Church Documents · Creeds and Professions of Faith · Historical Professions
FORMULA OF HORMISDAS
The Profession That Helped Heal the Acacian Schism in AD 519
Historical Professions of Faith Library
Ancient Symbols and Early Professions
Medieval Conciliar Professions
Modern and Contemporary Professions
Start Here
The Formula of Hormisdas is a profession of faith prepared under Pope St. Hormisdas during efforts to heal the Acacian Schism between Rome and Constantinople. It was accepted in Constantinople in AD 519 and became the instrument of restored ecclesial communion.
The Formula confesses the faith of the Ecumenical Councils, receives the Tome of Pope St. Leo, condemns named heresies and teachers, and expresses the necessity of communion with the Apostolic See.
It is historically important in Catholic discussions of Roman primacy and doctrinal indefectibility. It must nevertheless be read as a concrete reunion document with names, condemnations, and political circumstances—not as an isolated sentence detached from the schism it resolved.
The Acacian Schism
The Acacian Schism began in AD 484 during controversy over the reception of the Council of Chalcedon. The emperor Zeno had issued the Henotikon, a formula intended to restore peace after intense Christological conflict.
The document avoided a clear acceptance of Chalcedon and became associated with communion arrangements involving opponents of the council. Pope Felix III condemned Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, and Acacius removed the pope’s name from the diptychs.
The schism lasted for decades. It involved theology, ecclesial communion, imperial policy, episcopal names in liturgical commemoration, and the authority of Rome and Constantinople.
By the reign of Emperor Justin I, political and ecclesial circumstances favored reunion on Chalcedonian terms.
Pope St. Hormisdas
Hormisdas served as pope from AD 514 to 523. His pontificate was largely occupied with negotiations for reunion with the East.
Rome required an unambiguous reception of the councils and of Pope St. Leo’s teaching, together with condemnation of Acacius and other named figures judged responsible for schism or heresy.
The Formula sent in Hormisdas’s name expressed these conditions in a profession to be signed by bishops returning to communion.
Its directness reflects the long failure of ambiguous compromises. Reunion was not to be achieved by hiding the doctrinal and ecclesial questions that caused the rupture.
A Famous Roman Claim
In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate.
This famous clause must be read within the Formula’s complete confession of councils, papal teaching, condemned errors, and restored communion.
The Faith Confessed
The Formula receives the faith of the great councils and the Christological doctrine defended by Pope St. Leo. It names Nestorius and Eutyches among rejected teachers and affirms the doctrinal settlement associated with Chalcedon.
The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the tradition of the Fathers.
Common English rendering of the Formula’s opening principle; translations differ slightly.
Nestorian error divides Christ in a way that compromises the unity of His Person. Eutychian or monophysite error confuses or absorbs His humanity after the union.
Catholic faith confesses one and the same Son, perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, existing in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation.
The Formula’s Roman ecclesiology therefore serves a concrete doctrinal communion. It is not mere institutional loyalty separated from Christological truth.
Peter and the Apostolic See
The Formula appeals to Christ’s promise to St. Peter and identifies the Apostolic See as the enduring center of ecclesial solidity and communion.
It is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” should not be verified.
Common English rendering; wording and punctuation vary among editions.
Catholics have long cited this language as a witness to Roman primacy and the preservation of apostolic faith in the See of Peter.
The document does not present primacy as a political privilege invented by an emperor. It connects Roman communion with Christ’s words to Peter, the apostolic succession of Rome, and the doctrinal judgments required for unity.
At the same time, interpretation should attend to the exact historical act. The Formula is a reunion confession signed amid a specific schism, not a complete later treatise on every question of papal infallibility or jurisdiction.
Condemnations and the Diptychs
Ancient ecclesial communion was expressed liturgically by commemorating bishops in the diptychs. Removing or retaining names could signify broken or restored communion.
The Roman conditions required removal of Acacius and other condemned names. This demand became one of the most difficult aspects of negotiation because it affected the honor of previous patriarchs and emperors.
Modern readers may find lists of names remote, but they reveal that doctrinal communion has visible and institutional consequences. The Church could not profess Chalcedon while liturgically honoring those officially condemned for opposing the settlement.
Acceptance in AD 519
Under Emperor Justin I and Patriarch John II of Constantinople, agreement was reached. Papal legates entered Constantinople, the Formula was accepted, and communion was restored in AD 519.
The event ended a schism that had lasted approximately thirty-five years. It did not solve every future tension between Rome and Constantinople, but it established a major precedent for reunion through explicit doctrinal and ecclesial agreement.
The Formula was signed by bishops connected with the restoration of communion and continued to be cited in later Catholic theological discussion.
Roman Primacy and Later Catholic Teaching
The First Vatican Council later defined the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and the conditions of papal infallibility. The Formula of Hormisdas predates that conciliar definition by more than a millennium.
It should therefore be used as historical evidence of an earlier Roman claim and Eastern acceptance in a reunion context, not as though it contained the complete terminology of Vatican I.
The historical continuity is real: Rome presents communion with the See of Peter as necessary for full ecclesial unity and links that communion with preservation of the apostolic faith.
Development brings later precision to truths witnessed earlier in less systematic forms.
Ecumenical Sensitivity
The Formula remains a disputed document in Catholic-Orthodox discussion. Some emphasize its strong Roman language; others stress the circumstances of imperial pressure, negotiation, translation, and the way Eastern signatories understood particular clauses.
Catholic presentation should neither minimize the text nor use it triumphalistically. The page should present what the document says, what historical act it accomplished, and why interpretations differ.
Authentic ecumenism requires truth, repentance, charity, and patient examination of sources. It does not require pretending that difficult documents never existed.
Lessons for Ecclesial Communion
The Formula demonstrates that communion is doctrinal, sacramental, and visible. Churches cannot remain fully united while officially teaching contradictory accounts of Christ or refusing communion with one another’s bishops.
It also demonstrates that peace purchased by ambiguous formulas may postpone rather than heal conflict. Reunion required direct engagement with the councils and contested names.
Finally, it shows that healing schism involves both principle and prudence. The goal is not victory over persons but restoration of the Church’s communion in the truth.
Why the Named Persons Matter
The Formula’s list of councils, popes, bishops, and condemned teachers is part of its theology of communion. Christian unity is not an invisible agreement that ignores public teaching and public ecclesial acts.
Names identify concrete lines of responsibility. At the same time, historical judgment must distinguish personal culpability, doctrinal error, political pressure, and later reception. The document records an official reunion judgment; it does not give modern readers permission to pronounce casually upon every person’s soul.
Reading the names carefully also prevents the Formula from becoming a detached slogan about Rome. Its Roman claims appear inside a confession about Christ, councils, teachers, and the restoration of liturgical communion.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Do not describe the Formula as merely a political oath.
- Do not detach its Roman claims from Chalcedonian Christology.
- Do not quote one sentence while ignoring the complete reunion context.
- Do not treat every named condemnation as a universal liturgical article.
- Do not claim it contains the complete terminology of Vatican I.
- Do not ignore the role of diptychs and visible communion.
- Do not use the document as a weapon against present-day Eastern Christians.
Key Takeaways
- The Formula was prepared under Pope St. Hormisdas during the Acacian Schism.
- It helped restore communion between Rome and Constantinople in AD 519.
- It receives the councils and the Christology of Pope St. Leo.
- It condemns named errors and leaders connected with schism.
- It contains a major early witness to Roman primacy and doctrinal preservation.
- Its strongest clauses must be read in their complete historical context.
- It shows that ecclesial unity requires shared faith and visible communion.
Sources and Further Reading
- Holy Bible, Douay-Rheims: Matthew 16:16–19; Luke 22:31–32; John 21:15–17.
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 880–887.
- Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas, AD 515/519.
- Council of Chalcedon, Definition of Faith, AD 451.
- Pope St. Leo the Great, Tome to Flavian.
- First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus.
- Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 18–25.
- Liberatus of Carthage, Breviarium.
- Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History.
- Catholic Encyclopedia, “Pope St. Hormisdas” and “Acacian Schism.”