The
“sorry affair” of the Formula of Pope Hormisdas[514-523]
My opponent calls the Formula of Pope
Hormisdas a “sorry affair”, an “unclear document” signed by Eastern bishops
“under duress” which carries “no Patristic weight.”
In A.D. 515 Constantinople was still
embracing the Monophysite heresy. Persecution of the Orthodox faithful was
intense and often resulted in bloodshed. The chief persecutor was the emperor
Anastatius. In 515 Pope Hormisdas sent a delegation to Constantinople, to
inform the Byzantines that for true unity they would have to sign a profession
of faith known as the Formula of Pope
Hormisdas.
The Formula states that, “... in
the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate.”; it anathematizes Nestorius, Eutyches,
Dioscorus, Acacius and other heretics and, “... whoever embraces the communion of
(such) individuals receives a similar judgment... ”; it says, “...
we receive and approve all the letters of the blessed Pope Leo, which he wrote
concerning the true faith.”; it states that it is necessary to follow, “...
in all things the Apostolic See... ” and to preach, “...
whatever has been decreed by it...”; it states that, “... those who do not agree in every respect with
the Apostolic See” are not to be cited, “... during the celebration of
the sacred mysteries...”; and ends with, “This profession of faith I
[bishop, emperor, priest, etc.] have signed with my own hand, and offered it to
you, Hormisdas, holy and venerable pope of the city of Rome.” [CSEL 35:
520-22]
Justin I became emperor in A.D. 518.
The Patriarch of Constantinople was John II. Upon entering the sanctuary on
Sunday, July 16, 518 to celebrate the Divine Liturgy the people in the church
demanded of John II:
Proclaim
the holy Council [of Chalcedon]. Of whom are you afraid?... Proclaim the
Council of Chalcedon... Proclaim the feast of the Council of Chalcedon! We won’t leave until you have proclaimed
it!... Let synodical letters go to
Rome! [Mansi
8: 1057-66]
The people knew that in order for the
schism to end communion with Rome was necessary.
In March 519 Patriarch of
Constantinople John II signed the formula and wrote to Pope Hormisdas. John’s
letter contains the Formula of Pope Hormisdas and after it the letter ends this
way:
This profession I have signed with my
own hand, and sent it in writing to you, Hormisdas, holy and most blessed brother and Pope of great Rome... I
John, by God’s mercy bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, adhering to everything
said above by this my profession [of faith], have signed enjoying full liberty in the Lord. [CSEL 35:
607-10]
As I pointed out in my opening the
Roman deacon Rusticus [c. 550] speaks of the libelli, or professions of faith, “of perhaps twenty-five hundred
priests, under Emperor Justin,
after the schism of Peter of Alexandria, and Acacius of Constantinople.” [PL
67, 1251-2]
Easter Sunday came just three days
after John II signed. A solemn office was celebrated in the Cathedral at
Constantinople. The Roman legates reported on this celebration:
...everything
occurred through a miracle of Blessed Peter... Finally on Thursday, that is, on
the Lord’s Supper, the bishop[John II] came into the palace in a general meeting, and after reading the libellus he was in agreement, and subscribed with
the utmost devotion... We went from the palace into the church with the
greatest solemnity, so that the pomp and circumstance would further strengthen
the concord of faith and of hearts. It is hardly possible to believe what
weeping for joy there was, and the immense extent of the crowd. The crowd
itself bore witness to its joy, nor could it be doubted that a heavenly hand
was present to confer such joy upon the world... only the enemy of the human race is mourning, having been bruised
through the opposition of your prayers. [CSEL 35: 683-4]
The Formula had ended a 35 year schism.
The only one who thought this was a “sorry affair” was the “enemy of the human race”.
Later in A.D. 536 the Monophysite
Anthimus had snuck in as Patriarch of Constantinople right under the emperor
Justinian’s nose. Pope Hormisdas was later succeeded by Pope St.
Agapetus[535-536]. The Byzantine Menologion commemorates Pope Agapetus as a saint
on April 17. [PG 117: 408-9]
While Pope St. Agapetus was in
Constantinople in 536, at the request of Eastern clergy and monks, he deposed
Anthimus and consecrated Menas as the new Patriarch of Constantinople. The
Monophysite Patriarch Michael the Syrian [1166-1199] records that Agapetus
deposed Anthimus “as if by his own authority, and established in his place a man from
Alexandria named Menas.” [Bk IX, 22. Ed. J. Chabot, 2: 202]
The emperor Justinian and Menas signed
the Formula of Pope Hormisdas. Justinian signed the Formula which includes this
clause regarding the Pope:
...following in all things the Apostolic See,
we preach whatever it has laid down, and profess that these things shall be
observed inviolably, and shall compel all the bishops to act in accordance with
the content of this libellus: the patriarchs to Your Holiness, and
metropolitans to the patriarchs, and the rest to their own metropolitans, so
that our Catholic Church may have her solidity in all respects. [CSEL 35: 340]
Menas signed the Formula which says:
...following in all things the Apostolic See,
we preach whatever has been laid down by it... I Menas, by the mercy of God
a priest... receive... the four holy synods, and whatever is contained in them,
[and] the teachings and letters of Pope Leo, which he wrote for the faith... [CSEL 35: 342]
In 536 Menas held a council at
Constantinople in which sentence was passed against Anthimus:
...he
promised to do whatever the pontiff of the great apostolic see would decide,
and wrote to the most holy patriarchs that he would follow the Apostolic See in
every respect. But our great God and
Savior Jesus Christ did not allow such things to go on; to this royal city
Agapetus, the most blessed pope of holy and blessed memory was sent, who...
deposed him from a see which did not belong to him... we consider him... to
be cut off from the body of God’s holy churches... in accordance with the sentence of the most blessed pope himself...
[Mansi
8: 963-6]
Menas in his own sentence against
Anthimus said:
Indeed
Agapetus of holy memory, pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until
he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be
called either a priest or a Catholic... as Your Love is aware, we follow and obey the apostolic throne; we
are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those
whom it condemns. [Mansi 8: 968-70]
The Byzantine Church commemorated Menas
as a saint on August 24. A Byzantine Menologion recorded how he had been
ordained by Pope Agapetus, who had driven out and anathematized the heretic
Anthimus. [PG 117: 604]
The Formula of Pope Hormisdas is far
from being “unclear“, was signed to the great joy of the Orthodox faithful in
the Eastern Church, and carries much “Patristic weight.”
Pope
St. Celestine
My opponent seems to imply that Pope
St. Celestine did not speak on behalf of Rome alone.
Pope Celestine[422-431] received a
letter from St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. Cyril expressed his need to let
Pope Celestine know “about dangers to the
faith”, i.e. Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Cyril added:
...
the ancient custom of the churches persuades us to communicate these things to
Your Holiness, I write again of necessity. [PG 77: 80]
Deign
therefore to put in writing what seems proper to you. Is it necessary to remain
in communion with him, or should it be proclaimed boldly that nobody is in
communion with one who believes and teaches such things? It is also necessary that Your Piety’s opinion be manifested by letter
to the bishops of Macedonia and all the east. [PG 77: 84-5]
Pope Celestine wrote back to Cyril in
August of 430 telling him what he must do if Nestorius persisted in his error:
Wherefore, having assumed unto yourself the authority of our
See, and using our stead and our place with authority, you shall execute this
sentence with the utmost strictness... [PL 50: 463]
Pope Celestine wrote to the Eastern
Bishops in August of 430 as well saying:
we
have separated from our communion... Bishop Nestorius... [PL 50: 467]
Sentence
has been passed against Nestorius by us,
or rather by Christ our God... [PL 50: 467-9]
In a letter to the clergy and faithful
of Constantinople Pope Celestine urged them that Nestorius had to be resisted
saying:
...because
our presence seemed necessary in such a matter, we have delegated our place to my holy brother Cyril. [PL 50: 485
sq.]
Nestorius, upon receiving his
admonition to repent, had ten days to retract or be excommunicated.
The third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus
began in June of 431. Nestorius was condemned in the first session. The bishops
sent the sentence to Nestorius who then complained to the emperor. The Council
defended itself to the emperor stating that:
Celestine,
the most holy and God-beloved bishop of Great Rome... had condemned the
heretical teachings of Nestorius before
our sentence, and had previously
informed us in passing sentence on him... [Mansi 4: 1227
sq.]
The Papal legates arrived in time for
the second session in July. The legate Philip spoke first saying:
Indeed
some time ago our most holy and most
blessed Pope Celestine, bishop of the Apostolic See, defined with regard to this present case and business, through his
letters to the holy man Cyril... letters which were read to your holy council.
[Mansi
4: 1282. ACO I: Vol. 1: Pt. 3: 53]
After Pope Celestine’s letter was read
Papal legate Projectus said to the council:
so
that you[the
Council] may order a conclusion to be put
to what he[Celestine] both defined long
ago, and has deigned to call to mind now... [Mansi 4: 1287; ACO I: 1: 3: 57]
The Byzantine Menologion commemorated
St. Celestine on April 8.
Pope
St. Gregory the Great[590-604]
Pope Gregory proclaims that the
Apostolic See is “head of all the churches.” [Epp. XIII, 45. PL 77, 1298]
Pope Gregory also said:
As
to what he [the primate of Byzacena in Africa] says about being subject to the
Apostolic See: if any fault be found in the bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to it. [Epp. IX, 59.
PL 77, 996]
Pope Gregory also said:
For
with regard to what they say about the
Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See?
The most pious lord, the emperor, and
our brother, the bishop of the same city, also profess this assiduously. [Epp. IX, 12.
PL 77, 957-8]
When a bishop in Illyricum disobeyed
his decisions Pope Gregory wrote:
... if
any of the four patriarchs had done so, in no way could such contumacy have passed without the gravest
scandal.” [Epp. II, 52. PL 77, 595-8]
The
Papal Vicariate
My opponent states: “the ‘Vicariate of
Rome’ my opponent contrives...
“
I already pointed out that the Vicariate
of Thessalonica functioned under Pope St. Celestine and Pope St. Leo, who are
both Eastern Saints. The Orthodox Eastern Church commemorates Pope St. Leo on
February 18.
Pope Celestine wrote a letter to
several bishops of Illyricum which reviewed some powers of the vicar at
Thessalonica. Pope Celestine concluded:
... let it be known that whoever
believes that our authority, or [the vicar’s] command is to be resisted, must
be separated from the episcopal college. [PL 50: 428-9]
A man named Perigenes had been chosen
by his colleagues as bishop of Patras but the people did not want him. A
council had likewise nominated Perigenes as bishop of Corinth where the people
did want him. Pope Boniface[418-422] told the Papal vicar Rufus to confirm
Perigenes bishop of Corinth.
The Byzantine historian Socrates[c.
440] wrote that when the people of Patras did not accept Perigenes:
... the bishop of Rome commanded him to be
enthroned in the metropolis of Corinth. [HE VII, 36]
The medieval Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, a Monophysite Patriarch notes:
Perigenes
of Patras, who had not been accepted by the people of the diocese, went to
Corinth... on the order of the bishop of Rome. [Bk VIII, 6.
ed. Chabot, 2: 24]
If anyone contrived the Vicariate it
would have to be the Popes, some of whom are Eastern Saints.
Pope
St. Silvester
The text I provided in my opening is on
Pope St. Silvester and his presiding over the Nicene Council[325]. The text
states that Pope Silvester led “the sacred college”; “delivered
the faithful from the Egyptian[Arian] error”; and led the faithful:
“with
unerring teachings” [Menaion,
Athens 1979, January, 17, 22, 24]
Coryphaeus appears four
times in the text I quoted. Twice to show that Pope Silvester has the chair or
throne of the coryphaeus. Twice it
compares Pope Silvester himself to the coryphaeus.
According to Liddell and Scott, a
standard Greek lexicon, koruphaios,
refers to the leader of the chorus, and means “foremost man, leader, chief.” [Oxford University Press 1993, s.v.]
The text my opponent offered on Gregory
Palamas is hardly ancient considering he comes from the 14th century.
Pope
St. Julius
My opponent charges me with historical
inaccuracy: “My opponent discusses Pope
Julius... Again, historically inaccurate.”
If
anyone is inaccurate it would be Sozomen[c. 440]:
...
they[the
Eusebians] were critical that Julius
appeared to be in communion with the followers of Athanasius; they considered
this an insult to their synod, unjust, and contrary to ecclesiastical law... they [the Arians] added that if Julius
would accept their condemnation [of Athanasius and his orthodox colleagues],
they would have peace and communion with him. If, however, [Julius] resisted
them, they would oppose him, since the eastern bishops had not resisted when
the West deposed Novatian... [HE
III, 8]
Theodoret[c. 450], a bishop and Greek
historian, wrote that Julius, “following the law of the Church,” had summoned Athanasius to Rome, for
judgment. [HE II, 4] This is prior to the Council of Sardica[343]. If Pope
Julius was not “quite within his rights yet“ as my opponent asserted, why are
there no Eastern sources saying so?
If my opponent says that Pope St.
Julius’ prerogative was not divine in origin he is contradicting Pope St.
Julius. Julius stated that his prerogative had come from Peter and were the
ordinances of Paul and the Fathers. My opponent contradicts Sozomen who says
Julius’ consent was needed because it is a
law and “he had the care of all,
owing to the dignity of his see.“ Socrates said, “... by virtue of the prerogative of the
church of Rome,” he “...
restored to them[the Orthodox bishops] their sees.”
Dioscorus
My opponent says, “I give no credence to the appeals of the heretics following
Dioscorus.” In my opening statement I quoted Theodoret[c. 379-466] who at
the Council of Chalcedon[451] sat on the Orthodox side. I quoted Eusebius of
Dorylaeum who is considered a hero in the East and given the credit for
exposing the Eutychian heresy. I am not sure what heretics my opponent is referring
to.