September 471-488 A.D. Acacius—Constantinople’s 47th; Ambitious & Adroit Participant in Chalcedonian Controversy; Condemned Eutyches & Nestorius
September
471-488 A.D. Acacius—Constantinople’s
47th; Ambitious & Adroit
Participant in Chalcedonian Controversy; Condemned Eutyches & Nestorius;
40-Year Schism Between East & West (Another One, as Through All History);
Alexandria/Egypt v. Constantinople;
Henoticon Edict and Acacian Schism
Contents]
Early life and episcopate
Chalcedonian controversy
Allied opposition against Basilicus and
Timothy Aelerus
Disputes over Peter Mongus and John Talaia
Henotikon Edict and the Acacian Schism
References
Acacius of
Constantinople
St Acacius
|
|
Patriarch of Constantinople
|
|
Died
|
489
|
Honored in
|
|
30 of the Coptic Month of Hathor
|
Acacius (died 489) was the Ecumenical
Patriarch of Constantinople from 471 to 489. Acacius was practically the first prelate throughout the Eastern Orthodoxy and renowned for ambitious participation in the Chalcedonian controversy.[1]
Acacius advised the Byzantine emperor Zeno to
issue the Henotikon edict
in 482, in which Nestorius and Eutyches were
condemned, the twelve chapters of Cyril of Alexandria accepted, and the Chalcedon Definition
ignored. This effort to shelve the dispute over the orthodoxy of the Council of Chalcedon was quite in vain. Pope Felix III saw
the prestige of his see involved in this slighting of Chalcedon and his
predecessor Leo’s epistle. He condemned and deposed Acacius, a proceeding which
the latter regarded with contempt, but which involved a schism between the two
sees that lasted after Acacius’s death. The Acacian schism lasted
through the long and troubled reign of the Byzantine emperor Anastasius I, and was only healed by Justin I under Pope Hormisdas in
519.[1]
The Coptic Orthodox Church
celebrates The Departure of St. Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople on the
30th of the Coptic month of Hatour.[2]
Contents]
Early life and episcopate
Acacius first appearers in
authentic history as the orphanotrophos,
or an official entrusted with the care of the orphans, in the Church of Constantinople, which he
administered with conspicuous success.[3] Suidas
further describes Acacius as possessing an undoubtedly striking personality of
making the most of his opportunities. He seems to have affected an engaging
magnificence of manner; was openhanded; suave, yet noble, in demeanour; courtly
in speech, and fond of a certain ecclesiastical display.[4]
His abilities attracted the
notice of the Roman emperor Leo I, over whom he obtained great influence by the arts of an
accomplished courtier,[5] which
led to his succession to the seat of Patriarch on the death of the Gennadius in
471. The first five or six years of his episcopate were uneventful enough. Soon
he involved in controversies, which lasted throughout his patriarchate, and
ended in a schism of
thirty-five years between the churches of the East and West.[6]
On the one side he laboured to
restore unity to Eastern Orthodoxy,
which was distracted by the varieties of opinion to which the Eutychian debates had given rise; and on the other to magnify the authority of his see by
asserting its independence of Rome, and extending its influence over Alexandria and Antioch. In both respects he appears
to have acted more in the spirit of a statesman than of a theologian; and in
this relation the personal traits of liberality, courtliness, and ostentation,
noticed by Suidas, are of worthy importance.[7]
Chalcedonian controversy
Allied opposition against Basilicus and
Timothy Aelerus
The opposition was the first
important measures earning Acacius the enthusiastic popular support and praise
of Pope Simplicius. In
conjunction with a Stylite monk, Daniel the Stylite, he placed himself at the head of the opposition
to the usurped emperor Basiliscus.[6] Timothy Aelerus, the Non-Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria
under Basiliscus' protection since 476,[6] had
already induced Basiliscus to put forth an encyclical or imperial proclamation
(egkyklios) condemning the teaching of the council of Chalcedon. Acacius himself seems to have hesitated at first
about adding his name to the list of the Asiatic bishops who had already signed
the encyclical; but, warned by a letter from Pope Simplicius, who had learned
of his questionable attitude from the ever-vigilant monastic party, he
reconsidered his position and threw himself violently into the debate. This
sudden change of front redeemed him in popular estimation, and he won the
regard of the Chalcedonian party, particularly among the various monastic
communities throughout the East, by his now ostentatious concern for sound
doctrine.[4] Even
Pope Simplicius wrote him a letter of commendation.[6]
The chief circumstance to
which Acacius owed this sudden wave of popularity was the adroitness with which
he succeeded in putting himself at the head of the particular movement of which
Daniel the Stylite was both the coryphaeus and the true inspirer. The agitation
was, of course, a spontaneous one on the part of its monastic promoters and of
the populace at large, who sincerely detested Eutychian theories of the
Incarnation; but it may be doubted whether Acacius, either in Chalcedonian
opposition now, or in efforts at compromise later on, was anything profounder
than a politician seeking to compass his own personal ends. Of theological
principles he seems never to have had a consistent grasp. He had the soul of a
gamester, and he played only for influence. Basiliscus was beaten.[4]
Basiliscus withdrew his
offensive encyclical by a counter-proclamation, but his surrender did not save
him.[4] In
the meantime the emperor Zeno, a fugitive up to the time of
the Acacian opposition, reclaimed the throne which he had lost; and Basiliscus,
after abject and vain concessions to the ecclesiastical power, was given up to
him (as tradition says) by Acacius, after he had taken sanctuary in his church
in 477.[8] At
this moment the relations between Zeno, Acacius, and Simplicius appear to have
been amicable. They agreed on the necessity of taking vigorous measures to
affirm the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, and for a time acted in
concert.[9]
Disputes over Peter Mongus and John Talaia
In 479 Acacius consecrated a Patriarch of Antioch,[10] and
thus exceeded the proper limits of his jurisdiction. However, Pope Simplicius
admitted the appointment on the plea of necessity.[6]
Trouble soon broke out of all
dimensions when the Non-Chalcedonian party of Alexandria attempted to force Peter Mongus into that see against John Talaia in
482. Simplicus protested against Peter Mongus's appointment as patriarch,[11] because
of his role in the Non-Chalcedonian party of Alexandria, siding with John
Talaia.[6]
Both aspirants lay open to
grave objections. Mongus was, or at least had been, Non-Chalcedonian; John
Talaia was bound by a solemn promise to the Emperor not to seek or (as it
appears) accept the Patriarchate.[12] Talaia
at once sought and obtained the support of Simplicius, and slighted Acacius.
Mongus represented to Acacius that he was able, if confirmed in his post, to
heal the divisions caused by the dispute.[6]
This time events gave Acacius
the opportunity he seems to have been long waiting for — to claim a primacy of
honour and jurisdiction over the entire East, which would emancipate the
bishops of the capital not only from all responsibility to the sees of
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, but to the Roman Pontiff as well. Acacius,
who had now fully ingratiated himself with Zeno, suggested the emperor to take
sides with Mongus in spite of the vehement opposition of Simplicius. Acacius
counteracted by sending envoys to discuss the terms of reunion for all churches
of the East.[4]
Henotikon Edict and the Acacian Schism
Shortly afterwards Acacius
drawn up a document, or series of articles, which constituted at once both a
creed and an instrument of reunion, as his measure to claim jurisdiction over
the entire East. This creed, known to theology as
the Henotikon, was originally directed to
the irreconcilable factions in Egypt. It was a plea for reunion on a basis of
reticence and compromise. And under this aspect it suggests a significant
comparison with another and better known set of "articles" composed
nearly eleven centuries later, when the leaders of the Anglican schism were
threading a careful way between the extremes of Roman teaching on the one side
and of Lutheran and Calvinistic negations
on the other.[4]
The Henotikon edict in 482
affirmed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (i.e. the Creed of Nicaea completed
at Constantinople) as
affording a common, final and united symbol or expression of faith. All other
symbola or mathemata were excluded; Eutyches and Nestorius were
unmistakably condemned in an anathema, while the twelve chapters of Cyril of Alexandria were accepted.[4] The
teaching of Chalcedon was not so much repudiated as passed over in silence;
Jesus Christ was described as the "only-begotten Son of God ... one and
not two" and there was no explicit reference to the two natures.[13]
Peter Mongus naturally
accepted the Henoticon and was hence confirmed in his see. John Talaia refused
to subscribe to it and retired to Rome (482-483), where his cause was taken up
with great vigour by letters of Pope Simplicius urging Acacius to check the
progress of heresy elsewhere
and at Alexandria.[14] The
letters were futile, and Simplicius died soon afterwards.[6]
His successor, Pope Felix III zealously
espoused the cause of Talaia and despatched two bishops, Vitalis and Misenus,
to Constantinople with letters to Zeno and Acacius, demanding that the latter
should repair to Rome to answer the charges brought against him by Talaia
(Felix, Epp. 1, 2). The mission utterly failed. Vitalis and Misenus were
induced to communicate (i.e., to receive Holy Communion) publicly
with Acacius and the representatives of Mongus, and returned embarrassingly to
Italy in 484.[6]
On their arrival at Rome an
indignant synod was
held. They were themselves deposed and excommunicated; a new anathema was
issued against Mongus, and Acacius was irrevocably excommunicated for his
connection with Mongus, for exceeding the limits of his jurisdiction, and for
refusing to answer at Rome the accusations of Talaia;[15] but
no direct heretical opinion was proved or urged against him.[6] Acacius
was branded by Pope Felix as one who had sinned against the Holy Spirit and apostolic authority (Habe ergo cum his ... portionem S. Spiritus
judicio et apostolica auctoritate damnatus); and he was declared to be
perpetually excommunicated (nunquamque anathematis vinculis exuendus).[4]
Felix communicated the
sentence to Acacius, and at the same time wrote to Zeno, and to the church at
Constantinople, charging every one, under pain of excommunication, to separate
from the deposed patriarch.[16] Another envoy, named Tutus, was sent to
carry the decree of
this double excommunication to Acacius in person. Acacius refused to accept the
documents brought by Tutus and showed his sense of the authority of the Roman
See, and of the synod which had condemned him, by erasing the name of Pope
Felix from the diptychs. For the rest, the threats of Felix produced no
practical effect. The Eastern Christians, with very few exceptions, remained in
communion with Acacius.[6]
Talaia equivalently gave up
the fight by consenting to become Bishop of Nola;[4] and
Zeno and Acacius took active measures to obtain the general acceptance of the
Henoticon throughout the East. According to some (and probably biased) sources,
Acacius began a brutal policy of violence and persecution, directed chiefly
against his old opponents the monks, to work with Zeno for the general adoption
of the Henoticon. The condemnation of Acacius, which had been made in the name
of the Pope, was repeated in the name of the council of Chalcedon, and the
schism was complete in 485. Acacius took no heed of the sentence up to his
death in 489, which was followed by that of Mongus in 490, and of Zeno in 491.[6]
Fravitas (Flavitas,
Flavianus), his successor, during a very short patriarchate, entered on
negotiations with Felix, which resulted in nothing. The policy of Acacius broke
down when he was no longer able to animate it. In a few years all his labour
was undone. The Henoticon failed to restore unity to the East, and in 519 the Byzantine emperor Justin Isubmitted to Pope Hormisdas, and the
condemnation of Acacius was recognized by the church of Constantinople.[6][17]
References
2.
Jump up^ http://st-takla.org/Full-Free-Coptic-Books/Coptic-Synaxarium-or-Synaxarion_English/03-Hatoor/Coptic-Calendar_30-Hator.html
8.
Jump up^ cites Evagrius H. E. iii. 4 ff. Theodoret Lect.
i. 30 ff. Theophanes Chronicle pp. 104 ff.; Procopius Bellum
Vandalicum i. 7, p. 195.
17.
Jump up^ Westcott 1911 notes Tillemont has given a detailed history of the whole
controversy, up to the death of Patriarch
Fravitta, in his Mémoires, vol.
xvi., but with a natural bias towards the Roman side. The original documents,
exclusive of the histories of Evagrius, Theophanes, and Liberatus, are for the most part collected in the 58th volume of Migne's Patrologia. See alsoHefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. ii.
Attribution
·
This article incorporates text
from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Monophysites". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
·
This article incorporates text
from a publication now in the public domain: Westcott, B. F. (1911). "Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople". In Wace, Henry; Piercy, William C.Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the
End of the Sixth Century (third ed.). London: John Murray.
·
This article incorporates text from a
publication now in the public domain: Clifford, Cornelius (1907). "Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople". In Herbermann, Charles.Catholic
Encyclopedia 1. Robert Appleton Company.
Patriarch of
Constantinople
471–488 |
Comments
Post a Comment