Vadim, if I may ask for a clarification. Is it your opinion that Vigilius's hesitance in anathematizing Theodore, et al contradicts the dogma of papal infallibility?
I meant wider question: whether anyone who had not been anathematised in his lifetime could be anathematised after his death. Without mentioning any names. It seems that Vigilius's decision on this question in his Constitutum
contradicts the dogma of papal infallibility. Hefele:
The Pope said, he had further inquired carefully what his predecessors had said on the question, whether anyone who had not been anathematised in his lifetime could be anathematised after his death. Against such harshness Leo and Gelasius had, in particular, declared themselves, saying that the dead should be left to the judgment of God. The Roman Church, too, had always, in practice, followed this rule <...>
To repeat: Card. Hergenröther says in his comment, that "... positive dogmatic purport of the judicatum, of the constitutum, and of his last decree, is not involved in contradiction". But this question, if to read carefully the definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (the quotation that I cited in this post
), — is an important tradition of the Church.
And in that same post I quoted definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, according to which, anyone who tries to spurn the traditions of the Church, is under anathema of this Council. And according to the Bible: “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you” (I Cor. 11:2). And: “Hold on to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether orally or through an epistle of ours” (II Thess. 2:15).
By the way, you pointed to the fact that Fifth Ecumenical Council referred to tradition of the Roman Church in its definition ("... and the holy Roman Church as well had anathematized certain bishops after their death, although they had not been accused of any falling from the faith during their lives"). But Pope Vigilius also referred in his Constitutum
to the tradition of the Roman Church (in the first quotation of this message), but made wrong conclusion, because he misunderstood the words of St. Leo. So again, I think that we should focus our attention not so much on particular quotations or historical facts, as on general methods or procedures, how these quotations were analysed by the Ecumenical Councils, and which mistakes were always made by all kinds of heretics in their analysis of patristic texts. Mistakes made by Vigilius seem to be the same as were later made by the Latins during East-West Schism.