When Is An Antipope not an Antipope? Fifth Century Edition

By 519, the Acacian Schism between the Roman and Eastern churches had raged for 35 years. This was the latest falling out over the nature of Jesus Christ - was he fully human, fully divine, both, neither?, which was as much to do with imperial attempts to reconcile the opposing factions. Specifically in this case, it was the imperial promulgation and backing of the Henotikon, a compromise that inevitably satisfied no one, and met with decisive rejection from the papacy. And as long as the Henotikon remained imperial policy under the emperors Zeno and Anastasius I, the Acacian Schism, named for the Constantinopolitan patriarch Acacius (472-489), continued.

However, a ray of ecumenical light came in 518 with the death of Anastasius I and the accession of Justin as emperor in the east. In his declaration of faith to Pope Hormisdas, Justin proclaimed his and his regime’s support for the Council of Chalcedon, a rejection of the Henotikon compromise.

After some discussions between Theoderic and the imperial legate Gratus and then Hormisdas and the Gothic king, a papal embassy was gathered to journey to Constantinople in January 519 with the aim of ending the Acacian Schism. And with such an important job, Hormisdas turned to an individual who had experience in ending church schism - an Alexandrian deacon called Dioscorus.

It seems that Dioscorus had been a victim of the doctrinal falling out in Alexandria over Chalcedon and the Henotikon, being exiled from his home city, arriving in Rome at some uncertain date. Once there, Dioscorus quickly demonstrated his abilities rising through the papal ranks after attaching himself to the party of Symmachus, who was pope from 22 November 498.

That Symmachus was not the only pope elected on that date - Laurentius was elected by a dissenting pro-imperial faction - provided Dioscorus with his first opportunity to prove himself a schism healer. This Laurentian Schism resisted several synodical and political attempts to settle it, with both Symmachus and Laurentius claiming legitimacy.

This is where Dioscorus stepped in. Building on the groundwork laid by Ennodius, Dioscorus was a part of a crucial embassy to Ravenna in 506, which persuaded the Gothic king of Italy, Theoderic the Great, to intervene in the schism on behalf of Symmachus (Richards (1979) 76; Laurentian fragment p.46). This success saw Dioscorus emerge as one of the “major figures at the Symmachan court” (Richards (1979) 89).

This pre-eminence, his success in dealing with schism and his natural eloquence saw Dioscorus chosen for the papal delegation to Constantinople to end the Acacian Schism in early 519.

While the delegation involved two bishops and other deacons, it has been suggested that Dioscorus was seen as an “unofficial leader of the group” (Richards (1979) 104) and so would be “chosen to deploy his spellbinding oratory again” (Richards (1979) 104), this time before the imperial court.

The papal embassy made something of a triumphal procession across the Balkans before being met 10 miles from Constantinople by a reception committee headed by  Justinian, nephew and then successor of emperor Justin I (and some suggest he was the power behind the throne as early as this, driving the repairing of the Acacian Schism in the imperial court). The embassy was then escorted through the streets of the capital amid joyous celebrations on 25 March 519.

Such a joyous reception must have reflected the expectation of a healing of the schism that had largely severed east/west relations over the previous four decades. And Dioscorus was not going to let the expectant east down. Before an imperial council, he railed against Acacius and his views, drawing rapturous applause and cries of “Damnation to Acacius here and in eternity” (Collectio Avellana 167; LP 54.6). The eastern church and imperial court did its part too, setting the stage for the reunion, complete with the condemning of Acacius and his four patriarchal successors Fravitta, Euphemius, Macedonius II, and Timothy I, as well as Justin’s imperial predecessors, Zeno and Anastasius, something which the papacy had not sought.

Dioscorus had led “an undreamed of triumph” (Richards (1979) 104), although in reality it reflected less on his oratory and the superiority of Rome’s doctrinal position and more on the views of the new Justinic dynasty in Constantinople. And the papal embassy was not an unmitigated success. As well as official back and forth, Dioscorus sent his own private assessment to Hormisdas, which likely included some increasingly worrying developments even before Dioscorus and the embassy left Constantinople. The atmosphere of co-operation had dampened somewhat and some aspects of the reunion were starting to unravel.

Demonstrating his trust in him, Hormisdas put Dioscorus forward as a candidate for the patriarchate of Alexandria. However, Justin rejected this notion (Collectio Avellana 175) seemingly out of fear that it would lead to the Alexandrian see becoming more closely tied to Rome rather than Constantinople. The emperor also refused to recall three exiled orthodox bishops, citing that local conditions did not allow it (Collectio Avellana 202, 203, 207, 210, 221) - had they already been replaced in their bishoprics, so their returns would raise more problems?

Perhaps the biggest issue Dioscorus and the papal embassy faced in Constantinople was yet another novel approach to the Trinity - Theopaschism, “the idea that the Trinity remained the Trinity even after the Incarnation” (Richards (1979) 107); this attempted bridging of the gap between orthodoxy and Monophysitism received some support from Constantinople, although Justin encouraged the Scythian monks who promulgated this idea to meet with Dioscorus and the papal embassy.

The papal legates listened, but Dioscorus led a rejection of this theory because it contravened the Chalcedonian Creed (Collectio Avellana 216, 217) and perhaps most egregiously, the continuation of the Trinity after the Incarnation would require all aspects of the Trinity to share in the suffering involved in the crucifixion - this would include God. And God being capable of suffering went against orthodox doctrine.

The Scythians were unhappy with Dioscorus’  rejection and set out for Rome to appeal directly to Pope Hormisdas. They were backed in this endeavour by Justinian (and therefore likely Justin too), who sent an enthusiastic letter in support of Theopaschism to the pope (Collectio Avellana 191).

Confronted by Scythian Theopaschists decrying all opposition as Nestorian heresy and imperial encouragement, Hormisdas showed some sympathy for their ideas but made no definitive answer. Instead, he contacted Dioscorus in Constantinople, who fiercely denounced Theopaschism as no different to the doctrine of the emperor Anastasius, who had been condemned as a Monophysite. Hormisdas was further annoyed by the Scythians trying to subvert him by seeking support in the Roman Senate and other prominent individuals like Dionysius Exiguus and Boethius. Even in the face of such imperial and senatorial ‘encouragement’ and the increasingly hostile Scythian delegation (which included calling Dioscorus a Nestorian heretic and demanding to debate him in public), Hormisdas followed Dioscorus’ forceful opposition rejected Theopaschism as “crypto-Monophysite” (Richards (1979) 29).

It must be said though that this papal opposition to Theopaschism was not to last, particularly once Justinian ascended to the imperial throne and began putting the full weight of his office behind this compromise which he felt could bridge the divide between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. But that papal volte face was well over a decade away and for now Dioscorus was trusted enough not only to have led two delegations that brought about the end of church schisms, he was also able to take a leading role in promulgating papal policy with regards to interpretations of Christology.

Dioscorus reappears in the record during the papal election of 530 that succeeded Pope Felix IV’s death on 22 September - by this point there had been two changes of pope: Hormisdas had died on 6 August 523, succeeded by Pope John I, who died on 18 May 526, to be succeeded by Felix IV. The influence of both the Gothic royal and Roman imperial courts and the opposition to the Symmachan make-up of the papal establishment meant that these papal elections had not been clear cut. And that of 530 was no exception.

There may only have been two candidates - archdeacon Boniface and Dioscorus - but the election would highlight “the deep split within the Symmachan old guard” (Richards (1979) 123).

Boniface was born in Rome but of German descent - his father was called Sigibuld (“the first Germanic name to appear amongst the antecedents of the popes” - Richards (1979) 123). This made him conscious of Romano-Gothic relations and he was the preferred choice of Felix IV. However, Felix’s attempts to promote Boniface as his successor were met with opposition in Rome. The Senate not only refused to accept any such nomination but forbade any discussion of a pope’s successor during his lifetime.

On the other hand, following the mending of the Acacian Schism and in spite of the Theopaschism dispute, Dioscorus represented strong ties between Rome and Constantinople that the pro-imperial faction wanted.

Felix’s attempt to have Boniface designated as his successor had the opposite effect, for when the papal election was held in the Lateran, a large majority (perhaps 60 out of 67) voted for Dioscorus on 22 September 530 (LP Vita Bonifacii II, p. 281, 282 n.8).

Rather than accept what had been the mandate of the electorate, the supporters of Boniface, possibly encouraged by the Gothic king Athalaric, retired to the Basilica Julia, where they elected Boniface as their pope the very same day.

What occurred here seems clear cut, but the official church line, indeed to this day in the Catholic Encyclopedia, presents something different. It has Boniface becoming pope through Felix’s nomination only to face a rebellion from the clergy who chose Dioscorus in protest - the Liber Pontificalis 57.1 states that there was “strife among the clergy and senate”.

But Boniface was not elected/appointed pope before Dioscorus - it was his election by a small number of clergy (as few as 7?) that was the protest against the actual papal election of Dioscorus by the clear majority. The ‘strife’ was far more narrow and on the alternative side than the official record would like it remembered. “It is likely that Dioscorus’s large majority comprised both pro-Easterners among clergy and senate and the constitutionalists outraged by Felix IV’s attempted pre-emption of the election” (Richards (1979) 124). And to be fair, the Liber Pontificalis 57.2 does record Boniface acting through “jealousy and malice” when forcing, under pain of anathema, the priests to sign up to the condemnation of Dioscorus. In the Liber Pontificalis entry on Boniface II is much more critical of him than the more general church history of him – but in spite of that, the LP still does not list Dioscorus as a pope, even though it does state that “Dioscorus was ordained in the Constantinian basilica” (LP 57.1).

This election of two popes on the same day means one of the two was an antipope. Again, it seems clear which one was the papal usurper, but history had other ideas. It is a little ironic that the man who had done so much to heal at least two church schisms would find himself in the midst of one again upon his election to the highest ecumenical office; even more ironic is that he - Dioscorus - was to be the one labelled as the antipope.

We might expect that with the election of two popes, there must have been tension in the streets, possibly violence, particularly if the popes were seen to represent a pro-Gothic and pro-imperial stance respectively. However, the sheer extent of the majority of his election victory, the recognition of his election by the Roman Senate and Constantinople and perhaps even some lingering influence in the Gothic court from his dealings with Theoderic over the Laurentian Schism made it likely that Dioscorus would serve as pope, with Boniface II doomed to be remembered as an antipope.

That likely outcome fell completely by the wayside on 14 October 530, when just 22 days after the twin elections, Dioscorus died. There is no hint of foul play in the sources, but “by the time of his election to the papal throne in 530, [Dioscorus] had been a deacon for at least twenty-four years and is likely to have been quite old” (Richards (1979) 254).

This sudden demise led to a month of indecision within the Roman clergy as the now leaderless pro-imperial faction decided what to do. Had Boniface and his supporters not undertaken their illegal ordination, then another papal election would have followed, but the Dioscoran party may have felt that that could have resulted in full-blown schism as the reasons for not voting for Boniface still existed.

The Dioscorans will have faced pressure from the pro-Gothic party, while the Gothic court likely also gave some ‘encouragement’ to accept Boniface. There might even have been some claims that Dioscorus’ death was a divine punishment for an ‘incorrect’ election. Whatever was going on behind the scenes, it seems that the Dioscorans decided not to put Rome through another schism like that between Symmachus and Laurentius, choosing instead to accept Boniface II as the legitimate Bishop of Rome.

But even with the acquiescence of the Dioscoran party, Boniface and his supporters were not completely magnanimous in their victory. In a move that looks like overplaying a winning hand, Boniface attempted to remove Dioscorus from papal history and have him presented as an antipope. On 27 December 530, the 60 priests who had voted for Dioscorus were strong-armed into signing “a libellus by which they condemned the memory of Dioscorus and promised not to try anything so wicked again” (Richards (1979) 124). Boniface II did not target the Dioscorans for any further revenge and the lack of ordinations during Boniface’s pontificate would suggest that he did not attempt any purge, but that does not overlook that he had had the legitimate winner of the papal election of 530 anathematised on the invented charges of selling religious office – simony – but in reality for having the audacity to win the papal election…

That Boniface spent much of his pontificate trying to improve his standing with the clergy demonstrates that he recognised the poor position he was in from the outset. That did not stop him trying to build on Felix’s attempt to select his successor. To this end, he held a synod at St. Peter’s, which decreed that Boniface could choose his own successor, a decision agreed and signed up to by the clergy present; however, even with this synodical backing, Boniface faced considerable protest when he appointed the deacon Vigilius as his prospective successor. That protest became “so widespread that Boniface felt impelled to recall the synod, confess that his action had been contrary to the canons, revoke his nomination and burn the libellus” (Richards (1979) 125; cf. LP 57.4).

This did not lift the anathema Boniface had placed on Dioscorus, which was not done until the election of Agapetus I in May 535, who had the official copies of the anathema taken from the papal archives and burned before a clerical assembly.

These 5 years of being anathematised seem to have been enough for the label of antipope to unfairly stick to Dioscorus. He had been legitimately elected pope by the majority, and so at the very least should be seen as pope elect. And if his election came with the usual ceremonial crowning – as seen the LP records his ordination, as well as acceptance of his election from Constantinople, something that the papal curia would not have sought if it did not think that Dioscorus had been formally elected pope, then he should really be listed as Pope Dioscorus.

It is Boniface II who should really be labelled as an antipope, at least for the three months after his minority ordination in the Basilica Julia on 22 September and before the formal acquiescence of the Dioscoran priests on 27 December 530. And if there was no formal election of Boniface after Dioscorus’ death, we might consider that Boniface II remained an antipope of sorts throughout his entire pontificate, which ended with his death on 17 October 532.

That brings us back to answer the question posed by the title of this piece...

When is an antipope not an antipope?

When he wins the papal election...

Bibliography

Crawford, P. The Emperor Zeno: The Perils of Power Politics in Fifth Century Constantinople. Barnsley (2019) ch.11.

Kosinski, R. The Emperor Zeno: Religion and Politics. Krakow (2010).

Moorhead, J. ‘ The Last Years of Theoderic’, Historia 32 (1983) 106-120

Moorhead, J. ‘The Laurentian Schism: East and West in the Roman Church’, Church History 47 (1978) 125-136

Moorhead, T. Theoderic in Italy. Oxford (1992).

Richards, J. The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages 476-752. Abingdon (1979).