Letters from an Inquirer - Part 3
Regarding Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy
Above: The Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II) of 553, during the Pontificate of Vigilius, by Vasily Surikov (1848–1916).
This is a continuation of a series of letters between a young inquirer and myself. You may find the whole series here, with an introduction in Part 1. Toward the end of this edition, we get into the weeds on the curious case of Pope Vigilius.
Mary:
When Catholics present historical evidence for the Papacy—claims and patterns that seem to align closely with what the Papacy is today—Orthodox often respond by appealing to the canons. They’ll say, “You may have words and statements, but we have binding canons,” and point to something like Apostolic Canon 34. They also cite Canon 6 of Nicaea to argue that synodality, not a Pope with universal and immediate jurisdiction, was the governing principle. How should Catholics answer that?
Wesley:
You’re right, the claim “it’s in the canons” is quite popular, but also quite mistaken. Neither Apostolic Canon 34 nor Canon 6 of Nicaea addresses the deeper question of whether the Church has a visible Head with universal jurisdiction or functions purely as a collegial body—whatever exactly that would mean. So, to invoke them as if they settle the question of Papal authority is to badly misread their scope and intent.
For whatever they’re worth, here are my takes on Canon 34 and Canon 6.
Mary:
Some Eastern Orthodox point to the Symmachian forgeries to argue that the principle “the first see is judged by no one” had no basis in early tradition and arose only through a later fabrication. This allows them to portray historical Rome as no different from any other patriarchate—one that could, in principle, even be excommunicated.
Wesley:
I’d have to go back and look at when and where that principle originated. But we need to clear up a common confusion. The principle prima sedes a nemine iudicatur (“the first see is judged by no one”) refers not to the person who happens to be the Pope but rather to the office itself and the authority it holds by divine right.
Vatican I does not teach that Popes are beyond rebuke in all respects. Peter was rebuked by Paul. Popes have been criticized, opposed, and condemned, even by later Popes. Honorius, most notably, was condemned by a Pope and a council long after he was dead. The principle is consistent with all of that, because it concerns de jure judgment—that is, authoritative judgment within the Church’s structure—not de facto resistance. No bishop, council, or tribunal within the Church has the jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the Roman Pontiff as such. His see, by divine institution, is not subject to trial or deposition by the Church's internal authority.
Also, whatever else may be said about Honorius, the plain fact is this: if you’re dead, you’re not the occupier of the “first see,” and therefore you cannot be judged as the occupier of the first see.
So, when opponents cite examples of Popes being resisted, criticized, or even treated shamefully, they’re missing the point. Such cases prove what we already know, namely, that popes can be weak or wrong or that people can defy them. What they don’t show is that a council or body has the rightful authority to judge or depose a reigning Pope as Pope. That’s the actual Catholic claim.
Regarding forgeries, I don’t see how they could be the origin of the principle. There is a lot of evidence prior to them that would need to be explained away. In fact, it seems pretty obvious that you can only ever make a successful forgery if people would be inclined to believe it—that is, because the idea (or principle) is already accepted. It wouldn't work at all to forge an idea that was heretical or obviously rejected as false. Counterfeit money only works because it resembles the real thing.
Also, there’s an inconsistency lurking here. If you claim that Canon 34 proves the Pope can do nothing without the consent of all, then you must also accept that it proves bishops can do nothing of consequence without the Pope’s consent. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If the canon establishes a model of mutual consent, then it cuts both ways. You don’t get to invoke it to curb papal authority while exempting episcopal authority from the same standard. “The Pope needs their consent but they can judge him against his will!” That’s not mutuality, it’s special pleading in disguise, as if to say: “consent for thee, but not for me.”
Mary:
Another question: do you think there should be a procedure for potential heretical Popes?
Wesley:
Yes, probably so. Vatican I doesn’t deny that a Pope could fall into at least material heresy, as long as he doesn’t promulgate that heresy ex cathedra. So, it would make sense to have a clear procedure in place. If the matter is important enough, the Church will address it in time—whether or not we live to see it.
Mary:
I remember reading that there was a council where the Pope didn’t really confirm it and the East had already accepted it as “authoritative” though I don't remember for the life of me what the name was.
Wesley:
I think you're talking about Constantinople I (381), which I will be addressing in the next post of my Whelton series. Stay tuned for that one! In any case, as I’ll show, that claim is fake news.
Mary:
I’ve also seen them point to the case of Pope Vigilius as evidence that a council can rebuke a pope, arguing that the principle “the first see is judged by no one” is simply false.
Wesley:
This attempts to show that the case of Vigilius falsifies Vatican I’s teaching on papal supremacy. But the argument fails. In fact, it points in the opposite direction.
Regarding Vigilius and the 5th Council, brace yourself—this case is messy, though not totally mysterious. Here are the main points.1
1. Vigilius did not submit to the council and he was under imperial duress.
Emperor Justinian applied enormous pressure on Vigilius to secure a condemnation of the Three Chapters. He exiled him, held him under house arrest, and refused to receive Vigilius’s first Constitutum unless it matched his own policy.2 The Pope was subjected to threats, isolation, and in some cases violence. The Eastern patriarchs signed Justinian’s edict against the Three Chapters only under pressure. When bishops resisted the Emperor, he simply deposed them and replaced them with others who would do his bidding. The entire process was a textbook case of imperial coercion, not conciliar judgment.
2. Justinian’s pressure proves the Pope’s primacy, not the reverse.
If the council could judge the Pope, why go to such lengths to secure his approval? The reality is that Justinian needed the Pope. His own civil code acknowledged Rome as “the head of all the Churches” to whom every priest is subject, and he knew that no ecumenical council could be considered binding without Roman confirmation.3 Far from showing the council above the Pope, the episode shows the Pope as the main character. His ratification of the council was essential.
3. The council never judged or condemned Vigilius.
The language critical of Vigilius was “expunged” from the Council’s official Acts.4 Moreover, as Richard Price notes his commentary on the Acts, the council drew a sharp distinction between the person of Vigilius and the Roman See itself, declaring continued communion with the See of Rome even while removing Vigilius’s name from the diptychs.5 So the criticisms, which were never included in the official Acts, were not concerned with the him as holder of the Apostolc See, but with the person of Vigilius due to his actions. Yet even those actions were under duress.6
Again, no condemnation or excommunication of Vigilius appears in the official acts of the council. Whatever was said or threatened likely came under the coercive pressure of Emperor Justinian, aimed at forcing Vigilius’s compliance. But if one insists the council fathers intended to excommunicate the Pope, what then of the excommunications Vigilius himself issued—to bishops, including Patriarch Menas of Constantinople? What of his deposition of other bishops at the council? Or the fact that he later reversed those excommunications? Why ignore all of that and focus solely on unofficial statements made under imperial duress?
In the end, Vigilius issued his own judgment and confirmed the council on his own authority—without acknowledging the council’s authority over him (see the next point). So why would Eastern Orthodox sympathies lie with the council against the Pope, except that they already reject the papacy? I can see no other reason. The best they could claim is a stalemate, especially if they hold the erroneous view of Apostolic Canon 34 (see the first question and reply above). To assume from the outset that Vigilius alone lacked authority, or that he alone was in the wrong, is simply to beg the question.
4. The Pope’s final ratification was framed as his own act, not the council’s.
When Vigilius at last issued his second Constitutum and letter to Patriarch Eutychius, he did not acknowledge the council’s authority as higher than his own. On the contrary, he presented his condemnation of the Three Chapters as his own definitive act. As Price puts it:
When he capitulated to imperial pressure and came to sign his Second Letter to Eutychius and the second Constitutum, he in no way lessened his claims. He confirmed the decrees of the council, but he did not confirm its authority; indeed he made no mention of it at all. Instead, he took over its decrees and issued them in his own name. Again, it is his own voice that is presented as definitive…7
Far from rebuking Vigilius, the official Acts of the Council included his own authoritative decrees in his Second Letter to Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople. Price notes:
The [second] letter [to Eutychius] survives in a selection of documents from the council, where it is described as part of (meaning, attached to) the proceedings of the eighth and final session… As expressing papal confirmation of the council’s condemnation of the Three Chapters it was an essential part of the second edition of the acts, produced to celebrate the achievement of unanimity.8 [emphasis mine]
This decree—expressed in both the letter to Eutychius and the second Constitutum—was then included in the official Acts of the council as the papal confirmation that gave the council its authority.
5. The council’s ecumenical authority ultimately rested on the Pope’s confirmation.
Justinian would not release Vigilius until he had it. No matter how many bishops gathered, no council could be ecumenical without Roman approval. That is not a Vatican I invention—it is embedded in the logic of how these councils operated.
Mary:
Isn’t Papal Infallibility contradicted by the case of Pope Vigilius?
Wesley:
… Response coming in the next iteration: Letters from an Inquirer - Part 4
To learn more about this complicated topic, I recommend you read the relevant chapters on Vigilius and the 5th Council from the following:
Dom John Chapman, OSB, The First Eight General Councils and Papal Infallibility (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1906).
Erick Ybarra, The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2022).
S. Herbert Scott, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928).
I also recommend the Catholic Encyclopedia essays on Pope Vigilius, the Three Chapters, and the 5th Ecumenical Council. Finally, Price’s translation of and commentary on the Acts of the Council, cited below, are required reading.
Richard Price, The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553, with Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, vol. 1, Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 51 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009), 53-4.
Price, vol. 1, 53, says the following [emphasis mine]: “[Justinian provided the Council Fathers with documents] intended as damning proof of the pope’s duplicity—though on a fairer reading they evidence the intense pressure to which he had been subjected by the emperor again and again.”
Erick Ybarra, The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2022), 432-3.
Richard Price, The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553, with Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, vol. 2, Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 51 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009), 74.
Price, vol. 1, 53.
Ibid., 57.
Price, vol. 2, 214.