One story that helps explain what the papacy so tenaciously clung to the temporal authority, lest they become pawns of the emperor.
Yes, and despite progressively worse treatment after he refused to assent to the 5th ecumenical council which Justinian called, on the grounds that he was not allowed freely to lead the Church of Christ. At some point it stopped being an argument over Dogma and became a contest of Caesero-Papism. The authority of the Pope had been vindicated; his very presence in jail on bread and water was proof of that, for without his assent even the decision of an ecumenical council and the Christian emperor could not prevail. If his assent was not necessary way the hell did Justinian imprison him, trying to get his assent, until he died? Should not the bishop of Rome have been ignored or exiled, unless Justinian actually believed he needed the legitimate pope's assent for the council to be binding.