5 May 553 A.D. 2nd Council of Constantinople Convened
5
May 553 A.D. 2nd
Council of Constantinople Convened.
Christianity.com tells the story
at: http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/301-600/2nd-council-of-constantinople-11629713.html
Controversy
over the God-man nature of Christ disturbed both church and empire throughout
the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries. Theological quarrels became party
politics and several church-wide or "general" councils met to resolve
the issues. The first of these councils, the famous Nicea Council, denounced
Arianism, a teaching that Christ was a created being. The three councils that
followed took up other aspects of the relationship between Christ's divinity
and humanity. But heresies continued to spring up like weeds, as they still do
today. On this day, May 5, 553,
Emperor Justinian convoked a fifth general council, the second to be held at
Constantinople.
Emperor Justinian was a vigorous ruler.
Unfortunately, he thought the only way his empire could enjoy unity was to
compel religious uniformity. Consequently, he closed heathen schools and
baptized pagans by force. He all but wiped out the Montanists in fierce
persecution. (The Montanists believed in ecstatic spiritual experiences and
end-of-the-world prophecies.) Justinian also built church sanctuaries,
including the breathtaking Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom).
Empress Theodora favored the monophysite views
taught by Eutyches the Archmandrite (an archmandrite was the head of a
monastery or several monasteries). Monophysites deny that Christ had both a
divine nature and human nature. Eutyches' form of monophysitism held that
Christ's two natures, the Divine and the human, united so completely that they
became physically one, with the Divine absorbing the human. Its theological
rival was Nestorianism, which was said to overemphasize the distinctions
between Christ's two natures. Under Theodora's influence, Justinian called the
council to condemn writings that supported Nestorianism--the Three Chapters.
The Three Chapters had already been dealt with in
the important Council of Chalcedon. The writings were rebuked but the writers
were not condemned. Apparently, the monophysites hoped by re-opening the issue
to win condemnation of the three writers. In so doing, they would discredit the
Council of Chalcedon by making its judgments appear incomplete or inadequate, creating
an opening for further Monophysite advances.
The council opened on this day, May 5, 553. In eight sessions, it
upheld Chalcedon on the two natures of Christ, but condemned "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." They condemned the
writings but spared the reputation of two of the three writers of the Three
Chapters.
Pope Vigilius swayed back and forth on the issues.
Although he refused to attend the council, he was at a disadvantage, because
Justinian would not let him return to Rome unless he subscribed to the
council's findings. Vigilius capitulated, putting himself at odds with his own
previous writings and possibly even with the council of Chalcedon. A western
synod excommunicated him and he had to change his position again before the
western church would accept him back.
Bibliography:
Jedin, Hubert. Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic
Church. (Herder and Herder, 1960).
Raab, Clement. The Twenty Ecumenical Councils of
the Catholic Church. Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1959.
Shahan, Thomas J. "Second Council of
Constantinople." Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton, 1914.
"Three Chapters" and
"Vigilius." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by
F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford, 1997.
5 May 553 A.D. Fifth
Ecumenical Council Convened in Constantinople
Hefele,
History of the Councils, Vol. IV., p. 289.
Taken from Fordham University. N.d. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp. Accessed 4 Jun 2014.
Medieval Sourcebook:
Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II, 553
Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II, 553
1.
2.
[Note: pagination of Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers edition preserved]
3. Emperor.--Justinian
I. Pope.--Vigilius.
4. Elenchus.
5. Historical
Introduction.
6. Excursus
on the genuineness of the Acts of the Council.
7. The
Emperor's Letter.
8. Extracts
from the Acts, Session VII.
9. The
Sentence of the Synod.
10. The
Capitula of the Council.
11. Excursus
on the XV. Anathematisms against Oripen.
12. The
Anathemas against Origen paralleled with the Anathematisms of the Emperor
Justinian.
13. Historical
Note to the Decretal Letter of Pope Vigilius.
14. The
Decretal Letter of the Pope, with Introductory Note.
15. Historical
Excursus on the after-history of the Council.
16.
17. HISTORICAL
INTRODUCTION.
18.
(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol.
IV., p. 289.)
19. 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.
20. (Bossuet,
Def. Cleri Gall., Lib. vii., cap. xix. Abridged. Translation by Allies.)
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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-
24. 300
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28.
29. EXCURSUS
ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS OF THE FIFTH COUNCIL
30.
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.
31. 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."
32. 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.
33. 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)
34.
35. EXTRACTS
FROM THE ACTS.
36.
SESSION I.
37. (Labbe
and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. V., col. 419.)
38. [The
Emperor's Letter which was read to the Fathers.]
39. 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.
40. [The
following is the letter condensed, including Hefele's digest. History of the
Councils, Vol. IV., p. 298.]
41. 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 Rusticus 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.
42.
43. EXTRACTS
FROM THE ACTS.
44. SESSION
VII.
45.
(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.)
46. 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.
47. 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 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?"
48. 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.
49. [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.]
50. 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.
51. [The
letter was then read.]
52. 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.
53. NOTES.
54. 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.
55. 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!
56. THE
SENTENCE OF THE SYNOD.
57. (From
the Acts. Collation VIII., L. and C., Conc., Tom. V., col. 562.)
58. 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)
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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."
63. 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.
64. 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 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."
65. 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."
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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."
69. 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 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.
70. 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.
71. 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."
72. 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.
73. 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."
74. 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 followed 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.
75. 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 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.
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. 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."
79. 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 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.
80.
81. THE
CAPITULA OF THE COUNCIL.
82.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. V.,
col. 568.)
83. I.
84. 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.
85. II.
86. 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.
87. III.
88. 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.
89. IV.
90. 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.
91. V
92. 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 introduced 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.
93. VI.
94. 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.
95. VII.
96. 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)
97. VIII.
98. 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 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.
99. IX.
100.
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.
101.
X.
102.
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.
103.
XI.
104.
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.
105.
NOTES
106.
HEFELE.
107.
(Hist. Councils, Vol. iv., p. 336.)
108.
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.
109.
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.
110.
XII.
111.
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.
112.
XIII.
113.
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.
114.
XIV.
115.
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 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.
116.
EXCURSUS ON THE XV. ANATHEMAS AGAINST ORIGEN.
117.
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.
118.
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.
119.
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.
120.
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?
121.
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:
122.
"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.
123.
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)
124.
125.
THE ANATHEMAS AGAINST ORIGEN.
126.
127.
IF anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence
of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let
him be anathema.
128.
II.
129.
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.
130.
III.
131.
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.
132.
IV.
133.
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,.
134.
V.
135.
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.
136.
VI.
137.
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.
138.
VII.
139.
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 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.
140.
VIII.
141.
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.
142.
IX.
143.
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.
144.
X
145.
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.
146.
XI.
147.
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.
148.
XII.
149.
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.
150.
XIII.
151.
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.
152.
XIV.
153.
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.
154.
XV.
155.
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.
156.
157.
THE ANATHEMATISMS OF THE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN AGAINST
ORIGEN.(1)
158.
159.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. v.,
col. 677.)
160.
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.
161.
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.
162.
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.
163.
IV.
164.
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.
165.
V.
166.
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.
167.
VI.
168.
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.
169.
VII.
170.
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.
171.
VIII.
172.
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.
173.
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.
174.
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.
175.
176.
THE DECRETAL EPISTLE OF POPE VIGILIUS IN CONFIRMATION
OF THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD.
177.
HISTORICAL
NOTE.
178.
(Fleury. Hist. Eccl., Liv. xxxiii. 52.)
179.
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
180.
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."
Comments
Post a Comment