Pope Stephen VI (896-897)

The only pope who judged a dead pope

Stephen VI is, in the entire history of the Catholic Church, the only pontiff to have formally judged another pope after his death, with synodal procedure, simulated appearance of the body, sentence and mutilation. No other papal crisis—neither the pornocracy of the 10th century, nor the Great Western Schism, nor the Investiture Quarrel, nor the Borgias—has produced such an act. Sergius III, who will try in 904 to rehabilitate the sentence, will not repeat the trial himself: he will be content to ratify that of Stephen VI. ^[13][14] The Cadaver Synod is therefore a unique event, and the name of Stephen VI remains attached to it as no other pope is attached to one of his acts.

A canonical contradiction inscribed in one's own body

Stephen VI had been consecrated bishop of Anagni by Formosus himself, around 891.^[15][16] When the Cadaver Synod declared void all the ordinations conferred by Formosus, it **retroactively invalidated the episcopal consecration which made Stephen a bishop. But to become pope, you had to be a bishop. The sentence pronounced against Formosus **logically destroys the legitimacy of the person who pronounces it. This living canonical contradiction — a judge who saws off the branch on which he is seated — is the theological heart of the episode, and it is this which will make the sentence inapplicable and unacceptable for Catholic tradition.^[17][18]

A catastrophe which founds, by contrast, the sacramental doctrine

Without the scandal of the Cadaver Synod, Catholic theology would perhaps not have so quickly formulated the distinction between the validity of a sacrament (which depends on the grace of Christ) and its lawfulness (which depends on canonical conditions). Stephen VI presents the Church with an impasse: should we re-ordain hundreds of clerics ordained by Formosus? Auxilius of Naples, a priest ordained precisely by Formosus, wrote several treatises between 908 and 911 to demonstrate that no — ordinations are valid through Christ, not through the dignity of the minister. The position of Auxilius, extended by Theodore II and John IX, will become the constant position of the Church, taken up at Trent under the formula ex opere operato.^[19][20]

A fall as rapid as the scandal

Stephen VI did not survive his own act. Six to eight months after the Cadaver Synod, he was dead, strangled in a cell. This is **one of the briefest cases where ecclesial violence was immediately sanctioned by the Church itself. Theodore II annuls in December 897; John IX confirmed in 898. No successor dared to take up the name of Stephen XI. For a Catholic reading, the rapid sequence “scandal → death of the perpetrator → synodal annulment → definitive ban” is precisely the opposite of a rotten ecclesial system: it is the sign of a body which purges itself of abuse.

Roman origins and family

Stephen was born in Rome, on an unknown date, in the second half of the 9th century.^[21][22] The Catholic Encyclopedia presents him soberly: “He was a Roman, the son of John, a priest”^[23]. No contemporary source indicates his date of birth, his precise location in Rome, his education, nor the family ties of the presbyteros John who was his father.

This silence is consistent with what we observe for most Roman clerics of the 9th century. The ecclesiastical career absorbs the biography: the man only exists for the chroniclers when he becomes useful to a pope. By the time Stephen entered the sources, he was already a trained Roman cleric, capable of being ordained a priest directly by the reigning pontiff.

The fact that his father was a priest deserves a note: before the Gregorian reform, the Roman clergy were largely married or came from priestly lineages, without contradiction with the discipline then in force, which did not impose universal celibacy on Latin priests as would be the case after the Lateran I (1123) and especially the Lateran II (1139). The context is typical of a hereditary clerical elite which holds a large part of the Roman curia of the time.

Priestly ordination under Stephen V

Stephen is ordained priest by Stephen V (885-891). It is the Catholic Encyclopedia which establishes it, without specifying the date.^[24] The ordination therefore took place between 885 and 891, probably before the end of the pontificate of Stephen V since the future Stephen VI was consecrated bishop under the following pontificate. We can place this ordination in the **second half of the 880s.

Bishop of Anagni by Formosus (c. 891)

Under Formosus — who became pope on October 6, 891 — Stephen was consecrated bishop of Anagni, a suffragan see about seventy kilometers southeast of Rome. The Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani is explicit: he occupied Anagni "for five years" before his Roman election, which places the consecration in 891, undoubtedly in the first months of the pontificate of Formosus.^[25][26]

Anagni is an ecclesiastically modest seat, but politically important: on the road between Rome and Spoletine Campania, it is one of the locks on the southern border of the pontifical heritage. Entrusting him to a trained Roman cleric indicates that Formosus saw in Stephen a man he could trust, or at least a man acceptable to the two camps that were already clashing—the traditional Roman curia and the rising Spoletines.

The consecration “possibly against his will”

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes, in a careful and serious formula: Stephen "had been consecrated bishop of Anagni, possibly against his will, by Formosus"^[27]. The clarification is old but taken up by historians: it suggests that the consecration of 891 was imposed on Stephen, or at least accepted without enthusiasm. The reason is not explained.

Whatever the reason, this consecration will be, six years later, **the theological crux of the Cadaver Synod. If one retroactively annuls all ordinations conferred by Formosus, then Anagni's consecration is void, therefore Stephen was never a bishop, therefore he could not have been elected pope in 896, therefore the Cadaver Synod itself is legally void. The theory supported by certain late chroniclers - notably Sigebert de Gembloux in the 12th century - according to which Stephen would have precisely wanted to get rid of this consecration considered cumbersome, is considered not very credible by contemporary sources, as shown by the DBI:

“The hypothesis according to which Stephen sought to legitimize himself after having been consecrated bishop by Formosus does not find support in contemporary sources; it only appears in Sigebert de Gembloux, later, with a problematic chronology.” — O. Bertolini, Stefano VI papa, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Treccani^[28]

The real motivation of Stephen VI therefore remains an open question that the following sections will examine by confronting three competing hypotheses.

The death of Formosus and the lightning pontificate of Boniface VI

Formosus died in Rome on April 4, 896, at around eighty years old, a few weeks after having crowned Arnulf of Carinthia emperor in Saint Peter's.^[29] The coronation had been an act of defiance against the Spoletines, and the death of Formosus freed them.

The curia immediately elected an elderly Roman priest, Boniface VI, who died fifteen days later, probably on **April 26, 896. The sources do not decide on the cause of this sudden death; hypotheses range from illness to poisoning, without proof.^[30][31] The election of Boniface VI was itself annulled retroactively by John IX in 898, which created lasting tension for the official pontifical list.^[32]

An election under double supervision: Faroldo then the Spoletins

The DBI Bertolini introduces here a crucial detail, often forgotten: between the death of Boniface VI (end of April 896) and the beginning of the year 897, **Rome was not immediately under Spoletine control. Emperor Arnulf, crowned on February 22, 896 by Formosus, left there an imperial envoy named Faroldo, who exercises real authority.^[33] The election of Stephen VI therefore takes place **while Rome is still held, at least formally, by the Carolingians.

This point significantly changes the usual reading. The simple apologetic narration — “Lambert and Ageltrude install their creature Stephen to avenge Formosus” — does not hold up chronologically. Lambert and Ageltrude only recaptured Rome between August 896 and January 897, after the departure of Faroldo. The election of Stephen VI, prior to this shift, must therefore be explained by other dynamics: the internal politics of the Roman clergy, its factions, and its ambiguous relationship with Formosus.

Before June 11, 896: the terminus ante quem

The date of Stephen VI's election is traditionally set at **May 22, 896. ^[34][35] The DBI Bertolini is more cautious: he only establishes that Stephen is pope "before June 11, 896", on the basis of documents he signed on that date at the latest.^[36] The consistency of the two indications is satisfactory: election on May 22, first acts signed before June 11.

Stephen VI or Stephen VII? The question of numbering

Numbering poses a recognized difficulty. In 752, a Roman priest named Stephen was elected pope but died before receiving episcopal consecration. For centuries, the pontifical lists sometimes included it, sometimes excluded it. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912 still titles “Pope Stephen (VI) VII”, in double numbering.^[37]

It was with the Annuario Pontificio of 1961 that the Holy See decided: the elected representative of 752 having never been a bishop, he cannot be counted in the apostolic succession. All later Stephens moved back one number. This explains why ancient works speak of a “Stephen VII” (897) and that contemporary works speak of a “Stephen VI” (897), to designate exactly the **same person.

"Stephen VI or VII according to historical conventions prior to the 1960s." — Wikipedia, notice Pope Stephen VI, summarizing the decision of the Annuario Pontificio 1961^[38]

Ignispedia usage, aligned with the current Holy See, is to call it **Stephen VI.

A progressively pro-Spoletin policy

During the first months (May-August 896), Stephen VI governed within the framework left by Formosus: a Lateran still marked by the diplomacy of Arnulf, a Faroldo who weighed in, Formosian bishops in place. No act of anti-Formosian brilliance is attested before Faroldo's departure.^[39] In the fall of 896 and early 897, Lambert of Spoleto and his mother Ageltrude returned to Rome; the shift towards politics of revenge then takes place.

A difficulty for historiography is to identify the real driving force behind this shift. The DBI Bertolini emphasizes that Lambert himself, in 898 in Ravenna, will support the rehabilitation of Formosus under John IX.^[40] The mother-son couple was therefore not, in itself, as "anti-Formosian" as a quick reading presupposes. The fact remains that Ageltrude, widow of Guy III of Spoleto, had harder personal reasons to hold a grudge against Formosus, who had crowned Arnulf in place of his son Lambert.

Ordinary acts: Narbonne, Vézelay, Psalmodi, Foulques de Reims

The pontificate of Stephen VI was not only the pontificate of the Cadaver Synod. The DBI reports several ordinary administrative acts: confirmation of the possessions of the Church of Narbonne and the Vézelay Abbey, protection of the monastery of Psalmodi, correspondence with Archbishop Foulques of Reims regarding a proposed **council in Ravenna in September 896.^[41]

These acts show an administrative continuity: the curia continues to rotate, letters go out, privileges are confirmed, councils are planned. Stephen VI is not an isolated anti-pope; he keeps the papal machine running routinely. This surface normality makes the Cadaver Synod even more stunning.

The council planned at Ravenna (September 896)

The project of a council at Ravenna in September 896, attested by correspondence with Foulques of Reims, did not come to fruition. It remained a dead letter, undoubtedly because of Italian political developments during the summer. But its very conception shows that Stephen VI, in the first months of his pontificate, wanted to be a pope of government and not a pope of scandal. The planned council had nothing anti-Formosian: it concerned the current affairs of the Frankish Church.^[42]

The shift towards the Cadaver Synod

On a date which cannot be fixed precisely – between the end of 896 and the very beginning of 897 – the decision was made. Three factors probably add up:

1. The return of Lambert and Ageltrude to Rome after the departure of Faroldo, which made possible an openly anti-Formosian policy;
2. The emerging popular veneration enjoyed by the body of Formosus in Saint Peter's, and which contemporary historians like William S. Monroe identify as the real trigger: Stephen VI wanted to prevent the formation of a cult around his predecessor^[43];
3. An anti-Formosian internal pressure within the Roman clergy, who sees in the death of the old pope the opportunity to reverse a policy experienced as imposed by the Nicolaian and Adrianian curia.

The trial is convened for **January 897.

The setting: the Lateran Basilica

The synod was held in Rome in **January 897. The sources converge on the Basilica of Saint John Lateran, then the official papal seat; the DBI points out, however, that part of Italian historiography places the trial at the Vatican (Saint Peter), where the tomb of Formosus was located, which is not excluded for the first sessions before the transfer to the Lateran.^[44][45] The synod lasts two or three days, in the presence of the Roman clergy and several bishops summoned.^[46]

The exhumation and the staging

The body of Formosus, dead for approximately nine months, is exhumed from his tomb in Saint Peter's. He is dressed in pontifical ornaments - chasuble, stole, pallium -, wearing a tiara, and **seated on the pontifical throne. A deacon is appointed to answer the accusations in his place. The staging is explicitly described by the Annales Alamannici:

“And Stephen brought Pope Formosus out of his tomb, placed him on the apostolic throne, a deacon was charged with answering for him, his apostolic vestments were torn from him, his body was dragged through the basilica; the blood flowed from his mouth, and he was thrown into the river.” — Annales Alamannici, ad an. 897 (MGH SS I)^[47]

The three canonical charges

The sources converge on three main complaints against Formosus:

1. Perjury of the oath of Troyes (878): Formosus, excommunicated by John VIII in 876 then exiled to Francia, had sworn at the Council of Troyes (August-September 878) to **no longer return to Rome or exercise the priestly ministry. By returning under Marino I (883) then by becoming pope in 891, he would have broken this oath.^[48][49]
2. Illicit episcopal translation: bishop of Porto since 864, Formosus would have moved to the see of Rome in 891 contrary to the canons of Nicea which prohibited translations.^[50][51]
3. Undue exercise of the episcopate: having been deposed and then having sworn to a secular life, Formosus would have exercised the Roman episcopate in secular state, rendering all his acts null.^[52]

These three grievances form, as Joëlle Jégou observes, a canonically coherent system: they target not the doctrine of Formosus but the person and function, and make it possible to retroactively invalidate all his pontifical acts, **including ordinations.^[53]

The word addressed to the corpse

The most famous scene of the trial is the direct indictment of the corpse by the living pope. The formula preserved by Liutprand of Cremona is the most cited expression of the Cadaver Synod in all Western literature:

“Cum Portuensis esses episcopus, cur ambitionis spiritu Romanam universalem usurpasti sedem?” — “ While you were bishop of Porto, why, in a spirit of ambition, did you usurp the Roman universal see?” — Liutprand of Cremona, Antapodosis I, 30, around 958-962^[54]

A philological nuance is necessary here, which was not highlighted in the neighboring article on Formosus. In Liutprand's text as it is preserved, it is in reality Sergius (Sergius III) who pronounces the formula against the corpse, and not Stephen VI: Liutprand telescopes the two anti-Formosian trials (897 under Stephen VI, 904 under Sergius III) into a single scene, which he attributes to Sergius.^[55] Historical tradition nevertheless attributes the formula to Stephen VI, because it was he who actually held the posthumous trial in 897; Sergius III, in 904, only ratified Stephen's sentence without replaying the scene. The formula therefore remains true in substance as an expression of the Cadaver Synod, but it accounts for a narrative compression in Liutprand. Encyclopedic rigor requires us to point this out.

The sentence: retroactive testimony

The sentence pronounced at the end of the trial is threefold:

1. Retroactive deposition: Formosus is declared fallen retroactively from the papacy; all his pontifical acts are annulled.
2. Cancellation of ordinations: all clerics ordained by Formosus — deacons, priests, bishops — are declared **not ordained.
3. Mutilation and bodily infamy: the body is stripped of pontifical ornaments, its fingers of blessing are cut off, it is dressed in secular vestments, dragged through the basilica, and finally **thrown into the Tiber.^[56][57][58]

The DBI Bertolini adds an important point: **cancellations are restricted to Rome.^[59] Stephen VI would not have extended the sentence to ordinations conferred by Formosus outside Rome (Bulgaria, Francia, England). This geographical limitation confirms that the deep motivation was political and local, not doctrinal and universal: it was a question of breaking the Formosian network in Rome, not of imposing a global theology.

The cancellation of ordinations and the Anagni paradox

The most devastating point of the sentence is the annulment of the ordinations. Stephen VI himself had been consecrated bishop of Anagni by Formosus, around 891. His own episcopal consecration therefore fell under ordinations annulled by his own sentence - at least in pure logic. Historian Horace K. Mann highlights this contradiction as one of the most unintelligible points of the episode:

“Stephen VI himself had been consecrated bishop of Anagni by Formosus. By canceling the ordinations of Formosus, he logically had to cancel his own, therefore invalidate his own pontificate.” — summary of Horace K. Mann, Lives of the Popes, vol. IV, 1910, p. 100-104^[60]

Mann concludes, with others, that the restriction of annulments in Rome (pointed out by Bertolini) is not a coincidence: it probably spared the consecration of Anagni, and therefore the very legitimacy of Stephen. This is indirect proof that the synod was aware of the contradiction it created, and that it sought to contain it legally rather than resolve it theologically.

Two or three fingers?

Sources differ slightly on the number of severed fingers. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912 mentions two fingers in its notice of Stephen VI^[61]. The majority of other sources — Liutprand, the Annales, Gregorovius, Wikipedia EN/IT, Medievalists.net — mention **three fingers. **three fingers. This is the interpretation retained by almost all of modern historiography, and it is the one that appears in the neighboring article Formosus.

The body thrown into the Tiber

After the mutilation, the body is first buried in a secular cemetery, perhaps in the foreigners' cemetery. But shortly after, on the orders of Stephen VI or under pressure from his faction, he was re-exhumed, weighted with stones, and **thrown into the Tiber.^[62][63][64] Several sources add that the body was dragged through the basilica before this second burial. The scene is unanimously condemned by medieval and modern sources.

For what? Three competing hypotheses

No contemporary source reveals the motivation of Stephen VI; historians have proposed three main ones:

Hypothesis 1 - Spoletine revenge. Stephen VI would have been the instrument of Lambert and Ageltrude, who wanted to avenge the humiliation of Arnulf's coronation by Formosus. This reading, dominant in ancient historiography (Mann, Gregorovius), is weakened by the DBI Bertolini: Lambert himself supported in 898 the rehabilitation of Formosus in Ravenna under John IX, which makes it unlikely that he was the real driving force behind the trial two years earlier.^[65]

Hypothesis 2 — Self-legitimation. Stephen VI would have wanted to destroy the consecration of Anagni that Formosus had imposed on him “perhaps against his will”, to replace it with directly Roman legitimacy. This thesis only appears with the chronicler Sigebert de Gembloux in the 12th century, and no contemporary source confirms it, as Bertolini notes.^[66] It also comes up against the fact that the sentence was limited to Rome, which would not have been enough to delegitimize Anagni if ​​that had been the objective.

Hypothesis 3 - The rupture of an emerging cult. The historian William S. Monroe maintains, in the volume A New Look at the Cadaver Synod published in Vatican City in 2022, that Stephen VI sought to interrupt a popular veneration of which the body of Formosus was the object at Saint Peter. Through ritual desecration - clothes torn off, fingers cut off, remains thrown into the Tiber - he would have wanted to prevent the formation of a relic cult around his predecessor.^[67][68] This hypothesis has the advantage of explaining why the body was the target, and not just the pontifical acts.

“Historian William S. Monroe maintains that the trial targeted the veneration of Formosus by some Romans. Through this ritual desecration, Stephen sought to erase his holiness and prevent devotion based on relics — reflecting the upheaval of the Church during the collapse of the Carolingian Empire.” — Sarah Patrick, The Cadaver Synod, Medievalists.net, May 2025^[69]

Hypothesis 3 is today considered the most solid, without excluding combinations with the other two.

The Roman uprising

The sentence of the Cadaver Synod was rendered in January 897. For approximately six months, Stephen VI continued to govern. He forces several clerics ordained by Formosus to renounce their functions, has acts of abdication signed, distributes some privileges.^[70] But the scandal in Rome does not die down.

The body of Formosus, recovered from the Tiber by a fisherman or a monk depending on the version, is secretly reburied. Miracles were quickly attributed to him: statues of saints who bowed as the remains passed by, healings.^[71] The rumor turned public opinion upside down. Around middle of June or late July-early August 897, an insurrection broke out in Rome.^[72][73]

The Lateran earthquake

Several medieval sources report a remarkable event during the summer of 897: an earthquake caused the Lateran basilica to collapse, the very place where the trial had taken place. The DBI reports this episode:

“The Lateran basilica collapsed during his pontificate, and was subsequently rebuilt by John IX and Sergius III.” — O. Bertolini, Stefano VI papa, DBI, Treccani^[74]

For medieval memory, the collapse of the place of sacrilege is read as a sign: the Lateran has been sullied by the trial, the Lateran is collapsing. For modern historiography, this is a chronological coincidence in a truly seismic region. Whatever the interpretive framework, the episode is attested by several independent sources and participates in the rapid deterioration of the political position of Stephen VI.

The arrest, the testimony, the strangulation

Stephen VI is arrested by the insurgent faction. Several sources mention that he was stripped of the pontifical insignia, perhaps forced to take the monastic habit as was then done for ecclesiastical deposeds, then **imprisoned. fortress, the current **Castel Sant'Angelo.^[75]

In his cell, Stephen VI is **strangled. The most probable date is August 897, as concluded by Bertolini, the Catholic Encyclopedia and almost all modern sources; Italian Wikipedia gives precisely August 14, 897, without this date being attested by a contemporary source.^[76][77][78] A minority chronology places it in July or October 897. The margin of uncertainty is approximately two months.

Contemporary sources on the end

No source names the material perpetrators of the murder, nor identifies the instigator. The DBI, cautiously, concludes:

“Deprived of his dignity, perhaps forced to become a monk, he was imprisoned and strangled, probably in August 897.” — O. Bertolini, Stefano VI papa, DBI, Treccani^[79]

The absence of trial, the speed of the sequence, the silence of the chronicles on the names of the conspirators indicate that the Formosian faction - or what was left of it - acted with brutal efficiency, consistent with Roman political practices of the end of the 9th century.

The translation of Sergius III in 907

The fate of Stephen VI's body is also remarkable. First buried without honors, he was transferred ten years later to Saint Peter's by Sergius III (904-911) himself, in **907.^[80] Sergius III was a fiercely anti-Formosian pope; he had, in 904, attempted to rehabilitate the Cadaver Synod and imposed the re-ordination of the Formosian clerics. The transfer of the remains of Stephen VI to Saint Peter's, the place where Formosus now rests, rehabilitated by Theodore II and John IX, thus takes on a militant dimension: Sergius III wants to restore, in the pontifical tomb, the memory of the man who had judged Formosus.

The metrical epitaph: an anti-Formosian eulogy

Sergius III had a metric epitaph composed for translation which celebrates the offensive of Stephen VI against Formosus, while mentioning his prison and his strangulation. The DBI reports its existence and tone:

"Sergius III transferred Stephen's remains to Saint Peter's in 907, and commissioned a metrical epitaph which emphasized his offensive against Formosus and his presidency of the concilium, while noting his tragic imprisonment and strangulation.” — O. Bertolini, Stefano VI papa, DBI, Treccani^[81]

The epitaph is one of the rare sources directly favorable to Stephen VI; it remains a testimony to the living controversy between the two camps at the beginning of the 10th century. It has never been understood as a beatification nor as an ecclesial act: it is a political act of Sergius III, contemporary with his own positions, and it will be annulled in fact by all subsequent tradition.

The absence of Stephen XI: a cluttered name

The last pope to take the name Stephen was Stephen IX (1057-1058). For almost a thousand years, **no pope has taken up the name of Stephen. None Stephen X, none Stephen XI, none **Stephen XII. The silence is massive and lasting.

No magisterial document explains this silence. But the coincidence is heavy: Stephen's two most emblematic medieval popes left poisonous traces — Stephen VI with the Cadaver Synod, Stephen VII (the current Stephen VI) with his end by strangulation. The name carries a historical weight which Roman tradition seems to take into account. For an honest Catholic reading, silence is less a post-mortem condemnation of Stephen VI than a pastoral delicacy: certain names carry too much scandal to be repeated.

Theodore II and the synod of December 897

Only a few months after the death of Stephen VI, Roman (August-November 897) began to cancel the decrees of the Cadaver Synod. It is filed before completing the work. His successor Theodore II convened in December 897, in a pontificate which lasted only about twenty days, a synod which formally canceled the Lateran trial, ordered the repatriation of the body of Formosus from its hiding place, and had it **reburied in Saint Peter in the clothes pontificals.^[82][83] The clerics ordained by Formosus are **reinstated without new ordination. This is the first official cancellation of the Cadaver Synod by the Church itself, in the year following the scandal.

John IX (898) and the definitive ban

John IX, elected in January 898, confirms and amplifies the cancellation. He successively convened a synod in Rome and another in **Ravenna. The official records of the Cadaver Synod are **burned. Seven cardinals who participated in it are **excommunicated. Above all, John IX definitively prohibited any post-mortem judgment in the Catholic Church.^[84][85]

“John IX confirmed these acts during two synods, the first of which was held in Rome and the other in Ravenna (898).” — J. P. Kirsch, Pope Formosus, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1909^[86]

This ban remained. Never again, since 898, has any pope been judged after his death. The Cadaver Synod is the unique and closed event of an unacknowledged practice: it was not the first in a series, but the **last.

Auxilius of Naples and the defense of ordinations

The deepest theological question left by Stephen VI is that of **cancelled ordinations. If we follow the Lateran sentence, hundreds of bishops, priests and deacons ordained by Formosus—including Stephen VI himself as bishop of Anagni—were never ordained. All the sacraments they conferred (Eucharist, confirmation, orders, marriages, absolutions) are void. The cascade effect is terrifying.

It is in this context that Auxilius of Naples, a Frankish priest ordained in Rome by Formosus, wrote several apologetic treatises between 908 and 911: In defensionem sacrae ordinationis papae Formosi, Libellus de ordinationibus a papa Formoso factis, Tractatus qui Infensor et Defensor dicitur, Libellus super causa et negatio Formosi papae, Libellus in defensionem Stephani episcopi et praefatae ordinationis.^[87] His thesis is simple:

“Orders conferred by sinful or excommunicated bishops are not in themselves invalid: the sacrament operates by the power of Christ, not by the dignity of the minister.” — meaning of the Libellus de ordinationibus a papa Formoso factis of Auxilius of Naples, around 908-911^[88][89]

This doctrine - which takes up the anti-donatist position of Saint Augustine by applying it to an extreme pontifical case - will be reformulated by medieval scholastics under the expression ex opere operato, then solemnized at the Council of Trent (session VII, March 3, 1547, canon 11 on the sacraments in general).^[90] The Formosian episode is therefore a decisive moment in the crystallization of the Catholic doctrine of the sacraments.

The start of Sergius III (904): a relapse without follow-up

Seven years after the death of Stephen VI, Sergius III (904-911) attempted a **relapse. He ratifies the sentence of the Cadaver Synod, demands the re-ordination of the Formosian clerics, and transfers as we have seen the remains of Stephen VI to Saint Peter's with a laudatory epitaph.^[91][92]

This attempt remained **unfulfilled. No later pope has taken up the line of Sergius III. The theology of Auxilius and the jurisprudence of Theodore II and John IX prevailed. For the official pontifical list of the Holy See, Formosus remains a legitimate pope without any critical note; the Cadaver Synod is treated as a cancelled abuse, not as a valid ecclesial act. The relapse of Sergius III is read as an isolated anomaly, already compromised by his political past.^[93][94]

The doctrine ex opere operato

The distinction between sacramental validity (which does not depend on the minister) and lawfulness (which depends on canonical conditions) finds its concrete formulation in the extreme pontifical environment in the post-Formosian crisis. This distinction will be taken up by medieval scholasticism, codified at the Council of Trent, and remains the constant position of the Church.

Without the crisis triggered by Stephen VI, the doctrine would perhaps have waited longer for such clarification. This is the paradox of the episode: a sacrilegious act caused, by contrast, the crystallization of a fundamental sacramentary doctrine.

John-Paul Laurens (1870) and the Western imagination

The episode returned to Western consciousness in 1870 with the painting by John-Paul Laurens (1838-1921), The Popes Formosus and Stephen VI — Cadaveric Council of 897, oil on canvas of 100 × 152 cm, exhibited at the Salon of 1872 and today kept at the **Musée d'Arts de Nantes.^[95]

Laurens, a republican and anticlerical painter, paints the scene to serve as a political denunciation at a time when the fall of Napoleon III and the proclamation of the Republic opened a decade of confrontation with the Church in France. The painting shows a haggard, disheveled Stephen VI, standing facing the corpse dressed in a tiara and seated on a pontifical armchair, in a dark Lateran. The living pope resembles an exhausted beast; the dead pope, to an immobile authority figure.

Despite its polemical aim, the painting has become the most widely disseminated image of the Synod in modern Western culture. It is reproduced in almost all the histories of the papacy, from Gregorovius to contemporary manuals. For Ignispedia, its value is documentary: it recalls, through visual shock, what the textual sources already say — a pope carried out judgment and mutilation on a corpse. To recall it is not to betray the faith: it is the opposite, it is to recognize that the Church crossed an abyss and that it itself condemned it the following year.

Historiography: from Mann to Monroe

Three stages mark the modern historiography of Stephen VI:

1. Horace K. Mann (1910), The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, vol. IV. Mann is of Catholic apologetic leanings; its moral verdicts are sometimes harsh, but its documentation is broad and reliable. He devotes a dense section to Stephen VI, reads the Cadaver Synod as one of the most disgusting episodes the papacy has known, and highlights the canonical contradiction created by Anagni's consecration.^[96][97]

2. Ferdinand Gregorovius (1903), History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, vol. III. Gregorovius, Protestant and anticlerical, provides a dense account of Roman events in the 9th century. His description of the Cadaver Synod and the mutilation of the three fingers is one of the most precise, and has been widely taken up by international historiography.^[98]

3. William S. Monroe, Joëlle Jégou, A New Look at the Cadaver Synod (Vatican City, 2022). Recent research has refined the historical reading by emphasizing the role of the popular veneration of Formosus, the local (and not universal) character of the annulments, and the canonical coherence of the rehabilitation by Theodore II and John IX.^{[99][100][101]}

The evaluation of the episode has evolved: we have moved from a moral reading (“unique horror of the papacy”) to an institutional reading (“Roman political crisis treated canonically”). The two readings complement each other.

Ecclesial violence, condemned by the Church itself

Things must be named accurately: the Cadaver Synod **is an ecclesial crime. A pope had a corpse judged, a dead body mutilated, a pontifical remains thrown into a river. No amount of honest apologetics can mitigate this. The fact is as is.

But Catholic reading cannot stop at the fact. She must also name the following: in less than nine months, the author of the sacrilege died, strangled by a Roman uprising which condemned the act. In less than twelve months, Theodore II convened a synod which officially annulled the sentence. In less than twenty-four months, John IX confirms the annulment, burns the documents, excommunicates seven complicit cardinals, and definitively prohibits any post-mortem trial. In less than fifteen years, Auxilius of Naples laid the foundations for a sacramentary doctrine which will remain. No posthumous trial has ever taken place in the Catholic Church.

This rapid self-regulation is precisely the opposite of a corrupt institution: it is the sign of a body that purges itself of abuse. The seriousness of a scandal is measured not only by what happened, but by what the institution does about it. The Church did, in this case, exactly what needed to be done: cancel, condemn, prohibit.

A promise from Mt 16:18 confirmed by contrast

The episode is one of the most used arguments against the papacy by Protestant and anticlerical apologetics. For an honest Catholic reading, it is, paradoxically, a confirmation by contrast of Christ's promise:

“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” — Gospel according to Saint Matthew 16, 18 (Jerusalem Bible)^[102]

Christ did not promise that the men who hold the keys would always be worthy of their office. He had promised that the Church, as a mystical body, would not fall. Stephen VI proves the first proposition (a pope can be an unworthy man); Theodore II, John IX, Auxilius and later tradition prove the second (the Church itself remains faithful, and does not ratify the indignity).

The distinction between validity and lawfulness of the sacraments

From a theological point of view, the episode is a **founding moment. The distinction between the validity of a sacrament (which does not depend on the dignity of the minister but on the grace of Christ) and its lawfulness (which depends on the canonical conditions of administration) finds in the post-Formosian crisis a concrete formulation regarding the most extreme possible case: a pope judged by another pope, hundreds of bishops in question, the sacramental future of a local Church.

This distinction, taken up by scholasticism, codified in Trent under the word ex opere operato, will remain the constant position of the Church. It protects the faithful: the validity of his baptism, his marriage, the Eucharist he receives does not depend on the moral state of the priest who confers them. Stephen VI unwittingly forced the Church to clearly formulate what it already believed. The scandal **forced the thought.

• Pope Formosus (891-896) — the pope judged and mutilated by Stephen VI at the Cadaver Synod.
• Pope Boniface VI (896) — direct predecessor of Stephen VI, died after fifteen days of pontificate.
• Pope Roman (August-November 897) — immediate successor who begins the annulment of the decrees of the Cadaver Synod.
• Pope Theodore II (December 897) — officially cancels the Cadaver Synod and returns the body of Formosus to Saint Peter's.
• Pope John IX (898-900) — confirms the annulment, burns the documents, excommunicates seven cardinals, prohibits any post-mortem trial.
• Pope Sergius III (904-911) — attempted in 904 to rehabilitate the Cadaver Synod and transferred the remains of Stephen VI to Saint Peter's in 907.
• Pope John VIII (872-882) — pope who excommunicated Formosus at the Roman Synod of 876 and at the Council of Troyes in 878, providing the first charge of the Cadaver Synod.
• Pope Marin Iᵉʳ (882-884) — pope who rehabilitated Formosus in 883 and restored him to his seat in Porto.
• Pope Stephen V (885-891) — pope who ordained the future Stephen VI to the priesthood.
• The Cadaver Synod (897) — specialized article on the event (coming soon, link prepared).
• Council of Trent — council which solemnized in the 16th century the doctrine ex opere operato of which Auxilius of Naples had laid the foundations after 897.