Talk:Pope Silverius

Disputed

 * "He was consecrated on June 8, 536 (probable date), having purchased his elevation to the see of St. Peter from the Ostrogothic king Theodahad"

I understand this particular king played a major role in getting this pope elected. However, I am unsure whether the king's intervention was "purchased" or not; can somebody please help check the accuracy of this statement? 64.50.192.206 23:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It is unlikely to be true; therefore it should be deleted or modified.
 * However it was alleged at the time.
 * The dispute was because of the Monophysite heresy.
 * This heresy, which was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, claimed that since Jesus was God and therefore could not have been truly human. (That is an over-simplification).
 * Pope Agapetus died at Constantinople, 22 April, 536.
 * The Empress Theodora, who favoured the Monophysites wanted Vigilius to be the next Pope.  Vigilius may have been a Monophysite.  Vigilius was Roman, but was in Constantinople at the time.
 * Theodatus, King of the Ostrogoths, did not want a Pope who was under the influence of the Empress of Constantinople.
 * Silverius was a sub-deacon at the time. He was consecrated Bishop 8 June, 536.  This must have been controversial. Curiously all the Roman presbyters gave their consent in writing to his elevation.  (That confirms that it was unusual.  It also makes it unlikely that the papacy was purchased).


 * It must be conceded that it was claimed at the time.


 * The article, as it stands says that The Empress Theodora hated him because he opposed Anthimus. Anthimus was a Monophysite heretic.  Pope Agapetus deposed him for heresy in 536.  Pope Agapetus had journeyed to Constantinople to investigate.  Then he died.   Anthimus’s successor Mennas held a council of sixty-nine bishops confirming that Anthimus was a Monophysite and that Monophysitism was heresy.


 * The article does accept that there was a further forgery. Theodora sought to have Silverius deposed, and replaced by Vigilius. The Ostrogothic king, Vitiges (or Witiges), laid siege to Rome. The Byzantine general Belisarius commanded the Roman garrison. Belisarius was under the influence of Theodora.
 * A letter was produced. It was, allegedly, from Pope Silverius to the Ostrogothic king, Vitiges. It was an offer to leave one of the city gates secretly open so as to permit the Goths to enter.  Pope Silverius denied being the author.  It is improbable that it could have been done.
 * Nonetheless he was arrested March, 537 and Vigilius was declared Pope.
 * Pope Silverius died, (or was killed), in prison on the Island of Palmarola, in the Bay of Naples on 20 June 537. (There are other locations and other dates).


 * Vigilius was the next Pope.
 * To the surprise and dismay of Theodora he did not support the Monophysite heresy.
 * There is an alleged letter from the pope to the deposed Monophysite patriarchs, Anthimus, Severus, and Theodosius, in which the, now Pope, Vigilius agrees with the views of the Monophysites.
 * This could well be yet another forgery.


 * In 540, Pope Vigilius did condemn Monophysitism in two letters. One of the letters is addressed to Emperor Justinian, the other to the Patriarch Menas. In both letters the pope supports positively the Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon, also the decisions of his predecessor Leo I, and throughout approves of the deposition of the Patriarch Anthimus.


 * Actually, reading the present wiki article, it does need redrafting, but this was a very turbulent period.
 * Consider {where the rest of his life was spent in obscurity} It was only a couple of months! --213.228.227.156 00:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)--ClemMcGann 00:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dispute and Contradiction
This article needs fixing.

It says that Saint Silverius was Beatified and then made into a Saint.

But New Catholic Encyclopedia says otherwise!

So, which one is it? How do we find out?

Is that New Catholic Encyclopedia the authority on this, or is that for a Vatican historian?

Help would be appreciated here.

Supercool Dude 03:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just wondering the same thing when seeing the contradiction in the article. I'm posting here 2 /12 years later in the hopes that this article is on somebody's Watchlist and they'll come over and help us figure this one out!LiPollis (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)