The history of Pope Vigilius further confirms the truth of what we have said. Bossuet proceeds: "In the same fifth Council the following acts support our cause.
"The Emperor Justinian desired that the question concerning the above-mentioned three Chapters should be considered in the Church. He therefore sent for Pope Vigilius to Constantinople. There he not long after assembled a Council. The Orientals thought it of great moment that these Chapters should be condemned, against the Nestorians, who were raising their heads to defend them; Vigilius, with the Occidentals, feared lest thus occasion should be taken to destroy the authority of the Council of Chalcedon; because it was admitted that Theodoret and Ibas had been received in that Council, whilst Theodore, though named, was let go without any mark of censure. Though then both parties easily agreed as to the substance of the faith, yet the question had entirely respect to the faith, it being feared by the one party lest the Nestorian, by the other lest the Eutychean, enemies of the Council of Chalcedon should prevail.
"From this struggle many accusations have been brought against Vigilius, which have nothing to do with us. I am persuaded that everything was done by Vigilius with the best intent, the Westerns not enduring the condemnation of the Chapters, and things tending to a schism." The facts here alluded to, but for obvious reasons avoided by Bossuet, are as follows, very briefly. Vigilius on the 11th of April, 548, issues his 'Judicatum' against the three Chapters, saving the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. Thereupon the Bishops of Africa, Illyria, and Dalmatia, with two of his own confidential Deacons, withdraw from his communion. In the year 551, the Bishops of Africa, assembled in Council, excommunicate him, for having condemned the three Chapters. At length the Pope publicly withdraws his 'Judicatum.' While the Council is sitting at Constantinople he publishes his 'Constitutum,' in which he condemns certain propositions of Theodore, but spares his person; the same respecting Theodoret; but with respect to Ibas, he declares his letter was pronounced orthodox by the Council of Chalcedon. Bossuet goes on: "however this may be, so much is clear that Vigilius, though invited, declined being present at the Council; that nevertheless the Council was held without him; that he published a 'Constitutum' in which he disapproved of what Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas were said to have written against the faith; but decreed that their name should be spared, because they were considered to have been received by the fourth Council, or to have died in the communion of the Church, and to be reserved to the judgment of God. Concerning the letter of Ibas, he published the following, that, understood in the best and most pious sense, it was blameless; and concerning the three Chapters generally, he ordered that after his present declaration Ecclesiastics should move no further question.
"Such was the decree of Vigilius, issued upon the authority with which he was invested. And the Council, after his constitution, both raised a question about the three Chapters, and decided that question was properly raised concerning the dead, and that the letter of Ibas was manifestly heretical and Nestorian, and contrary in all things to the faith of Chalcedon, and that they were altogether accursed, who defended the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, or the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, or the impious letter of Ibas defending the tenets of Nestorius; and who did not anathematize it, but said it was correct.
"In these latter words they seemed not even to spare Vigilius, although they did not mention his name. And it is certain their decree was confirmed by Pelagius the Second, Gregory the Great, and other Roman Pontiffs.... These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the faith, the decrees of sacred Councils prevailed over the decrees of Pontiffs, and that the letter of Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff, could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical."
Compare with this history the following remark of De Maistre, "that Bishops separated from the Pope, and in contradiction with him, are superior to him, is a proposition to which one does all the honour possible in calling it only extravagance."[[122]]
After all this Fleury says: "At last the Pope Vigilius resigned himself to the advice of the Council, and six months afterwards wrote a letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, wherein he confesses that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren. He adds, that one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognises the truth, and brings forward the example of St. Augustin. He says, that, after having better examined the matter of the three chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation. 'We recognise for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned them, and annul by this writing all that has been done by us or by others for the defence of the three chapters.'"[[123]]
Nor can I think it a point of little moment that Bishops of Rome were at different times deposed or excommunicated by other Bishops. As in the second century the Eastern Bishops disregard St. Victor's excommunication respecting Easter; and in the third St. Firmilian in Asia, and St. Cyprian in Africa, disregard St. Stephen's excommunication in the matter of rebaptizing heretics; so when the Bishops of the Patriarchate of Antioch found that Pope Julius had received to communion St. Athanasius, and others whom they had deposed, they proceeded to depose him, with Hosius and the rest.[[124]] This was in the fourth century. In the fifth, Dioscorus, at the Latrocinium of Ephesus, attempts to excommunicate St. Leo. In the sixth, as we have just seen, the Bishops of Africa, Illyria, and Dalmatia, all of the West, separate Pope Vigilius from their communion, and the former afterwards solemnly excommunicate him. It matters not that in all these cases the Bishops were wrong; I quote these acts merely to prove that they esteemed the Bishop of Rome the first of all Bishops indeed, yet subject to the Canons like themselves, and only of equal rank. For on the present Papal theory, such an act, as we have seen le Père Lacordaire affirm, would be merely suicidal,—pure insanity. It is in utter contradiction to the notion of an ecclesiastical monarchy.
In like manner we find portions of the Church, as that of Constantinople, again and again out of communion with the Roman Pontiff, but they do not therefore cease to be parts of the true Church. So Gieseler states that in consequence of jealousies about the condemning the three Chapters the Archbishops of Aquileia, with their Bishops, were out of communion with Rome from A.D. 568 to 698.[[125]] A reconciliation takes place, and communion is renewed. Facts of the same nature, and applying closely to our own position, are mentioned by Bossuet;[[126]] viz. that the Spanish Bishops, not having been present at, nor invited to, the sixth General Council, did not receive it as Ecumenical, though invited to do so by the Pope of the day, until they had themselves examined its acts, and found them accordant with previous Councils. And as to the second Nicene, or seventh General Council, the Gallic Bishops, with Charlemagne at their head, long refused to receive it, though supported by the Pope, because neither they nor other Occidentals were present at it. "Nor were they in the mean time held as heretical or schismatical, though they differed on a point of the greatest moment, that is, the interpretation of the precepts of the first table, because they seemed to inquire into the matter with a good intention, not with obstinate party spirit."[[127]] Yet Pope Adrian had himself written against them.
Now all these various facts, from the first Nicene Council, converge towards one view, for which, I think, there is as full evidence as for most facts of history,—that the Pope, to the time of St. Gregory the Great, and indeed long afterwards, was but the first of the Patriarchs, who, in their own Patriarchates, enjoyed a co-ordinate and equal authority with his in the West. I suppose De Maistre acknowledges as much in his own way, when he says, "The Pope is invested with five very distinct characters; for he is Bishop of Rome, Metropolitan of the Suburbican Churches, Primate of Italy, Patriarch of the West, and, lastly, Sovereign Pontiff. The Pope has never exercised over the other Patriarchates any powers save those resulting from this last; so that except in some affair of high importance, some striking abuse, or some appeal in the greater causes, the Sovereign Pontiffs mixed little in the ecclesiastical administration of the Eastern Churches. And this was a great misfortune, not only for them, but for the states where they were established. It may be said that the Greek Church, from its origin, carried in its bosom a germ of division, which only completely developed itself at the end of twelve centuries, but which always existed under forms less striking, less decisive, and so endurable."[[128]] The confession of one who travesties antiquity so outrageously as De Maistre is curious at least:—and now let us proceed to the testimony of St. Gregory.