“The question about the Fifth Council was indeed in regards to Pope Vigilius who was in residence of Constantinople at the time of the Fifth Council but refused to attend and went so far as to issue a formal document forbidding it from occurring. Yet it went on anyway. The council actually struck Vigilius name from the diptychs, breaking communion with him. How could a legitimate council occur after having broken communion with the bishop of Rome?”
I really don’t know how to answer that challenge. I’ve heard it’s a fairly common one and easy to find info on, yet I really can’t find anything. This thread, for instance, if anything confused me more: forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=11432259#post11432259
On it, it says, for example, "The only issue was him holding off on giving his approval, which he hesitated to do considering he was kidnapped. " What? Someone kidnapped Pope Vigilius? Even after reading the whole thread, it seems unclear why he was kidnapped, who did it, how on earth could they get away with such a thing? Is the fellow joking or something?
Suffice to say, what info I find on Pope Vigilius seems to make matters even more puzzling.
Was Vigilius excommunicated? If so, why and how, and how can we explain such a thing to those of other faiths/philosophies? If not, why do so many intelligent people believe it is a historical occurrence? Also, was there a legitimate council that happened against the pope’s wishes, or no?
Thank you all so much.