|
Medieval Sourcebook:
Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II, 553
[Note: pagination of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers edition preserved]
Emperor.--Justinian I. Pope.--Vigilius.
Elenchus.
Historical Introduction.
Excursus on the genuineness of the Acts of the Council.
The Emperor's Letter.
Extracts from the Acts, Session VII.
The Sentence of the Synod.
The Capitula of the Council.
Excursus on the XV. Anathematisms against Oripen.
The Anathemas against Origen paralleled with the Anathematisms
of the Emperor Justinian.
Historical Note to the Decretal Letter of Pope Vigilius.
The Decretal Letter of the Pope, with Introductory Note.
Historical Excursus on the after-history of the Council.
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. IV., p. 289.)
In accordance with the imperial command, but without the assent
of the Pope, the synod was opened on the 5th of May A.D. 553,
in the Secretarium of the Cathedral Church at Constantinople.
Among those present were the Patriarchs, Eutychius of Constantinople,
who presided, Apollinaris of Alexandria, Domninus of Antioch,
three bishops as representatives of the Patriarch Eustochius of
Jerusalem, and 145 other metropolitans and bishops, of whom many
came also in the place of absent colleagues.
(Bossuet, Def. Cleri Gall., Lib. vii., cap. xix. Abridged.
Translation by Allies.)
The three chapters were the point in question; that is, respecting
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret's writings against Cyril, and
the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian. They examined
whether that letter had been approved in the Council of Chalcedon.
So much was admitted that it had been read there, and that Ibas,
after anathematizing Nestorius, had been received by the holy
Council. Some contended that his person only was spared; others
that his letter also was approved. Thus inquiry was made at the
fifth Council how the writings on the Faith were wont to be approved
in former Councils. The Acts of the third and fourth Council,
those which we have mentioned above respecting the letter of St.
Cyril and of St. Leo, were set forth. Then the holy Council declared:
"It is plain, from what has been recited, in what manner
the holy Councils are wont to approve what is brought before them.
For great as was the dignity of those holy men who wrote the letters
recited, yet they did not approve their letters simply or without
inquiry, nor without taking cognizance that they were in all things
agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers,
with which they were compared." But the Acts proved that
this course was not pursued in the case of the letter of Ibas;
they inferred, therefore, most justly, that that letter had not
been approved. So, then, it is certain from the third and fourth
Councils, the fifth so declaring and understanding it, that letters
approved by the Apostolic See, such as was that of Cyril, or even
proceeding from it, as that of Leo, were received by the holy
Councils not simply, nor without inquiry. The holy Fathers proceed
to do what the Bishops at Chalcedon would have done, had they
undertaken the examination of Ibas's letter. They compare the
letter with the Acts of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Which done, the
holy Council declared--"The comparison made proves, beyond
a doubt, that the letter which Ibas is said to have written is,
in all respects, opposed to the definition of the right Faith,
which the Council of Chalcedon set forth." All the Bishops
cried out. "We all say this; the letter is heretical."
Thus, therefore, is it proved by the fifth Council, that our holy
Fathers in Ecumenical Councils pronounce the letters read, whether
of Catholics or heretics, or even of Roman Pontiffs, and that
on matter of Faith, to be orthodox or heretical, according to
the same procedure, after legitimate cognizance, the truth being
inquired into, and then cleared up; and upon these premises judgment
given.
What! you will say, with no distinction, and with minds equally
inclined to both parties? Indeed, we have said, and shall often
repeat, that there was a presumption in favour of the decrees
of orthodox Pontiffs; but in Ecumenical Councils, where judgment
is to be passed in matter of Faith, that they were bound no longer
to act upon presumption, but on the truth clearly and thoroughly
ascertained.
Such were the Acts of the fifth Council. This it learnt from
the third and fourth Councils, and approved; and in this argument
we have brought at once in favour of our opinion the decrees of
three Ecumenical Councils, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, and the second
Con-
300
stantinopolitan. The Emperor Justinian desired that the question
concerning the above-mentioned Three Chapters should be considered
in the Church. He therefore sent for Pope Vigilius to Constantinople.
There he not long after assembled a council. He and the Orientals
thought it of great moment that these Chapters should be condemned,
against the Nestorians, who were raising their heads to defend
them; Vigilius, with the Occidentals, feared let this occasion
should be taken to destroy the authority of the Council of Chalcedon:
because it was admitted that Theodoret and Ibas had been received
in that Council, whilst Theodore, though named, was let go without
any mark of censure. Though then both parties easily agreed as
to the substance of the Faith, yet the question had entirely respect
to the Faith, it being feared by the one party lest the Nestorian,
by the other lest the Eutychian, enemies of the Council of Chalcedon
should prevail. Vigilius on the 11th of April, 548, issues his
"Judicatum" against the Three Chapters, saving the authority
of the Council of Chalcedon. Thereupon the Bishops of Africa,
Illyria, and Dalmatia, with two of his own confidential Deacons,
withdraw from his communion. In the year 550 the African Bishops,
under Reparatus of Carthage, not only reject the Judicatum, but
anathematize Vigilius himself, and sever him from Catholic Communion,
reserving to him a place for repentance. At length the Pope publicly
withdraws his "Judicatum." While the Council is sitting
at Constantinople he publishes his "Constitutum," in
which he condemns certain propositions of Theodore, but spares
his person; the same respecting Theodoret; but with respect to
Ibas, he declares that his letter was pronounced orthodox by the
Council of Chalcedon. However this may be, so much is clear, that
Vigilius, though invited, declined being present at the council:
that nevertheless the council was held without him; that he published
a "Constitutum," in which he disapproved of what Theodore,
Theodoret, and Ibas were said to have written against the Faith;
but decreed that their names should be spared because they were
considered to have been received by the fourth Council, or to
have died in the communion of the Church, and to be reserved to
the judgment of God. Concerning the letter of Ibas, he published
the following, that, "understood in the best and most pious
sense," it was blameless; and concerning the three Chapters
generally, he ordered that after his present declaration ecclesiastics
should move no further question.
Such was the decree of Vigilius, issued upon the authority
with which he was invested. But the council, after his Constitution,
both raised a question about the Three Chapters, and decided that
question was properly raised concerning the dead, and that the
letter of Ibas was manifestly heretical and Nestorian, and contrary
in all things to the Faith of Chalcedon, and that they were altogether
accursed, who defended the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, or
the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, or the impious letter
of Ibas defending the tenets of Nestorius: and all such as did
not anathematize it, but said it was correct.
In these latter words they seemed not even to spare Vigilius,
although they did not mention his name. And it is certain their
decree was confirmed by Pelagius the Second, Gregory the Great,
and other Roman Pontiffs. These things prove, that in a matter
of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole Church, and seeming
to belong to the Faith, the decrees of sacred councils prevail
over the decrees of Pontiffs, and that the letter of Ibas, though
defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff, could nevertheless
be proscribed as heretical.
EXCURSUS ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS OF THE FIFTH COUNCIL
Some suspicion has arisen with regard to how far the acts
of the Fifth Ecumenical Council may be relied upon. Between the
Roman Manuscript printed by Labbe and the Paris manuscript found
in Mansi there are considerable variations and, strange to say,
some of the most injurious things to the memory of Pope Vigilius
are found only in the Paris manuscript. Moreover we know that
the manuscript kept in the patriarchal archives at Constantinople
had been tampered with during the century that elapsed before
the next Ecumenical Synod, for at that council the forgeries and
interpolations were exposed by the Papal Legates.
At the XIVth Session of that synod the examination of the
genuineness of the acts of the Second Council of Constantinople
was resumed. It had been begun at the XIIth Session. Up to this
time only two MSS. had been used, now the librarian of the patriarchate
presented a third MS. which he had found in the archives, and
swore that neither himself nor any other so far as he knew had
made any change in these MSS. These were then compared and it
was found that the two first agreed in containing the pretended
letter of Mennas to Pope Vigilius, and the two writings addressed
by Vigilius to Justinian and Theodora; but that none of these
were found in the third MS. It was further found that the documents
in dispute were in a different hand from the rest of the MS, and
that in the first book of the parchment MS., three quarternions
had been inserted, and in the second book between quarternions
15 and 16, four unpaged leaves had been placed. So too the second
MS. had been tampered with. The council inserted these particulars
in a decree, and ordered that "these additions must be quashed
in both MSS., and marked with an obelus, and the falsifiers must
be smitten with anathema." Finally the council cried out,
"Anathema to the pretended letters of Mennas and Vigilius!
Anathema to the forger of Acts! Anathema to all who teach, etc."
From all this it would seem that the substantial accuracy
of the rest of the acts have been established by the authority
of the Sixth Synod, and Hefele and all recent scholars follow
Mansi's Paris MS.
It may be well here to add that a most thorough-going attack
upon the acts has been made in late years by Professor Vincenzi,
in defence of Pope Vigilius and of Origen. The reader is referred
to his writings on the subject: In Sancti Gregorii Nysseni et
Originis scripta et doctrinam nova defensio; Vigil., Orig., Justin.
triumph., in Synod V. (Romae, 1865.) The Catholic Dictionary frankly
says that this is "an attempt to deny the most patent facts,
and treat some of the chief documents as forgeries," and
"unworthy of serious notice."(1)
EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS.
SESSION I.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. V., col. 419.)
[The Emperor's Letter which was read to the Fathers.]
In the Name of our Lord God Jesus Christ. The Emperor Flavius
Justinian, German, Gothic, etc., and always Augustus, to the most
blessed bishops and patriarchs, Eutychius of Constantinople, Apollinarius
of Alexandria, Domninus of Theopolis, Stephen, George, and Damian,
the most religious bishops taking the place of that man of singular
blessedness, Eustochius, the Archbishop and Patriarch of Jerusalem,
and the other most religious bishops stopping in this royal city
from the different provinces.
[The following is the letter condensed, including Hefele's
digest. History of the Councils, Vol. IV., p. 298.]
The effort of my predecessors, the orthodox Emperors, ever
aimed at the settling of controversies which had arisen respecting
the faith by the calling of Synods. For this cause Constantine
assembled 318 Fathers at Nice, and was himself present at the
Council, and assisted those who confessed the Son to be consubstantial
with the Father. Theodosius, 150 at Constantinople, Theodosius
the younger, the Synod of Ephesus, the Emperor Marcian, the bishops
at Chalcedon. As, however, after Marcian's death, controversies
respecting the Synod of Chalcedon had broken out in several places,
the Emperor Leo wrote to all bishops of all places, in order that
everyone might declare his opinion in writing with regard to this
holy Council. Soon afterwards, however, had arisen again the adherents
of Nestorius and Eutyches, and caused great divisions, so that
many Churches had broken off communion with one another. When,
now, the grace of God raised us to the throne, we regarded it
as our chief business to unite the Churches again, and to bring
the Synod of Chalcedon, together with the three earlier, to universal
acceptance. We have won many who previously opposed that Synod;
others, who persevered in their opposition, we banished, and so
restored the unity of the Church again. But the Nestorians want
to impose their heresy upon the Church; and, as they could not
use Nestorius for that purpose, they made haste to introduce their
errors through Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius,
who taught still more grievous blasphemies than his. He maintained,
e.g., that God the Word was one, and Christ another. For the same
purpose they made use of those impious writings of Theodoret which
were directed against the first Synod of Ephesus, against Cyril
and his Twelve Chapters, and also the shameful letter which Ibas
is said to have written. They maintain that this letter was accepted
by the Synod of Chalcedon, and so would free from condemnation
Nestorius and Theodore who were commended in the letter. If they
were to succeed, the Logos could no longer be said to be "made
man," nor Mary called the Mother (genetrix) of God. We, therefore,
following the holy Fathers, have first asked you in writing to
give your judgment on the three impious chapters named, and you
have answered, and have joyfully confessed the true faith. Because,
however, after the condemnation proceeding from you, there are
still some who defend the Three Chapters, therefore we have summoned
you to the capital, that you may here, in common assembly, place
again your view in the light of day. When, for example, Vigilius,
Pope of Old Rome, came hither, he, in answer to our questions,
repeatedly anathematised in writing the Three Chapters, and confirmed
his steadfastness in this view by much, even by the condemnation
of his deacons, Rusticus and Sebastian. We possess still his declarations
in his own hand. Then he issued his Judicatum, in which he anathematised
the Three Chapters, with the words, Et quoniam, etc. You know
that he not only deposed Rusti-
303
cus and Sebastian because they defended the Three Chapters, but
also wrote to Valentinian, bishop of Scythia, and Aurelian, bishop
of Aries, that nothing might be undertaken against the Judicatum.
When you afterwards came hither at my invitation, letters were
exchanged between you and Vigilius in order to a common assembly.(1)
But now he had altered his view would no longer have a synod,
but required that only the three patriarchs and one other bishop
(in communion with the Pope and the three bishops about him) should
decide the matter. In vain we sent several commands to him to
take part in the synod. He rejected also our two proposals, either
to call a tribunal for decision, or to hold a smaller assembly,
at which, besides him and his three bishops, every other patriarch
should have place and voice, with from three to five bishops of
his diocese. * We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees
of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers,
Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of
Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople,
Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true
faith. As, however, the heretics are resolved to defend Theodore
of Mopsuestia and Nestorius with their impieties, and maintain
that that letter of Ibas was received by the Synod of Chalcedon,
so do we exhort you to direct your attention to the impious writings
of Theodore, and especially to his Jewish Creed which was brought
forward at Ephesus and Chalcedon, and anathematized by each synod
with those who had so held or did so hold; and we further exhort
you to consider what the holy Fathers have written concerning
him and his blasphemies, as well as what our predecessors have
promulgated, as also what the Church historians have set forth
concerning him.(2) You will thence see that he and his heresies
have since been condemned and that therefore his name has long
since been struck from the diptychs of the Church of Mopsuestia.
Consider the absurd assertion that heretics ought not to be anathematized
after their deaths; and we exhort you further to follow in this
matter the doctrine of the holy Fathers, who condemned not only
living heretics but also anathematized after their death those
who had died in their iniquity, just as those who had been unjustly
condemned they restored after their death and wrote their names
in the sacred diptychs; which took place in the case of John and
of Flavian of pious memory, both of them bishops of Constantinople.(3)
Moreover we exhort you to examine the writing of Theodoret and
the supposed letter of Ibas, in which the incarnation of the Word
is denied, the expression "Mother of God" and the holy
Synod of Ephesus rejected, Cyril called a heretic, and Theodore
and Nestorius defended and praised. And as they say that the Council
of Chalcedon has received this letter, you must compare the declarations
of this Council relating to the faith with the contents of the
impious letter. Finally, we entreat you to accelerate the matter.
For he who when asked concerning the right faith, puts off his
answer for a long while, does nothing else but deny the right
faith. For in questioning and answering on things which are of
faith, it is not he who is found first or second, but he who is
the more ready with a right confession, that is acceptable to
God. May God keep you, most holy and religious fathers, for many
years. Given IV. Nones of May, at Constantinople, in the xxviith
year of the reign of the imperial lord Justinian, the perpetual
Augustus, and in the xiith year after the consulate of the most
illustrious Basil.
EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS.
SESSION VII.
(From the Paris manuscript found in Hardouin Concilia, Tom.
III., 171 et seqq.; Mansi, Tom. ix., 346 et seqq. This speech
is not found in full in any other MS. The Ballerini [ Hefele notes]
raise objections to the genuineness of the additions [in Noris.
Opp., Tom. IV., 1037], but Hefele does not consider the objections
of serious moment. [Hist. of the Councils, Vol. IV., p. 323, note
2.] All the MSS. agree that The most glorious quaester of the
sacred palace, Constantine, was sent by the most pious Emperor,
and when he had entered the Council spake as follows: "Certum
est vestrae beatitudini, quantum, etc." The rest of the speech
differs in the different manuscripts. I follow that of Paris.)
You know how much care the most invincible Emperor has always
had that the contention raised up by certain persons with regard
to the Three Chapters should have a termination. ... For this
intent he has required themost religious Vigilius to assemble
withyou and draw up a decree on this matter in accordance with
the Orthodox faith. Although therefore, Vigilius has already frequently
condemned the Three Chapters in writing, and has done this also
by word of mouth in the presence of the Emperor, and of the most
glorious judges and of many members of this synod, and has always
been ready to smite with anathema the defenders of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, and the letter which was attributed to Ibas, and the
writings of Theodoret which be set forth against the orthodox
faith and against the twelve capitula of the holy Cyril:(1) yet
he has refused to do this in communion with you and your synod.
Yesterday Vigilius sent Servus Dei, a most reverend Subdeacon
of the Roman Church, and invited Belisarius,(2) Cethegus, as also
Justinus and Constantine the most glorious consuls, as well as
bishops Theodore,Ascidas, Benignus, and Phocas, to come to him
as he wished to give through them an answer to the Emperor. They
came, but speedily returned and informed the most pious lord,
that we had visited Vigilius, the most religious bishop, and that
he had said to us: "We have called you for this reason, that
you may know what things have been done in the past days. To this
end I have written a document about the disputed Three Chapters,
addressed to the most pious Emperor,(3) pray be good enough to
read it, and to carry it to his Serenity." But when we had
heard this and had seen the document written to your serenity,
we said to him that we could not by any means receive any document
written to the most pious Emperor without his bidding. "But
you have deacons for running with messages, by whom you can send
it." He, however, said to us: "You now know that I have
made the document." But we, bishops, answered him: "If
your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most
holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat
of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable
form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy
Fathers and the four Councils have done, we will hold thee as
our head, as a farmer and primate. But if your holiness has drawn
up a document for the Emperor, you have errand-runners, as we
have said; send it by them." And when he had heard these
things from us, he sent Servus Dei the Subdeacon, who now awaits
the answer of your serenity. And when his Piety had heard this,
he commanded through the aforesaid most religious and glorious
men, the before-named subdeacon to carry back this message to
the most religious Vigilius: "We invited him (you) to meet
together with the most blessed patriarchs and other religious
bishops, and with them in common to examine and judge the Three
Chapters. But since you have refused to do this, and you say that
you alone have written by yourself somewhat on
305
the Three Chapters; if you have condemned them, in accordance
with those things which you did before, we have already many such
statements and need no more; but if you have written now something
contrary to these things which were done by you before, you have
condemned yourself by your own writing, since you have departed
from orthodox doctrine and have defended impiety. And how can
you expect us to receive such a document from you?"
And when this answer was given by the most pious Emperor,
he did not send through the same deacon any document in writing
from himself. And all this was done without writing as also to
your blessedness.
[He then, according to all the MSS., presented certain documents
to be read, in the MS. printed by Labbe and Cossart, Tom. V.,
col. 549 et seqq. These are fewer than in the Paris MS., which
last also contains the following just after the reading of the
documents and after the Council had declared that they proved
the Emperor's zeal for the faith.]
Constantine, the most glorious Quaestor, said: While I am
still present at your holy council by reason of the reading of
the documents which have been presented to you, I would say that
the most pious Emperor has sent a minute (formam), to your Holy
Synod, concerning the name of Vigilius, that it be no more inserted
in the holy diptychs of the Church, on account of the impiety
which he defended. Neither let it be recited by you, nor retained,
either in the church of the royal city, or in other churches which
are intrusted to you and to the other bishops in the State committed
by God to his rule. And when you hear this minute, again you will
perceive by it how much the most serene Emperor cares for the
unity of the holy churches and for the purity of the holy mysteries.
[The letter was then read.]
The holy Synod said: What has seemed good to the most pious
Emperor is congruous to the labours which he bears for the unity
of the churches. Let us preserve unity to (ad) the Apostolic See
of the most holy Church of ancient Rome, carrying out all things
according to the tenor of what has been read. De proposita vero
quaestione quod jam promisimus procedat.
NOTES.
Hefele understands that the Council heard and approved this
letter of the Emperor's, but that the "Emperor did not mean
entirely to break off communion with the Apostolic see, neither
did he wish the Synod to do so" (Hist. Councils, Vol. IV.,
p. 326), as indeed he says in his letter.
The Ballerini consider this letter of the Emperor's to be
spurious, but (says Hefele) "on insufficient grounds"
(l. c., p. 326, note 3). The expressions used by the Emperor may
not unnaturally be somewhat startling to those holding the theological
position of the Ballerini: "We will not endure to receive
the spotless communion from him nor from any one else who does
not condemn this impiety ... lest we be found thus communicating
with the impiety of Nestorius and Theodore." It is noteworthy
that the Fifth Ecumenical Council should strike the name of the
reigning Pope from the diptychs as a father of heresy; and that
the Sixth Ecumenical Synod should anathematize another Pope as
a heretic!
THE SENTENCE OF THE SYNOD.
(From the Acts. Collation VIII., L. and C., Conc., Tom. V., col. 562.)
Our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, as we learn from the
parable in the Gospel, distributes talents to each man according
to his ability, and at the fitting time demands an account of
the work done by every man. And if he to whom but one talent has
been committed is condemned because he has not worked with it
but only kept it without loss, to how much greater and more horrible
judgment must he be subject who not only is negligent concerning
himself, but even places a stumbling-block and cause of offence
in the way of others? Since it is manifest to all the faithful
that whenever any question arises concerning the faith, not only
the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who when he
has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so.(1)
We therefore, to whom it has been committed to rule the church
of the Lord, fearing the curse which hangs over those who negligently
perform the Lord's work, hasten to preserve the good seed of faith
pure from the tares of impiety which are being sown by the enemy.
When, therefore, we saw that the followers of Nestorius were
attempting to introduce their impiety into the church of God through
the impious Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and through
his impious writings; and moreover through those things which
Theodoret impiously wrote, and through the wicked epistle which
is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, moved
by all these sights we rose up for the correction of what was
going on, and assembled in this royal city called thither by the
will of God and the bidding of the most religious Emperor.
And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping
in this royal city, was present at all the discussions with regard
to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and
in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing
to be present at the Council and examine together with us the
Three Chapters, that a suitable definition of the right faith
might be set forth by us all. Moreover the most pious Emperor,
according to what had seemed good between us, exhorted both him
and us to meet together, because it is comely that the priesthood
should after common discussion impose a common faith. On this
account we besought his reverence to fulfil his written promises;
for it was not right that tile scandal with regard to these Three
Chapters should go any further, and the Church of God be disturbed
thereby. And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great
examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers.
For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one
of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of
another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing
to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision
of the Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed
their own several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.
And thus they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which
they wrote to the Gentiles: "It has seemed good to the Holy
Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary
things, that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from
blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication."
But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met
in the four holy councils, following the example of tile ancients,
have by a common discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the
heresies and questions which had sprung up, as it was certainly
known, that by common discussion when the matter in dispute was
presented by each side, the light of truth expels the darkness
of falsehood.
Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made
manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since
each one needs the help of his neighbour, as we read in the Proverbs
of Solomon: "A brother helping his brother shall be exalted
like a walled city; and he shall be strong
307
as a well-founded kingdom;" and again in Ecclesiastes he
says: "Two are better than one; because they have a good
reward for their labour."
So also the Lord himself says: "Verily I say unto you
that if two of you shall agree upon earth as touching anything
they shall seek for, they shall have it from my Father which is
in heaven. For wheresoever two or three are gathered together
in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the
most glorious judges had been sent to him by the most religious
Emperor, he promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters
(sententiam proferre): And when we heard this answer, having the
Apostle's admonition in mind, that "each one must, give an
account of himself to God" and fearing the judgment that
hangs over those who scandalize one, even of the least important,
and knowing how much sorer it must be to give offence to so entirely
Christian an Emperor, and to the people, and to all the Churches;
and further recalling what was said by God to Paul: "Fear
not, but speak, and be not silent, for I am with thee, and no
one can harm thee." Therefore, being gathered together, before
all things we have briefly confessed that we hold that faith which
our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, delivered to his holy Apostles,
and through them to the holy churches, and which they who after
thorn were holy fathers and doctors, handed down to the people
credited to them.
We confessed that we hold, preserve, and declare to the holy
churches that confession of faith which the 318 holy Fathers more
at length set forth, who were gathered together at Nice, who handed
down the holy mathema or creed. Moreover, the 150 gathered together
at Constantinople set forth our faith, who followed that same
confession of faith and explained it. And the consent of fire
200 holy fathers gathered for the same faith in the first Council
of Ephesus. And what things were defined by the 630 gathered at
Chalcedon for the one and the same faith, which they both followed
and taught. And all those wile from time to time have been condemned
or anathematized by the Catholic Church, and by the aforesaid
four Councils, we confessed that we hold them condemned and anathematized.
And when we had thus made profession of our faith we began the
examination of the Three Chapters, and first we brought into review
the matter of Theodore of Mopsuestia; and when all the blasphemies
contained in his writings were made manifest, we marvelled at
the long-suffering of God, that the tongue and mind which had
framed such blasphemies were not immediately consumed by the divine
fire; and we never would have suffered the reader of the aforenamed
blasphemies to proceed, fearing [as we did] the indignation of
God for their record alone (as each blasphemy surpassed its predecessor
in the magnitude of its impiety and moved from its foundation
the mind of the hearer) had it not been that we saw they who gloried
in such blasphemies stood in need of the confusion which would
come upon them through their manifestation. So that all of us,
moved with indignation by these blasphemies against God, both
during and after the reading, broke forth into denunciations and
anathematisms against Theodore, as if he had been living and present.
O Lord be merciful, we cried, not even devils have dared to utter
such things against thee.
O intolerable tongue! O the depravity of the man! O that high
hand he lifted up against his Creator! For the wretched man who
had promised to know the Scriptures, had no recollection of the
words of the Prophet Hosea, "Woe unto them! for they have
fled from me: they are become famous because they were impious
as touching me; they spake iniquities against me, and when they
had thought them out, they spake the violent things against me.
Therefore shall they fall in the snare by reason of the wickedness
of their own tongues. Their contempt shall turn into their own
bosom: because they have transgressed my covenant and have acted
impiously against my laws."
To these curses the impious Theodore is justly subject. For
the prophecies concerning Christ he rejected and hastened to destroy,
so far as he had the power, the great mystery of the dispensation
for our salvation; attempting in many ways to show the divine
words to be nothing but fables, for the mirth of the gentiles,
and spurned the other prophetic announcements made against the
impious, especially that which the divine Habacuc said of those
who teach falsely, "Woe unto him that
308
giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him and
makest him drunken that thou mayest look on their nakedness,"
that is, their doctrines full of darkness and altogether foreign
to the light.
And why should we add anything further? For anyone can take
in his hands the writings of the impious Theodore or the impious
chapters which from his impious writings were inserted by us in
our acts, and find the incredible foolishness and the detestable
things which he said. For we are afraid to proceed further and
again to remember these infamies.
There was also read to us what had been written by the holy
Fathers against him, and his foolishness which exceeded that of
all heretics, and moreover the histories and the imperial laws,
setting forth his impiety from the beginning, and since after
all these things the defenders of his impiety, glorying in the
injuries uttered by him against his Creator, said that it was
not right to anathematize him after death, although we knew the
ecclesiastical tradition concerning the impious, that even after
death, heretics are anathematized; nevertheless we thought it
necessary concerning this also to make examination, and there
were found in the acts how divers heretics had been anathematized
after death; and in many ways it was manifest to us that those
who were saying this cared nothing for the judgment of God, nor
for the Apostolic announcements, nor for the tradition of the
Fathers. And we would like to ask them what they have to say to
the Lord's having said of himself: "Whosoever should have
believed in him, is not judged: but who should not have believed
in him is judged already, because he hath not believed in the
name of the only begotten Son of God," and of that exclamation
of the Apostle: Although we or an angel from heaven were to preach
to you another gospel than that we have preached unto you, let
him be anathema: as we have said, so now I say again, If anyone
preach to you another gospel than that you have received, let
him be anathema."
For when the Lord says: "he is judged already,"
and when the Apostle anathematizes even angels, if they teach
anything different from what we have preached, how can even those
who dare all things, presume to say that these words refer only
to the living? or are they ignorant, or is it not rather that
they feign to be ignorant, that the judgment of anathema is nothing
else than that of separation from God? For the impious person,
although he may not have been verbally anathematized by anyone,
nevertheless he really is anathematized, having separated himself
from the true life by his impiety.
For what have they to answer to the Apostle again when he
says, "A man that is an heretic reject after the first and
second corrections. Knowing that such a man is perverse, and sins,
and is condemned by himself."
In accordance with which words Cyril of blessed memory, in
the books which he wrote against Theodore, says as follows: They
are to be avoided who are in the grasp of such awful crimes whether
they be among the quick or not. For it is necessary always to
flee from that which is hurtful, and not to have respect of persons,
but to consider what is pleasing to God. And again the same Cyril
of holy memory, writing to John, bishop of Antioch, and to the
synod assembled in that city concerning Theodore who was anathematized
together with Nestorius, says thus: It was therefore necessary
to keep a brilliant festival, since every voice which agreed with
the blasphemies of Nestorius had been cast out no matter whose.
For it proceeded against all those who held these same opinions
or had at one time held them, which is exactly what we and your
holiness have said: We anathematize those who say that there are
two Sons and two Christs. For one is he who is preached by us
and you, as we have said, Christ, the Son and Lord, only begotten
as man, according to the saying of the most learned Paul. And
also in his letter to Alexander and Martinian and John and Paregorius
and Maximus, presbyters and monastic fathers, and those who with
them were leading the solitary life, he so says: The holy synod
of Ephesus, gathered together according to the will of God against
the Nestorian perfidy with a just and keen sentence condemned
together with him the empty words of those who afterwards should
embrace or who had in time past embraced the same opinions with
him, and who presumed to say or write any such thing, laying upon
them an equal condemnation. For it fol-
309
lowed naturally that when one was condemned for such profane emptiness
of speech, the sentence should not come against one only, but
(so to speak) against every one of their heresies or calumnies,
which they utter against the pious doctrines of the Christ, worshipping
two Sons, and dividing the indivisible, and bringing in the crime
of man-worship (anthropolatry), both into heaven and earth. For
with us the holy multitude of the supernal spirits adore one Lord
Jesus Christ. Moreover several letters of Augustine, of most religious
memory, who shone forth resplendent among the African bishops,
were read, shewing that it was quite right that heretics should
be anathematized after death. And this ecclesiastical tradition,
the other most reverend bishops of Africa have preserved: 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: and of each we have the evidence
in our hands.
But since the disciples of Theodore and of his impiety, who
are so manifestly enemies of the truth, have attempted to bring
forward certain passages of Cyril of holy memory and of Proclus,
as though they had been written in favour of Theodore, it is opportune
to fit to them the words of the prophet when he says: "The
ways of the Lord are right and the just walk therein; but the
wicked shall be weak in them." For these, evilly receiving
the fixings which have been well and opportunely written by the
holy Fathers, and making excuses in their sins, quote these words.
The fathers do not appear as delivering Theodore from anathema,
but rather as economically using certain expressions on account
of those who defended Nestorius and his impiety, in order to draw
them away from this error, and to lead them to perfection and
to teach them to condemn not only Nestorius, the disciple of the
impiety, but also his teacher Theodore. So in these very words
of economy the Fathers shew their intention on tiffs point, that
Theodore should be anathematized, as has been abundantly demonstrated
by us in our acts from the writings of Cyril and Proclus of holy
memory with regard to the condemnation of Theodore and his impiety.
And such economy is found in divine Scripture: and it is evident
that Paul the Apostle made use of this in the beginning of his
ministry, in relation to those who had been brought up as Jews,
and circumcised Timothy, that by this economy and condescension
he might lead them on to perfection. But afterwards he forbade
circumcision, writing thus to the Galatians: "Behold, I Paul
say to you, that if ye be circumcised Christ profiteth you nothing."
But we found that that which heretics were wont to do, the defenders
of Theodore had done also. For cutting out certain of the things
which the holy Fathers had written, and placing with them and
mixing up certain false things of their own, they have tried by
a letter of Cyril of holy memory as though from a testimony of
the Fathers, to free from anathema the aforesaid impious Theodore:
in which very passages the truth was demonstrated, when the parts
which had been cut off were read in their proper order, and the
falsehood was thoroughly evinced by the collation of the true.
But in all these things, they who spake such vanities, "trusted
in falsehood," as it is written, "they trust in falsehood,
and speak vanity; they conceive grief and bring forth iniquity,
weaving the spider's web." When we had thus considered Theodore
and his impiety, we took care to have re cited and inserted in
our acts a few of these things which had been impiously written
by Theodoret against the right faith and against the Twelve Chapters
of St. Cyril and against the First Council of Ephesus, also certain
things written by him in defence of those impious ones Theodore
and Nestorius, for the satisfaction of the reader; that all might
know that these had been justly cast out and anathematized. In
the third place the letter which is said to have been written
by Ibas to Maris the Persian, was brought forward for examination,
and we found that it, too, should be read. When it was read immediately
its impiety was manifest to all. And it was right to make the
condemnation and anathematism of the aforesaid Three Chapters,
as even to this time there had been some question on the subject.
But because the defenders of these impious ones, Theodore and
Nestorius, were scheming in some way or other to confirm these
persons and their impiety, and were saving that this impious letter,
which praised and defended Theodore and
310
Nestorius and their impiety, had been received by the holy Council
of Chalcedon we thought it necessary to shew that the holy synod
was free of the impiety which was contained in that letter, that
it might be clear that they who say such things do not do so with
the favour of this holy council, but that through its name they
may confirm their own impiety. And it was shewn in the acts that
in former times Ibas had been accused because of the very impiety
which is contained in this letter; at first by Proclus, of holy
memory, the bishop of Constantinople, and afterwards by Theodosius,
of pious memory, and by Flavian, who was ordained bishop in succession
to Proclus, who delegated the examination of the matter to Photius,
bishop of Tyre, and to Eustathius, bishop of the city of Beyroot.
Afterwards the same Ibas, being found guilty, was cast out of
his bishopric. Such was the state of the case, how could anyone
presume to say that that impious letter was received by the holy
council of Chalcedon and that the holy council of Chalcedon agreed
with it throughout? Nevertheless in order that they who thus calumniate
the holy council of Chalcedon may have no further opportunity
of doing so, we ordered to be recited the decisions of the holy
Synods, to wit, of first Ephesus, and of Chalcedon, with regard
to the Epistles of Cyril of blessed memory and of Leo, of pious
memory, sometime Pope of Old Rome. And since we had learned from
these that nothing written by anyone else ought to be received
unless it had been proved to agree with the orthodox faith of
the holy Fathers, we interrupted our proceedings so as to recite
also the definition of the faith which was set forth by the holy
council of Chalcedon, so that we might compare the things in the
epistle with this decree. And when this was done it was perfectly
clear that the contents of the epistle were wholly opposite to
those of the definition.
For the definition agreed with the one and unchanging faith
set forth as well by the 318 holy Fathers as by the 150 and by
those who assembled at the first synod at Ephesus. But that impious
letter, on the other hand, contained the blasphemies of the heretics
Theodore and Nestorius, and defended them, and calls them doctors,
while it calls the holy Fathers heretics.
And this we made manifest to all, that we did not have any
intention of omitting the Fathers of the first and second interlocutions,
which the followers of Theodore and Nestorius cited on their side,
but these and all the others having been read and their contents
examined, we found that the aforesaid Ibas was not allowed to
be received without being compelled to anathematize Nestorius
and his impious teachings, which were defended in that epistle.
And this the rest of the religious bishops of the aforesaid holy
Council did as well as those two whose interlocutions certain
tried to use.
For this they observed in the case of Theodoret, and required
him to anathematize those things of which he was accused. If therefore
they were willing to allow the reception of Ibas in no other manner
unless he condemned the impiety which was contained in his letters,
and subscribed the definition of faith adopted by the Council,
how can they attempt to make out that this impious letter was
received by the same holy council? For we are taught, "What
fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion
hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?
Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what
agreement hath the temple of God with idols."
Having thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again
confess that we receive the four holy Synods, that is, the Nicene,
the Constantinopolitan, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon,
and we have taught, and do teach all that they defined respecting
the one faith. And we account those who do not receive these things
aliens from the Catholic Church. Moreover we condemn and anathematize,
together with all the other heretics who have been condemned and
anathematized by the before-mentioned four holy Synods, and by
the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Theodore who was Bishop
of Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, and also those things
which Theodoret impiously wrote against the right faith, and against
the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril, and against the first Synod
of Ephesus, and also those which he wrote in defence of Theodore
and Nestorius. In addition to these we also anathematize the impious
Epistle which Ibas is said to have
311
written to Maris, the Persian, which denies that God the Word
was incarnate of the holy Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary,
and accuses Cyril of holy memory, who taught the truth, as an
heretic, and of the same sentiments with Apollinaris, and blames
the first Synod of Ephesus as deposing Nestorius without examination
and inquiry, and calls the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril impious,
and contrary to the right faith, and defends Theodorus and Nestorius,
and their impious dogmas and writings. We therefore anathematize
the Three Chapters before-mentioned, that is, the impious Theodore
of Mopsuestia, with his execrable writings, and those things which
Theodoret impiously wrote, and the impious letter which is said
to be of Ibas, and their defenders, and those who have written
or do write in defence of them, or who dare to say that they are
correct, and who have defended or attempt to defend their impiety
with the names of the holy Fathers, or of the holy Council of
Chalcedon. These things therefore being settled with all accuracy,
we, bearing in remembrance the promises made respecting the holy
Church, and who it was that said that the gates of hell should
not prevail against her, that is, the deadly tongues of heretics;
remembering also what was prophesied respecting it by Hosea, saying,
"I will betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt
know the Lord," and numbering together with the devil, the
father of lies, the unbridled tongues of heretics who persevered
in their impiety unto death, and their most impious writings,
will say to them, "Behold, all ye kindle a fire, and cause
the flame of the fire to grow strong, ye shall walk in the light
of your fire, and the flame which ye kindle." But we, having
a commandment to exhort the people with right doctrine, and to
speak to the heart of Jerusalem, that is, the Church of God, do
rightly make haste to sow in righteousness, and to reap the fruit
of life; and kindling for ourselves the light of knowledge from
the holy Scriptures, and the doctrine of the Fathers, we have
considered it necessary to comprehend in certain Capitula, both
the declaration of the truth, and the condemnation of heretics,
and of their wickedness.
THE CAPITULA OF THE COUNCIL.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. V., col. 568.)
I.
If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence of
the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, as also
the force and the power; [if anyone does not confess] a consubstantial
Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three subsistences or
Persons: let him be anathema. For there is but one God even the
Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through
whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit in whom are all things.
II.
If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities,
the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without
body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and
being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God
and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.
III.
IF anyone shall say that the wonder-working Word of God is
one [Person] and the Christ that suffered another; or shall say
that God the Word was with the woman-born Christ, or was in him
as one person in another, but that he was not one and the same
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, incarnate and made man,
and that his miracles and the sufferings which of his own will
he endured in the flesh were not of the same [Person]: let him
be anathema.
IV.
If anyone shall say that the union of the Word of God to man
was only according to grace or energy, or dignity, or equality
of honour, or authority, or relation, or effect, or power, or
according to good pleasure in this sense that God the Word was
pleased with a man, that is to say, that he loved him for his
own sake, as says the senseless Theodorus, or [if anyone pretends
that this union exists only] so far as likeness of name is concerned,
as the Nestorians understand, who call also the Word of God Jesus
and Christ, and even accord to the man the names of Christ and
of Son, speaking thus clearly of two persons, and only designating
disingenuously one Person and one Christ when the reference is
to his honour, or his dignity, or his worship; if anyone shall
not acknowledge as the Holy Fathers teach, that the union of God
the Word is made with the flesh animated by a reasonable and living
soul, and that such union is made synthetically and hypostatically,
and that therefore there is only one Person, to wit: our Lord
Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity: let him be anathema. As
a matter of fact the word "union" (
ths
enwsews
)has many meanings, and the
partisans of Apollinaris and Eutyches have affirmed that these
natures are confounded inter se, and have asserted a union produced
by the mixture of both. On the other hand the followers of Theodorus
and of Nestorius rejoicing in the division of the natures, have
taught only a relative union. Meanwhile the Holy Church of God,
condemning equally the impiety of both sorts of heresies, recognises
the union of God the Word with the flesh synthetically, that is
to say, hypostatically. For in the mystery of Christ the synthetical
union not only preserves unconfusedly the natures which are united,
but also allows no separation.
V
If anyone understands the expression "one only Person
of our Lord Jesus Christ" in this sense, that it is the union
of many hypostases, and if he attempts thus to introduce into
the mystery of Christ two hypostases, or two Persons, and, after
having intro-
313
duced two persons, speaks of one Person only out of dignity, honour
or worship, as both Theodorus and Nestorius insanely have written;
if anyone shall calumniate the holy Council of Chalcedon, pretending
that it made use of this expression [one hypostasis] in this impious
sense, and if he will not recognize rather that the Word of God
is united with the flesh hypostatically, and that therefore there
is but one hypostasis or one only Person, and that the holy Council
of Chalcedon has professed in this sense the one Person of our
Lord Jesus Christ: let him be anathema. For since one of the Holy
Trinity has been made man, viz.: God the Word, the Holy Trinity
has not been increased by the addition of another person or hypostasis.
VI.
IF anyone shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in
a false acceptation, the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary,
the Mother of God, or shall call her so only in a relative sense,
believing that she bare only a simple man and that God the word
was not incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of God the
Word resulted only from the fact that he united himself to that
man who was born [of her];(1) if he shall calumniate the Holy
Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to be
Mother of God according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if
anyone shall call her the mother of a man
anqrwpotokon
or the Mother of Christ (X
ristotokon
),
as if Christ were not God, and shall not confess that she is exactly
and truly the Mother of God, because that God the Word who before
all ages was begotten of the Father was in these last days made
flesh and born of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in
this sense the holy Synod of Chalcedon acknowledged her to be
the Mother of God: let him be anathema.
VII.
IF anyone using the expression, "in two natures,"
does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed
in the divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that
expression a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union
is unconfusedly made, [a union] in which neither the nature of
the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh
into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature,
the union being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with
regard to the mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the
parties, or recognising the two natures in the only Lord Jesus,
God the Word made man, does not content himself with taking in
a theoretical manner(2) the difference of the natures which compose
him, which difference is not destroyed by the union between them,
for one is composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall
make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make
of them Persons properly so called: let him be anathema.(3)
VIII.
IF anyone uses the expression "of two natures,"
confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity,
or the expression "the one nature made flesh of God the Word,"
and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers
have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there
was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from
these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance
[made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let
him be anathema. For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was
united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that
there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each
[nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was
united to the flesh. Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and
man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and
consubstantial with us as touching his
314
manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized
by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine
dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.
IX.
IF anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be worshipped
in his two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus
two adorations, the one in special relation to God the Word and
the other as pertaining to the man; or if anyone to get rid of
the flesh, [that is of the humanity of Christ,] or to mix together
the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of one
only nature or essence (
fusin
hgoun
ousian
) of the united (natures), and
so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one adoration, God
the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church
has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema.
X.
IF anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who
was crucified in the flesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and
one of the Holy Trinity: let him be anathema.
XI.
IF anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius,
Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their
impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned
and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and
by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally
anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their
impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those
heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.
NOTES
HEFELE.
(Hist. Councils, Vol. iv., p. 336.)
Halloix, Garnier, Basnage, Walch and others suppose, and Vincenzi
maintains with great zeal, that the name of Origen is a later
insertion in this anathematism, because (a) Theodore Ascidas,
the Origenist, was one of the most influential members of the
Synod, and would certainly have prevented a condemnation of Origen;
further, (b) because in this anathematism only such heretics would
be named as had been condemned by one of the first four Ecumenical
Synods, which was not the case with Origen; (c) because this anathematism
is identical with the tenth in the
omologia
of the Emperor, but in the latter the name of Origen is lacking;
and, finally, (d) because Origen does not belong to the group
of heretics to whom this anathematism refers. His errors were
quite different.
All these considerations scent to me of insufficient strength,
or mere conjecture, to make an alteration in the text, and arbitrarily
to remove the name of Origen. As regards the objection in connection
with Theodore Ascidas, it is known that the latter had already
pronounced a formal anathema on Origen, and certainly he did the
same this time, if the Emperor wished it or if it seemed advisable.
The second and fourth objections have little weight. In regard
to the third (c) it is quite possible that either the Emperor
subsequently went further than in his
omologia
,
or that the bishops at the fifth Synod, of their own accord, added
Origen, led on perhaps by one or another anti-Origenist of their
number. What, however, chiefly determines us to the retention
of the text is: (a) that the copy of the synodal Acts extant in
the Roman archives, which has the highest credibility, and was
probably prepared for Vigilius himself, contains the name of Origen
in the eleventh anathematism; and (b) that the monks of the new
Lama in Palestine, who are known to have been zealous Origenists,
withdrew Church communion from the bishops of Palestine after
these had subscribed the Acts of the fifth Synod. In the anathema
on the Three Chapters these Origenists could find as little ground
for such a rupture as their friends and former colleague Ascidas;
it could only be by the synod attacking their darling Origen.
(c) Finally, only on the ground that the name of Origen really
stood in the eleventh anathematism, can we explain the widely-circulated
ancient rumour that our Synod anathematized Origen and the Origenists.
315
XII.
IF anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who
has said that the Word of God is one person, but that another
person is Christ, vexed by the sufferings of the soul and the
desires of the flesh, and separated little by little above that
which is inferior, and become better by the progress in good works
and irreproachable in Iris manner of life, as a mere man was baptized
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
and obtained by this baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, and
became worthy of Sonship, and to be worshipped out of regard to
the Person of God the Word (just as one worships the image of
an emperor) and that he is become, after the resurrection, unchangeable
in his thoughts and altogether without sin. And, again, this same
impious Theodore has also said that the union of God the Word
with Christ is like to that which, according to the doctrine of
the Apostle, exists between a man and his wife, "They twain
shall be in one flesh." The same [Theodore] has dared, among
numerous other blasphemies, to say that when after the resurrection
the Lord breathed upon his disciples, saying, "Receive the
Holy Ghost," he did not really give them the Holy Spirit,
but that he breathed upon them only as a sign. He likewise has
said that the profession of faith made by Thomas when he had,
after the resurrection, touched the hands and the side of the
Lord, viz.: "My Lord and my God," was not said in reference
to Christ, but that Thomas, filled with wonder at the miracle
of the resurrection, thus thanked God who had raised up Christ.
And moreover (which is still more scandalous) this same Theodore
in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles compares Christ
to Plato, Manichaeus, Epicurus and Marcion, and says that as each
of these men having discovered his own doctrine, had given his
name to his disciples, who were called Platonists, Manicheans,
Epicureans and Marcionites, just so Christ, having discovered
his doctrine, had given the name Christians to his disciples.
If, then, anyone shall defend this most impious Theodore and his
impious writings, in which he vomits the blasphemies mentioned
above, and countless others besides against our Great God and
Saviour Jesus Christ, and if anyone does not anathematize him
or his impious writings, as well as all those who protect or defend
him, or who assert that his exegesis is orthodox, or who write
in favour of him and of his impious works, or those who share
the same opinions, or those who have shared them and still continue
unto the end in this heresy: let him be anathema.
XIII.
IF anyone shall defend the impious writings of Theodoret,
directed against the true faith and against the first holy Synod
of Ephesus and against St. Cyril and his XII. Anathemas, and [defends]
that which he has written in defence of the impious Theodore and
Nestorius, and of others having the same opinions as the aforesaid
Theodore and Nestorius, if anyone admits them or their impiety,
or shall give the name of impious to the doctors of the Church
who profess the hypostatic union of God the Word; and if anyone
does not anathematize these impious writings and those who have
held or who hold these sentiments, and all those who have written
contrary to the true faith or against St. Cyril and his XII. Chapters,
and who die in their impiety: let him be anathema.
XIV.
IF anyone shall defend that letter which Ibas is said to have
written to Maris the Persian, in which he denies that the Word
of God incarnate of Mary, the Holy Mother of God and ever-virgin,
was made man, but says that a mere man was born of her, whom he
styles a Temple, as though the Word of God was one Person and
the man another person; in which letter also he reprehends St.
Cyril as a heretic, when he teaches the right faith of Christians,
and charges him with writing things like to the wicked Apollinaris.
In addition to this he vituperates the First Holy Council of Ephesus,
affirming that it deposed Nestorius without discrimination and
without examination. The aforesaid impious epistle styles the
XII. Chapters of Cyril of blessed memory, impious and contrary
316
to the right faith and defends Theodore and Nestorius and their
impious teachings and writings. If anyone therefore shall defend
the aforementioned epistle and shall not anathematize it and those
who defend it and say that it is right or that a part of it is
right, or if anyone shall defend those who have written or shall
write in its favour, or in defence of the impieties which are
contained in it, as well as those who shall presume to defend
it or the impieties which it contains in the name of the Holy
Fathers or of the Holy Synod of Chalcedon, and shall remain in
these offences unto the end: let him be anathema.
EXCURSUS ON THE XV. ANATHEMAS AGAINST ORIGEN.
That Origen was condemned by name in the Eleventh Canon of
this council there seems no possible reason to doubt. I have given
in connexion with that canon a full discussion of the evidence
upon which our present text rests. But there arises a further
question, to wit, Did the Fifth Synod examine the case of Origen
and finally adopt the XV. Anathemas against him which are usually
found assigned to it ? It would seem that with the evidence now
in our possession it would be the height of rashness to give a
dogmatic answer to this question. Scholars of the highest repute
have taken, and do take to-day, the opposite sides of the case,
and each defends his own side with marked learning and ability.
To my mind the chief difficulty in supposing these anathematisms
to have been adopted by the Fifth Ecumenical is that nothing whatever
is said about Origen in the call of the council, nor in any of
the letters written in connexion with it; all of which would seem
unnatural had there been a long discussion upon the matter, and
had such an important dogmatic definition been adopted as the
XV. Anathemas, and yet on the other hand there is a vast amount
of literature subsequent in date to the council which distinctly
attributes a detailed and careful examination of the teaching
of Origen and a formal condemnation of him and of it to this council.
The XV. Anathemas as we now have them were discovered by Peter
Lambeck, the Librarian of Vienna, in the XVIIth century; and bear,
in the Vienna MS., the heading, "Canons, of the 165 holy
Fathers of the holy fifth Synod, held in Constantinople."
But despite this, Walch (Ketzerhist., Vol. vii., p. 661 et seqq.
and 671; Vol. viij., p. 281 et seqq.); Dollinger (Church History,
Eng. Trans., Vol. v., p. 203 et seqq.); Hefele (Hist. Councils,
Vol. iv., p. 221 sq.), and many others look upon this caption
as untrustworthy. Evagrius, the historian, distinctly says that
Origen was condemned with special anathemas at this Council, but
his evidence is likewise (and, as it seems to me, too peremptorily)
set aside.
Cardinal Noris, in his Dissertatio Historica de Synodo Quinta,
is of opinion that Origen was twice condemned by the Fifth Synod;
the first time by himself before the eight sessions of which alone
the acts remain, and again after those eight sessions, in connexion
with two of his chief followers, Didymus the Blind and the deacon
Evagrius. The Jesuit, John Garnier wrote in opposition to Noris;
but his work, while exceedingly clever, is considered by the learned
to contain (as Hefele says) "many statements [which] are
rash, arbitrary, and inaccurate, and on the whole it is seen to
be written in a spirit of opposition to Noris."(1) In defence
of Noris's main contention came forward the learned Ballerini
brothers, of Verona. In their Defensio dissertationis Norisianoe
de Syn. V. adv. diss. P. Garnerii, they expand and amend Noris's
hypothesis. But after all is said the matter remains involved
in the greatest obscurity, and it is far easier to bring forward
objections to the arguments in defence of either view than to
bring forward a theory which will satisfy all the conditions of
the problem.
317
Those who deny that the XV. Anathemas were adopted by the
Fifth Synod agree in assigning them to the "Home Synod,"
that is a Synod at Constantinople of the bishops subject to it,
in A.D. 543. Hefele takes this view and advocates it with much
cogency, but confesses frankly, "We certainly possess no
strong and decisive proof that the fifteen anathematisms belong
to the Constantinopolitan synod of the year 543; but some probable
grounds for the opinion may be adduced.(1) This appears to be
a somewhat weak statement with which to overthrow so much evidence
as there can be produced for the opposite view. For the traditional
view the English reader will find a complete defence in E. B.
Pusey, What is of Faith with regard to Eternal Punishment?
Before closing it will be well to call the attention of the
reader to these words now found in the acts as we have them:
"And we found that many others had been anathematised
after death, also even Origen; and if any one were to go back
to the times of Theophilus of blessed memory or further he would
have found him anathematised after death; which also now your
holiness and Vigilius, the most religious Pope of Old Rome has
done in his case."(2) It would seem that this cannot possibly
refer to anything else than a condemnation of Origen by the Fifth
Ecumenical Synod, and so strongly is Vincenzi, Origen's defender,
impressed with this that he declares the passage to have been
tampered with. But even if these anathemas were adopted at the
Home Synod before the meeting of the Fifth Ecumenical, it is clear
that by including his name among those of the heretics in the
XIth Canon, it practically ratified and made its own the action
of that Synod.
The reader will be glad to know Harnack's judgment in this
matter. Writing of the Fifth Council, he says: "It condemned
Origen, as Justinian desired; it condemned the Three Chapters
and consequently the Antiochene theology, as Justinian desired,"
etc., and in a foot-note he explains that he agrees with "Noris,
the Ballerini, Moller (R. Encykl., xi., p. 113) and Loofs (pp.
287, 291) as against Hefele and Vincenzi."(3) A few pages
before, he speaks of this last author's book as "a big work
which falsities history to justify the theses of Halloix, to rehabilitate
Origen and Vigilius, and on the other hand to 'remodel' the Council
and partly to bring it into contempt."(4) Further on he says:
"The fifteen anathemas against Origen, on which his condemnation
at the council was based, contained the following points. ...
Since the 'Three Chapters ' were condemned at the same time, Origen
and Theodore were both got rid of. ... Origen's doctrines of the
consummation, and of spirits and matter might no longer be maintained.
The judgment was restored to its place, and got back even its
literal meaning."(5)
THE ANATHEMAS AGAINST ORIGEN.
IF anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and
shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it:
let him be anathema.
II.
IF anyone shall say that the creation (
thu
paragwghn
) of all reasonable things
includes only intelligences (
noas
)
without bodies and altogether immaterial, having neither number
nor name, so that there is unity between them all by identity
of substance, force and energy, and by their union with and knowledge
of God the Word; but that no longer desiring the sight of God,
they gave themselves over to worse things, each one following
his own inclinations, and that they have taken bodies more or
less subtile, and have received names, for among the heavenly
Powers there is a difference of names as there is also a difference
of bodies; and thence some became and are called Cherubims, others
Seraphims, and Principalities, and Powers, and Dominations, and
Thrones, and Angels, and as many other heavenly orders as there
may be: let him be anathema.
III.
IF anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the stars are
also reasonable beings, and that they have only become what they
are because they turned towards evil: let him be anathema.
IV.
IF anyone shall say that the reasonable creatures in whom
the divine love had grown cold have been hidden in gross bodies
such as ours, and have been called men, while those who have attained
the lowest degree of wickedness have shared cold and obscure bodies
and are become and called demons and evil spirits: let him be
anathema,.
V.
IF anyone shall say that a psychic (
yukikhn
)
condition has come from an angelic or archangelic state, and moreover
that a demoniac and a human condition has come from a psychic
condition, and that from a human state they may become again angels
and demons, and that each order of heavenly virtues is either
all from those below or from those above, or from those above
and below: let him be anathema.
VI.
IF anyone shall say that there is a twofold race of demons,
of which the one includes the souls of men and the other the superior
spirits who fell to this, and that of all the number of reasonable
beings there is but one which has remained unshaken in the love
and contemplation of God, and that that spirit is become Christ
and the king of all reasonable beings, and that he has created(1)
all the bodies which exist in heaven, on earth, and between heaven
and earth; and that the world which has in itself elements more
ancient than itself, and which exists by themselves, viz.: dryness,
damp, heat and cold, and the image (
idean
)
to which it was formed, was so formed, and that the most holy
and consubstantial Trinity did not create the world, but that
it was created by the working intelligence (N
ous
dhmiourgos
) which is more ancient than
the world, and which communicates to it its being: let him be
anathema.
VII.
IF anyone shah say that Christ, of whom it is said that he
appeared in the form of God, and that he was united before all
time with God the Word, and humbled himself in these last days
even to humanity, had (according to their expression) pity upon
the divers falls which had appeared in the spirits united in the
same unity (of which he himself is part), and that to
319
restore them he passed through divers classes, had different bodies
and different names, became all to all, an Angel among Angels,
a Power among Powers, has clothed I himself in the different classes
of reasonable beings with a form corresponding to that class,
and finally has taken flesh and blood like ours and is become
man for men; [if anyone says all this] and does not profess that
God the Word humbled himself and became man: let him be anathema.
VIII.
IF anyone shall not acknowledge that God the Word, of the
same substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and who was
made flesh and became man, one of the Trinity, is Christ in every
sense of the word, but [shall affirm] that he is so only in an
inaccurate manner, and because of the abasement (
kenwsanta
),
as they call it, of the intelligence (
nous
);
if anyone shall affirm that this intelligence united (
sunhmmenon
)
to God the Word, is the Christ in the true sense of the word,
while the Logos is only called Christ because of this union with
the intelligence, and e converse that the intelligence is only
called God because of the Logos: let him be anathema.
IX.
IF anyone shall say that it was not the Divine Loges made
man by taking an animated body with a
yukh
logikh
and
noera
,
that he descended into hell and ascended into heaven, but shall
pretend that it is the N
ous
which has
done this, that N
ous
of which they
say (in an impious fashion) he is Christ properly so called, and
that he is become so by the knowledge of the Monad: let him be
anathema.
X
IF anyone shall say that after the resurrection the body of
the Lord was ethereal, having the form of a sphere, and that such
shall be the bodies of all after the resurrection; and that after
the Lord himself shall have rejected his true body and after the
others who rise shall have rejected theirs, the nature of their
bodies shall be annihilated: let him be anathema.
XI.
IF anyone shall say that the future judgment signifies the
destruction of the body and that the end of the story will be
an immaterial
yusis
, and that thereafter
there will no longer be any matter, but only spirit
nous
):
let him be anathema.
XII.
IF anyone shall say that the heavenly Powers and all men and
the Devil and evil spirits are united with the Word of God in
all respects, as the N
ous
which is
by them called Christ and which is in the form of God, and which
humbled itself as they say; and [if anyone shall say] that the
Kingdom of Christ shall have an end: let him be anathema.
XIII.
IF anyone shall say that Christ [i.e., the N
ous
is in no wise different from other reasonable beings, neither
substantially nor by wisdom nor by his power and might over all
things but that all will be placed at the right hand of God, as
well as he that is called by them Christ [the N
ous
,
as also they were in the reigned pre-existence of all things:
let him be anathema.
XIV.
IF anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day
be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and
the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the
world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the
rejection of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names, and
that there shall be finally an identity of the
gnpsis
and of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis,
spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the reigned
pre-existence: let him be anathema.
XV.
IF anyone shall say that the life of the spirits (
nopn
)
shall be like to the life which was in the beginning while as
yet the spirits had not come down or fallen, so that the end
and the beginning shall be alike, and that the end shall be the
true measure of the beginning: let him be anathema.
THE ANATHEMATISMS OF THE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN AGAINST ORIGEN.(1)
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. v., col. 677.)
Whoever says or thinks that human souls pre-existed, i.e.,
that they had previously been spirits and holy powers, but that,
satiated with the vision of God, they had turned to evil, and
in this way the divine love in them had died out (
apyugeisas
)
and they had therefore become souls (
yukas
)
and had been condemned to punishment in bodies, shall be anathema.
II. If anyone says or thinks that the soul of the Lord
pre-existed and was united with God the Word before the Incarnation
and Conception of the Virgin, let him be anathema.
III. If anyone says or thinks that the body of our Lord
Jesus Christ was first formed in the womb of the holy Virgin and
that afterwards there was united with it God the Word and the
pre-existing soul, let him be anathema.
IV.
If anyone says or thinks that the Word of God has become like
to all heavenly orders, so that for the cherubim he was a cherub,
for the seraphim a seraph: in short, like all the superior powers,
let him be anathema.
V.
If anyone says or thinks that, at the resurrection, human
bodies will rise spherical in form and unlike our present form,
let him be anathema.
VI.
If anyone says that the heaven, the sun, the moon, the stars,
and the waters that are above heavens, have souls, and are reasonable
beings, let him be anathema.
VII.
If anyone says or thinks that Christ the Lord in a future
time will be crucified for demons as he was for men, let him be
anathema.
VIII.
If anyone says or thinks that the power of God is limited,
and that he created as much as he was able to compass, let him
be anathema.
IX. If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons
and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an
end, and that a restoration (
apokatastasis
)
will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.
Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these
opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked
doctrine? and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends
these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume
to protect them.
THE DECRETAL EPISTLE OF POPE VIGILIUS IN CONFIRMATION OF THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD.
HISTORICAL NOTE.
(Fleury. Hist. Eccl., Liv. xxxiii. 52.)
At last the Pope Vigilius resigned himself to the advice of
the Council, and six months afterwards wrote a letter to the Patriarch
Eutychius, wherein he confesses that he has been wanting in charity
in dividing from his brethren. He adds, that one ought not to
be ashamed to retract, when one recognises the truth, and brings
forward the example of
Augustine. He says, that, after having better examined the matter
of the Three Chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation. "We
recognize for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned
them, and annul by this writing all that has been done by us or
by others for the defence of the three chapters."
THE DECRETAL LETTER OF POPE VIGILIUS.
(The manuscript from which this letter was printed was found
in the Royal Library of Paris by Peter de Marca and by him first
published, with a Latin translation and with a dissertation. Both
of these with the Greek text are found in Labbe and Cossart's
Con-cilia, Tom. V., col. 596 et seqq.; also in Migne's Patr. Lat.,
Tom. LXIX., col. 121 et seqq. Some doubts have been expressed
about its genuineness and Harduin is of opinion that the learned
Jesuit, Garnerius, in his notes on the Deacon Leberatus's Breviary,
has proved its supposititious character. But the learned have
not generally been of this mind but have accepted the letter as
genuine.)
Vigilius to his beloved brother Eutychius.
No one is ignorant of the scandals which the enemy of the
human race has stirred up in all the world: so that he made each
one with a wicked object in view, striving in some way to fulfil
his wish to destroy the Church of God spread over the whole world,
not only in his own name but even in ours and in those of others
to compose diverse things as well in words as in writing; in so
much that he attempted to divide us who, together with our brethren
and fellow bishops, are stopping in this royal city, and who defend
with equal reverence the four synods, and sincerely persist in
the one and the same faith of those four synods, by his sophistries
and machinations he tried to part from them; so that we ourselves
who were and are of the same opinion as they touching the faith,
went apart into discord, brotherly love being despised.(1)
But since Christ our God, who is the true light, whom the
darkness comprehendeth not, hath removed all confusion from our
minds, and hath so recalled peace to the whole world and to the
Church, so that what things should be defined by us have been
healthfully fulfilled through the revelation of the Lord and through
the investigation of the truth.
Therefore, my dear brothers, I do you to wit, that in common
with all of you, our brethren, we receive in all respects the
four synods, that is to say the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan,
the first Ephesian, and the Chalcedonian; and we venerate them
with devout mind, and watch over them with all our mind. And should
there be any who do not follow these holy synods in all things
which they have defined concerning the faith, we judge them to
be aliens to the communion of the holy and Catholic Church.
Wherefore on account of our desire that you, my brothers,
should know what we have done in this matter, we make it known
to you by this letter. For no one can doubt how many were the
discussions raised on account of the Three Chapters, that is,
concerning Theodore, sometime bishop of Mopsuestia, and his writings,
as well as concerning the writings of Theodoret, and concerning
that letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris
the Persian: and how diverse were the things spoken and written
concerning these Three Chapters. Now if in every busi-
322
ness sound wisdom demands that there should be a retractation
of what was propounded after examination, there ought to be no
shame when what was at first omitted is made public after it is
discovered by a further study of the truth. [And if this is the
case in ordinary affairs] how much more in ecclesiastical strifes
should the same dictate of sound reason be observed? Especially
since it is manifest that our Fathers, and especially the blessed
Augustine, who was in very sooth illustrious in the Divine Scriptures,
and a master in Roman eloquence, retracted some of his own writings,
and corrected some of his own sayings, and added what he had omitted
and afterward found out. We, led by their example never gave over
the study of the questions raised by the controversy with regard
to the before-mentioned Three Chapters, nor our search for passages
in the writings of our Fathers which were applicable to the matter.
As a result of this investigation it became evident that in
the sayings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (which are spoken against
on all hands) there are contained very many things contrary to
the right faith and to the teachings of the holy Fathers; and
for this very reason these same holy Fathers have left for the
instruction of tile Church treatises which they had written against
him.
For among other blasphemies of his we find that he openly
said that God the Word was one [Person] and Christ another [Person],
vexed with the passions of the soul and with the desires of the
flesh, and that he little by little advanced from a lower to a
higher stage of excellence by the improvement (
prokiph
,
per profectum operum) of his works, and became irreprehensible
in his manner of life.(1) And further he taught that it was a
mere man who was baptized in the Name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Ghost, and that he received through ilia baptism
the grace of the Holy Spirit, and merited his adoption; and therefore
that Christ could be venerated in the same way that the image
of the Emperor is venerated as being the persona (
eis
proswpon
) of God the Word. And he also
taught that [only] after his resurrection he became immutable
in his thoughts and altogether impeccable.
Moreover he said that the union of the Word of God was made
with Christ as the Apostle says the union is made between a man
and his wife: They twain shall be one flesh; and that after his
resurrection, when the Lord breathed upon his disciples and said,
Receive tile Holy Ghost, he did not give to them the Holy Spirit.
In like strain of profanity he dared to say that the confession
which Thomas made, when he touched the hands and side of the Lord
after his resurrection, saying, My Lord and my God, did not apply
to Christ (for Theodore did not acknowledge Christ to be God);
but that Thomas gave glory to God being filled with wonder at
the miracle of the resurrection, and so said these words.
But what is still worse is this, that in interpreting the
Acts of the Apostles, Theodore makes Christ like to Plato, and
Manichaeus, and Epicurus, and Marcian, saying: Just as each of
these were the authors of their own peculiar teachings, and called
their disciples after their own names, Platonists, and Munichaeans,
and Epicureans, and Marcionites, just so Christ invented dogmas
and called his followers Christians after himself.
Let therefore the whole Catholic Church know that justly and
irreproachably we have arrived at the conclusions contained in
this our constitution. Wherefore we condemn and anathematize Theodore,
formerly bishop of Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, together
with all other heretics, who (as is manifest) have been condemned
and anathematized by the four holy Synods aforesaid, and by the
Catholic Church: also the writings of Theodoret which are opposed
to the right faith, and are against the Twelve Chapters of St.
Cyril, and against the first Council of Ephesus, which were written
by him in defence of Theodore and Nestorius.
Moreover we anathematize and condemn the letter to the Persian
heretic Maris, which is said to have been written by Ibas, which
denies that Christ the Word was incarnate of the holy Mother of
God and ever-virgin Mary, and was made man, but declares that
a mere man was born of her, and this man it styles a temple, so
from this we are given to understand that God the Word is one
[Person] and Christ another [Person]. Moreover it calumniates
Saint Cyril, the master and herald of the orthodox faith, calling
him a heretic, and charging him with writing things similar to
Apollinaris; and it reviles the first Synod of Ephesus, as having
condemned Nestorius without deliberation or investigation; it
likewise declares the twelve chapters of St. Cyril to be impious
and contrary to the right faith; and further still it defends
Theodore and Nestorius, and their impious teachings and writings.
Therefore we anathematize and condemn
323
the aforesaid impious Three Chapters, to-wit, the impious Theodore
of Mopsuestia and his impious writings; And all that Theodoret
impiously wrote, as well as the letter said to have been written
by Ibas, in which are contained the above mentioned profane blasphemies.
We likewise subject to anathema whoever shall at any time believe
that these chapters should be received or defended; or shall attempt
to subvert this present condemnation.
And further we define that they are our brethren and fellow-priests
who ever keep the right faith set forth by those afore-mentioned
synods, and shall have condemned the above-named Three Chapters,
or even do now condemn them.
And further we annul and evacuate by this present written
definition of ours whatever has been said by me (a me)or by others
in defence of the aforesaid Three Chapters.
Far be it from the Catholic Church that anyone should say
that all the blasphemies above related or they who held and followed
such things, were received by the before-mentioned four synods
or by any one of them. For it is most clear, that no one was admitted
by the before-mentioned holy Fathers and especially by the Council
of Chalcedon, about whom there was any suspicion, unless he had
first repelled the above-named blasphemies and all like to them,
or else had denied and condemned the heresy or blasphemies of
which he was suspected.
Subscription.
May God preserve thee in health, most honourable brother.
Dated VI. Id. Dec. in the xxijd year of our lord the Emperor Justinian,
eternal Augustus, the xijth year after the consulate of the illustrious
Basil.(1)
HISTORICAL EXCURSUS ON THE AFTER HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL.
Pope Vigilius died on his way home, but not until, as we have
seen, he had accepted and approved the action of the council in
doing exactly that which he "by the authority of the Apostolic
See" in his Constitutum had forbidden it to do.(2) He died
at the end of 554 or the beginning of 555.
Pelagius I., who succeeded him in the See of Rome, likewise
confirmed the Acts of the Fifth Synod. The council however was
not received in all parts of the West, although it had obtained
the approval of the Pope. It was bitterly opposed in the whole
of tile north of Italy, in England, France, and Spain, and also
in Africa and Asia. The African opposition died out by 559, but
Milan was in schism until 571, when Pope Justin II. published
his "Henoticon." In Istria the matter was still more
serious, and when in 607 the bishop of Aquileia-Grado with those
of his suffragans who were subject to the Empire made their submission
and were reconciled to the Church, the other bishops of his jurisdiction
set up a schismatical Patriarchate at old Aquileia, and this schism
continued till the Council of Aquileia in 700. But before this
the II. Council of Constantinople was received all the world over
as the Fifth Ecumenical Council; and was fully recognized as such
by the Sixth Council in 680.
from The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, trans H. R. Percival, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, (repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), XIV, 300-323
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.
(c)Paul Halsall Feb 1996
halsall@murray.fordham.edu
The Internet Medieval Sourcebook is part of the Internet History Sourcebooks Project. The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of Fordham University, New York. The Internet
Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at
the Fordham University Center
for Medieval Studies.The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the
Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in
providing web space and server support for the project. The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University.
Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not
the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.
© Site Concept and Design: Paul Halsall created 26 Jan 1996: latest revision 15 November 2024 [CV]
|
