople II need not affect anything of Catholic doctrine. The authority of the Popes had already been affirmed by the prior witness of the Church, and the introduction of novelties only condemns the innovator, as say the words of St Paul: “If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:9). The objection hinges, therefore, on the way in which those involved in the context were speaking of the See of Rome, as well as the established canonical procedure at the time. In any case, it must first be remembered that the Second Council of Constantinople had nothing to do with Papal authority or the ability of a council to judge a pope. The contention was in fact around the relation of the ecumenical Council to previous Councils of the same authority, and whether one could be set up against another.
The Canonical Authority of Popes before Pope Vigilius
Pope Vigilius came to become Pope amid much turmoil in 537, as his predecessor, St Silverius, had been accused of treason, defrocked, and exiled by Belisarius, the general under Empress Theodora. Silverius had refused to re-instate the monophysite patriarch of Constantinople, whom Pope Agapetus had deposed — even here, a recognition of the canonical authority of Rome to depose and judge the other most prominent and important Sees of Christendom was something the Popes fought bitterly to maintain against the emperors.
Where was this canonical authority established? In fact, it was as old as the Church itself. When Athanasius had been exiled by a judgment of the Alexandrian Church, Pope Julius had written on his behalf (341): “Judgment ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behoved you all to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all.” Again: “Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]?” For Pope St Julius, the judgment of Athanasius which had not sought approval from Rome was a canonical novelty: “not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice.” However, the reference of judgment to the Apostolic See was something taught by the Apostle Peter: “For what we have heard from the Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you.”
This statement was not the unfounded teaching of a Pope seeking power: its precedent had long been established. Almost a century before, the Alexandrian Church had protested to the bishop of Rome about the teaching of Dionysius, their patriarch; Pope Dionysius had demanded an explanation of his doctrine about the Word. Just before this, the bishops of the Council of Carthage (257) had sought acceptance of their agreement to baptise those who had been baptised outside the Church, and been corrected by Pope Stephen. Another 60 years before this, Pope Victor had written letters and declared all the churches of Asia Minor “wholly excommunicate” for their departure from apostolic tradition concerning when they celebrated Easter (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5:24:9). Even before this, near the beginning of the second century of the Christian Era Ignatius was writing to the Romans, telling them that “You have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (To the Romans 3:1).
So when Belisarius had defrocked and cast out the Bishop of Rome for treason when the city was besesiged by Goths, the surrounding bishops did not approve. The bishop of Patara, to which city Silverius had gone, wrote to the Emperor defending the Pope’s innocence, and warning that God would judge him harshly for it: for “In this world there are many kings, not one, like that pope who is over the church of the whole world” (Liberatus, Breviarium 22). Justinian had repented and recalled Silverius to Rome to re-examine his case; but Silverius died on the return trip, having suffered harsh conditions all the while till his death. The Church today venerates him as a martyr.
The Beginning of Vigilius’ Papacy
Vigilius had been the Papal representative in Constantinople, and had been sent to convict Silverius. So when he was elected as Pope, rumours and suspicions of complicity with the monophysite heresy, as well as excessive ambition and simony, started spreading like wildfire. It was said that Vigilius was a pawn of Empress Theodora, who “was sympathetic to the patriarch Anthimus who had been deposed by the holy pope Agapetus” (The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis), p. 57) — and whom, it was said, had promised Vigilius the See of Rome and 700 pounds of gold for him to lift the deposition. Despite this, however, as soon as Vigilius was Pope he became hostile to the Monophysite position, refusing to restore the heretic: “Far be this from me, Lady Augusta; formerly I spoke wrongly and foolishly, but now I assuredly refuse to restore a man who is a heretic and under anathema. Though unworthy, I am vicar of Blessed Peter the Apostle, as were my predecessors, the most holy Agapetus and Silverius, who condemned him” (ibid. pp. 58–59).
Writing to Justinian in 540, he promised to uphold the constitutions of his predecessors Hormisdas, John, and Agapetus. He thanked Justinian for his orthodoxy and his respect for Popes Celestine and Leo, the bishops of Rome at the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. “By the divine dispensation granted to them,” they had “laid down what all Christians must universally follow, by a law destined to endure forever;” as such, “bishops who have not inviolably observed the constitutions of the aforesaid bishops of the Apostolic See are not deemed to be worthy.”
The Three Chapters Controversy
In the meantime, in order to divert the emperor Justinian and the theologians of that period from the persecution of the Origenists, which had been the focus of much of Justinian’s policy in the surrounding years and which came to a head in the Fifteen Anathematisms of Origen, Theodore Ascidas of Caesarea stirred up the controversy of the three chapters (Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. IV, pp. 229–230). He represented to Justinian that by pronouncing an anathema on Theodore of Mopsuestia and his writings, on the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris, and on the writings of Theodoret in defence of Nestorius and against Cyril and the Third Ecumenical Council, Justinian could easily make strides to reconciling the Monophysites to the Church. The Severian party among the Monophysites in particular had declared in 533 that they could not accept the Council of Chalcedon on account of Ibas and Theodoret being vindicated by that Council. Justinian assented to the idea, and published an edict condemning the “impious three chapters” in 543 or 544.
The issue was a thorny one, for not only had these men died in the peace of the Church, and as such there was no precedent for posthumously anathematising them — as Facundus pointed out in his defence of the three chapters, Cyprian’s error on the rebaptism of heretics did not justify to anyone his condemnation — but also, since the fathers of Chalcedon had brought these persons back into communion, to condemn those persons again would be to condemn the Council of Chalcedon; this was the protestation of Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople, whose coerced subscription was signed only on the condition that the Pope of Rome agreed to it. Zoilus, patriarch of Alexandria, signed under the same condition — another testimony that the two highest patriarchs after Rome were willing to subject themselves to the judgment of the First See. Many other bishops in the eastern parts of the empire were in short time coerced into subscribing also, or were deposed; yet the Latin bishops stood firm against the condemnation, and pressed the Pope not to accept the three chapters.
Beset by the controversy on both sides, Vigilius refused to make a statement either way on the third chapters. This led to him being arrested and ordered to go to Constantinople in 545, though his refusal to be intimidated is shown by the following he said to his captives: “You may keep me in captivity, but the blessed Apostle Peter will never be your captive.” After tarrying in Sicily for quite some time, he arrived in Constantinople in 547. At this time, being received with great honours in the city, he excommunicated Mennas for four months, and Mennas did likewise to him.
Shortly after this, however, Vigilius changed his mind; either because of bribery leading him astray (as Facundus’ invective would have it) or on account of pressures of imprisonment and serious persecution (according to Vigilius’ own clergy), is difficult to say. Yet Vigilius promised Justinian to anathematise the three chapters, and around the same time, wrote the following: “We never were heretical, and are not so. But I demand the rights which God has granted to my see. But your Piety must not infer from this that I defend heretics. Behold, I respond to your irresistible command, and anathematise the letter of Ibas, and the doctrines of Theodoret, and of Theodore formerly bishop of Mopsuestia, who was always foreign to the Church, and an opponent of the holy Fathers. Whoever does not confess that the one only-begotten Word of God, that is, Christ, is one substance, and one person… we anathematise” (Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church, vol. IV, p. 250). At this time, also, Vigilius and Mennas were reconciled, and in 547 Vigilius’ name was entered back into the diptychs of the Church at Constantinople.
In 548, following conferences with 70 bishops in Constantinople, Vigilius issued his Judgment (Judicatum) to Mennas of Constantinople, condemning the three chapters under the condition that the importance of the Council of Chalcedon should not be called in question: “All shall remain in force which the four Synods have decreed, and the Popes have confirmed. All who were condemned by these Synods remain condemned, and those who were acquitted remain acquitted.” Without his knowledge, his deacon Rusticus began to circulate the judgment abroad, extolling and approving of it; later he changed his mind about the judgment, however, and rebelled against Vigilius, to which he was anathematised. Even so the same Rusticus maintained that he was a deacon of the “supreme church of the entire universe,” and from this we may infer a distinction between the man Vigilius and his office, which the Latins soon came to believe he had abandoned, personally excommunicating the Pope until he repent and retract the Judgment. In response, Vigilius withrew the Judgment, and declared in 550 that until an Ecumenical Council be held, any bishop who took action regarding the Three Chapters would be excommunicated by the Apostolic See.
The Arrangement of the Council
The Fifth Ecumenical Council, therefore, was not called contrary to the will of the Pope, or something which was uncaring for his judgment and opinion. When Vigilius called upon the Emperor to convene an ecumenical Council, Justinian continued to press him, and in late 551 tried to remove him; Vigilius escaped from the city, and took refuge in the city of Chalcedon. Recounting his sufferings in the letter Dum in Sanctae Euphemiae, he affirmed his own faith to be that of the four ecumenical councils, and shortly afterwards published his excommunication of Theodore Askidas of Caesarea and Mennas of Constantinople, who had broken the agreement to keep silent about the three chapters.
You have despised the authority of the Apostolic See which issued a prohibition through us… as if it were nothing for you to show contempt for the bishop of the first see contradicting you in person… Meanwhile, we keep silence about the other things perpetrated by you on the same day to the detriment of the Apostolic See and of the canons…
Justinian arranged meanwhile for an equal number of representatives from each patriarchate of the Church to be present at the Council, since the majority of the eastern bishops had already assented to the condemnation of the three chapters, and it was only the Latins that had been in stark opposition. Vigilius therefore protested again, and when the Emperor convened the council, he refused to attend, but requested a twenty day delay so he could give his sentence in writing. But Justinian refused to accommodate the tactic to buy time for more Latins to convene, and with the new patriarch of Constantinople Eutychius presiding, the first session of the Council began.
The Faith of the Council
Throughout the controversial pontificate of Vigilius, the rights of the See of Rome were continually maintained by Rome and, most often, by those who were opposing Vigilius and his Judicatum. One conciliatory letter of bishops to the Pope ran thus:
We venerate and receive as orthodox whatever was said there by common consent with the legates and vicars of the orthodox Apostolic See. Whatever they anathematized or condemned we also anathematize and condemn; and whatever things are read to have been judged, or defined, or constituted or disposed, we preserve irreversibly and unchangeably as they were [so done] by the same synods by common consent with the vicars of the Apostolic See…
Likewise, at the beginning of the Council, at which Vigilius was personally excommunicated, still reverence is paid to the Apostolic See: “as for unity with the Apostolic See, we both keep it and it is certain that you shall keep it,” said the Fathers, and again: “Let us therefore keep unity with the apostolic see of Old Rome, carrying out everything according to the content of the letters read…” The Council’s intention was to come to terms with and subscribe to the former judgment of the Pope, which Justinian considered all that was necessary; he sent to the Council sent six different documents giving Vigilius’ condemnations of the Three Chapters, and condemned his vacillations on this point. After six months of protest Vigilius subscribed to the Council, reaffirming his fidelity to the four Ecumenical Councils and condemning the three chapters, condemning his and any other previous defences of them.
All throughout the controversy, we see the attitude of the other bishops to the bishop of Rome: not one of indifference to the Apostolic See, but extreme reverence; not one of superiority, but one of submission. Even when the decisions of Vigilius were being contested, the ones in dispute held themselves to be in total communion with the See of Rome. Even when he was excommunicated in his person, the Council refused to cut communion with the Apostolic See, in whose judgment they had already been acting, and which Council was called by the Pope, submitted to his judgment, and was eventually accepted and promulgated by him.
So what shall we say of the doctrine of Papal Supremacy at this time? Was it forgotten, ignored, or subjected to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils? Not so: but the catholic position was staunchly maintained throughout the world even in this time of controversy. The case of Pope Vigilius remains a messy history, but it is one which knew of and submitted to the apostolic doctrine: that the first See is judged by no one, for the pope is over the church of the whole world.”
Subscribe to Catholicism Coffee for more introspective articles on Catholicism!
