www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Formula of Pope St Hormisdas

Anastasios wrote:


Confirmation of councils was not viewed as a function of the pentarchy. It came to be viewed as a papal function, usually being expressed through papal legates. Papal confirmation became a canonical necessity. For example, note this from the Council of Ephesus:

Projectus, bishop and legate of the Roman Church said: Most clearly from the reading, etc, . . . Moreover I also, by my authority as legate of the holy Apostolic See, define, being with my brethren an executor of the aforesaid sentence, that the beforenamed Nestorius is an enemy of the truth, a corrupter of the faith, and as guilty of the things of which he was accused, has been removed from the grade of Episcopal honour, and moreover from the communion of all orthodox priests.

Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: The professions which have been made by Arcadius and Projectus, the most holy and pious bishops, as also by Philip, the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod. For they have made their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and of the whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West. Wherefore let those things which were defined by the most holy Coelestine, the God-beloved bishop, be carried into effect, and the vote east against Nestorius the heretic, by the holy Synod, which met in the metropolis of Ephesus be agreed to universally; for this purpose let there be added to the already prepared acts the proceedings of yesterday and today, and let them be shewn to their holiness, so that by their subscription according to custom, their canonical agreement with all of us may be manifest.

Arcadius the most reverend bishop and legate of the Roman Church, said: According to the acts of this holy Synod, we necessarily confirm with our subscriptions their doctrines.The Holy Synod said: Since Arcadius and Projectus the most reverend and most religious bishops and legates and Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, have said that they are of the same mind with us, it only remains, that they redeem their promises and confirm the acts with their signatures, and then let the minutes of the acts be shewn to them.[The three then signed.]

(An aside: here is the usage applying the term "the Apostolic See" to the See of Rome.)

The Bishops at Chalcedon wrote to Pope St Leo, referring to him as "him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour--we refer to your holiness--" and then asked him:

And so, deign, most holy and blessed father, to embrace as your own, and as lovable and agreeable to good order, the things we have decreed, for the removal of all confusion, and the confirmation of church order.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council wrote to the pope:

and we pray your paternal sanctity to confirm our decree by your honourable rescript;

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?

And when the Seventh Ecumenical Council was held which upheld the use of icons and images a special invitation was sent to Pope Hadrian:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-155.htm#P10087_1883025

and what is even more remarkable is Pope Hadrian's letter--much of which was read to the Council (in which he refers to the Church of Rome as "mother"):

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-159.htm#P10150_1909950

Similar documentation on the relationship between popes and ecumenical councils can be found at:

http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/ecu.htm

Re: Vigilius

The classic Catholic views on the case of Pope Vigilius can be found at:

Pope Vigilius:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm

Three Chapters:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14707b.htm

Second Council of Constantinople (5th Ecumenical Council):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

Phillip Hughes on the 5th Council (includes background):

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/coun6.html

Pope Vigilius and Emperor Justinian disagreed strongly about the propriety of condemning the Three Chapters. Justinian used every means he could to get Vigilius to comply with his views (including kidnapping, house arrest, physical abuse). In fact, getting the pope's compliance was essential to his plan. In the end, Justinian won out...helped out by Vigilius' own duplicity.

A couple of points to clarify things stated by others in this thread. Vigilius and Justinian had been going at it for years on this issue. The final crisis which led to the 5th Council was Justinian's second edict against the Three Chapters. The book Byzantium--The Early Centuries by John Julius Norwich describes what happened next:


Anglican writer Trevor Jalland describes it this way in The Church and the Papacy:

It was now Vigilius' turn to take the offensive. After publishing sentences of disposition and excommunication against his opponents, he issued an encyclical on the lines of the formula of Hormisdas, the purpose of which must have been to reassure Western opinion. The effect on this action on the capital was electric. The excommunicated bishops united in producing a declaration of assent to the `four councils' and a profession of readiness `to respect and accept as orthodox therein all that had been said to be such by common consent with the legates and representatives of the apostolic see.' Vigilius presently returned to Constantinople [from Chalcedon], and on the death of [Patriarch] Menas had the satisfaction of receiving a solemn profession of faith from his successor, Eutychius, in which the new bishop acknowledged the `four councils', the letters of Leo and other Popes, and supported the project of a new council under Vigilius' presidency. For obvious reasons the Pope endeavoured to postpone its assembly and proposed that it be held in the West. But Justinian naturally would have none of this, nor would he entertain any longer the alternative of a round-table conference, still less the proposal of Pelagius that the decision of the question of the `Three Chapters' should be left to the Roman see. (page 348)

Justinian forced the Council to be held in the East and maneuvered to get rid of opposition. Vigilius boycotted the Council. The dialogue that OrthodoxyorDeath quoted is incorrect. He has conflated what the Bishops told Vigilius with what the Emperor instructed be told to Vigilius. The Acts of the Council report the exchange between Vigilius and the Bishops (as the Bishops reported it to Justinian):

-------------
Vigilius states: "We have called you for this reason, that you may know what things have been done in the past days. To this end I have written a document about the disputed Three Chapters, addressed to the most pious Emperor, pray be good enough to read it, and to carry it to his Serenity."

But when we had heard this and had seen the document written to your serenity, we said to him that we could not by any means receive any document written to the most pious Emperor without his bidding. "But you have deacons for running with messages, by whom you can send it."

He, however, said to us: "You now know that I have made the document."

But we, bishops, answered him: "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four Councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a [father] and primate. But if your holiness has drawn up a document for the Emperor, you have errand-runners, as we have said; send it by them."
-------------
At Justinian's bidding the Bishops tried to entice Vigilius to come to the Council. He preferred to make his statement in writing, however. Despite Vigilius' earlier support the Council proves itself compliant to Justinian. One factor completely turned what support Vigilius had completely against him. Vigilius was exposed as deceptive. He had previously secretly promised Justinian that he would do everything possible to secure the condemnation of the Three Chapters and Justinian produced the written evidence from Vigilius' own hand.

Here is where the second part of what OrthodoxyorDeath quotes happens:
----------
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 [Justinian] 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?" And when this answer was given by the most pious Emperor, he did not send through the same deacon any document in writing from himself. And all this was done without writing as also to your blessedness.
--------------
The flattery from the Bishops did not bring Vigilius to the Council. And when Vigilius was exposed everyone turned against him. Anastasios has misquoted Fr Meyendorff on the removal of Vigilius' name from the diptychs:


Actually, what Meyendorff says is: "serving unity" not "severing unity." It's easy to see how this was misunderstood (and someone might think it is a typo in the book) because Meyendorff does not explain an important element to this incident. The Acts of the Council report they said:


Jalland (Anglican) explains:


This was not the first time that the pope had been removed from the diptychs in Constantinople. In 484, Patriarch Acacius, who enjoyed the patronage of Emperor Zeno had done the same in retaliation for being excommunciated by Pope Felix because of maintaining communion with Monophysites. In the interim, however, all the Eastern prelates had signed the Formula of Pope St
Hormisdas which stressed the importance of maintaining communion with the Apostolic See of Rome. This was even part of civil law.

Justinian demanded that Pope Vigilius be removed from the diptychs. The Bishops complied. Remember, many of these same Bishops had promised Vigilius their fidelity just a few months earlier. Perhaps they were disillusioned
with Vigilius. They certainly had every reason. They also knew that it was personally dangerous to disagree with Justinian. They knew of Justinian's treatment of Vigilius (being kidnapped, deported, physically assaulted,
house arrest--he'd been kept away from Rome for 8 years). Notice how they worded what they were doing.

Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelley explains in The Oxford Dictionary of the Popes:


The expression used was non sedem sed sedentem, "not the seat but the sitter." Retaining communion with the Apostolic See of Rome was still seen as necessary. (Perhaps this is analogous to today's sede vacantists
who claim the pope in Rome is not a valid pope.) Think what we want of the propriety of Justinian's and the Council's action (and of Vigilius' character) it is noteworthy that communion with the Apostolic See was still maintained as a necessary principle even if its occupant was deemed unworthy.

Dave Ignatius,

Thank you for your excellent research. This is very thought-provoking information. I will ponder it as I do those of the other side of this issue. Keep up the good work.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

>>>Confirmation of councils was not viewed as a function of the pentarchy. It came to be viewed as a papal function, usually being expressed through papal legates. Papal confirmation became a canonical necessity.<<<

The canonical criteria for holding and identifying an ecumenical council were laid out at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. Among the criteria needed were: (a) the participation of ALL five patriarchs, either directly or through their representatives; and (b) ratification of the acts of the council by the Bishop of Rome. However, it is plain to see that neither Rome nor the Churches of the East have ever taken these criteria seriously. In the first place, they cannot be applied ex post facto to earlier councils, many of which did not meet the criteria indicated. Second, neither Rome nor the Eastern Churches recognized as ecumenical several councils that did meet the criteria. The prime example, of course, is the Council of Constantinople in 879-880, which did involve representatives of all five patriarchates and did receive the ratification of Pope John VIII, but which was ultimately repudiated by Rome in the 11th century (and by most of the Orthodox thereafter). At the same time, the Council of Constantinople held in 869-870, which ALSO met all of the canonical criteria, was explicitly repudiated by the Council of 879-880.

Moving into Latin Church history, we find that Rome first accepted the Council of Constance that ended the Great Western Schism, and also accepted, initially, the acts of the Council of Basle, but then repudiated both at the Council of Florence-Ferrara.

It would seem, then, that for both Rome and for the Churches of the East, there are no canonical criteria which can determine in advance which councils will be considered ecumenical and which will not. Ultimately, both Rome and Constantinople rely on the principle of reception--that a council become "ecumenical" only when that which it taught and proclaimed is fully assimilated into the collective consciousness of the entire Body of Christ as bearing witness to the truth. That's a slow and organic process, which may not be completed for years, if not decades. Rome did not accept the First Council of Constantinople (381) until the Council of Ephesus (431)--a lapse of 50 years. It also would appear, from history, that reception can be incomplete, or even reversed, should the mind of the Church become convinced that a council erred in one way or the other. This then, leaves great hope for the ultimate reconcilation of all the Churches.

As for those who wish for a juridical, cut-and-dried answer to this complex problem, I fear they are doomed to perpetual disappointment.

A friend has emailed me the website of a written debate between two layman...one Orthodox and the other Catholic on the Primacy issue. It is still in progress. One of the issues has dealt with the Formula of Pope St Hormisdas. For those who like such reading go to:

http://www.geocities.com/joeswaydyn2000/debate.html

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

This post has been moved to the "on Roman Primacy" thread.

Thanks,

Der-Ghazarian

[ 08-24-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]

I just received through inter-library loan a copy of Studies on the Early Papacy by Dom John Chapman (published 1928). I wanted to share
this section from the book which gives more details of this time. Chapman writes:

=============

"On February 5, 552, [Pope Vigilius] issued an encyclical: "Vigilius, bishop of the Catholic Church, to all the people of God," describing bitterly the ill-treatment he had undergone, and explaining the excommunication against any who should touch the question of the Three Chapters until a common deliberation. This public complaint was a grave blow to Justinian. But the
Pope at the same time published the excommunication of Theodore Askidas [Justinian's main theological advisor], which he had held over for nearly six months. He recited the repeated delinquincies of Theodore, his frequent promises of reform, declaring him the author of the condemnation of the Three Chapters, which was a matter only for bishops, to whom the Lord gave
the power of binding and loosing. Together with Theodore, the Patriarch Menas is also excommunicated; "with all his metropolitans and
micropolitans and any other bishops of the East who have joined in the prevarication of Theodore," "in the person of and by the authority of St Peter the Apostle, whose place we hold, though unworthy." Dacius of Milan and twelve other bishops of the West joined in signing this document, which was actually posted up in the churches and public places of Constantinople.

The effect of the Pope's belated boldness was electric; Justinian was nonplussed. The Pope would not quit the sanctuary nor trust his oaths. The Patriarch Menas, together with the metropolitans of Ephesus, Caesarea (that is Theodore himself), and many others, having incurred excommunication, came across the Bosphorus and presented to the Pope a petition more searching and humiliating than the formula of Hormisdas. They began by accepting the four
general councils, especially Ephesus and Chalcedon, at which the Popes had presided by their legates.

"And we promise that we will follow throughout and in detail whatever is contained in all the acts of the Council of Chalcedon and of the other
aforesaid synods, according as it is written in the four synods, in common consent with the legates and Vicars of the Apostolic See (in whom on each respective occasion the blessed Popes of Elder Rome, your Holiness's predecessors presided), defined, or judged or constituted or disposed, whether as to faith or to any other cases, judgments, constitutions, or dispositions, immovably, inviolably, irreprehensibly, irreformably, without addition or imminution...and so forth.

Whatever things were there said by common consent with the legates and Vicars of the Apostolic orthodox See, these we venerate and receive as
orthodox.

Whatever they anathematized or condemned, that we anathematize and we condemn; and we preserve all irreformably and unchangeably as, by the aforesaid councils in common consent with the Vicars of the Apostolic See, they are read to have been judged or defined or constituted or disposed.

And we promise that we will in all things follow and observe also the letters of Pope Leo of blessed memory, and the constitutions of the
Apostolic See which have been published whether as to the faith or the confirmation of the aforesaid councils.

Against the constitution of the pious Emperor and of your Holiness, in the recent case of the Three Chapters, I have made no libellus; but I will and I consent that any such documents should be restored to your Blessedness.

With regard to the insults inflicted on your Blessedness and to your See, I did not commit them; but because it is right to hasten for peace in all ways, I ask pardon, as though I had commited them." (pp. 231-232) [Mansi 9:62]

====================

Dom John Chapman concludes that the chief Bishops of the East humilated themselves "before a Pope who has been insulted by the civil power, is in
sanctuary for safety, has personally no good character, is not obviously in the right, and has already twice contradicted himself. Such is still the prestige in the East of the See of Peter, even in an unworthy representative."

I think this episode shows that the view of some historians that the East did not understand the claims of Rome at this period is not tenable. Rome was ignored at times and both imperial and ecclesiastical political maneuverings were sometimes used against Rome's position. But, the claims were there and they were understood.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 08-25-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

[ 09-02-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

"I think this episode shows that the view of some historians that the East did not understand the claims of Rome at this period is not tenable. Rome was ignored at times and both imperial and ecclesiastical political maneuverings were sometimes used against Rome's position. But, the claims were there and they were understood."


I agree, Dave. It is my insignificant opinion that many Eastern Catholics are going too far by accepting the modern Eastern Orthodox interpretation of the history of Roman Primacy lock, stock and barrel. We need to be more critical of their claims before we abandon and undue everything our Eastern Catholic forebearers have accomplished in the name of the unity of the Catholic Church. I think we can betray our own heritage as Eastern Catholics a little too hastily. Reunion will be achieved by mutual agreement not by one side abanoning everything and just caving in to the other sides' beliefs.


In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

[ 08-25-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]

Today, after church our family stopped at an outdoor flea market. I was pleasantly surprised to pick up this volume for under $2:

Source Book for Ancient Church History, translated by Joseph Cullen Ayer, Jr, Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Divinity School of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, published by Charles Scribner's Sons, Philadelphia, 1941.

At any rate, I came across some texts in the volume dealing with Pope Vigilius. It quotes from his Judicatum where he first came out against the Three Chapters. (This pleased Emperor Justinian but caused severe problems in the Western Church which viewed this as a "sell out" of Chalcedon. Vigilius knew he had to sound tough on maintaining Chalcedon in this document.)

What is intriguing for the discussion here is how he refers to the papal confirmation of the Councils up to that time. No matter what we may think of Vigilius' character or the sorry events which soon followed this sheds some light on how the Church at that time viewed Councils and papal confirmation of Councils.

Pope Vigilius wrote this document to Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople in AD 548 and the text can be found on pp. 544-545 of the above volume:

All things being accepted and remaining perpetually established which were defined in the venerable councils at Nicea, and Constantinople, in the first at Ephesus, and at Chalcedon, and confirmed by the authority of our predecessors; and who in the said holy councils were deposed are without doubt condemned, and those are no less absolved whose absolution was decreed by the same synods....

We anathematize also whoever does not faithfully follow and equally venerate the holy synods of Nicea, of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and the synod of Chalcedon as most holy synods, agreeing in the one and immaculate faith of the Apostles, and confirmed by the pontiffs of the Apostolic See , and whoever wishes to correct as badly said, or wishes to supply as imperfect, those things which were done in the same councils which we have mentioned. [Mansi 9:181]

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 09-02-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Thanks Leo Ignatius,

Another important observation to this issue showing later Roman Catholic development was rooted in very early historic Catholic Church belief.

The Eastern Orthodox give superficial treatments of the Formula of Hormisdas, and leave out important details. Here is video lecture by a top scholar.