| Table of contents |
|
2 The Subscription 3 The Schism in the West 4 Its Effect in the East 5 Its Later Effect |
At a very early stage of the controversy the incriminated writings themselves came to be spoken of as the "Three Chapters". In consequence those who refused to anathematize these writings were said to defend the Three Chapters, and accused of professing Nestorianism; and, vice versa, those who anathematized them, to condemn the Three Chapters, and likewise heretical.
At the end of 543 or the beginning of 544 the Emperor Justinian issued an edict in which the three works were anathematized, in hope of encouraging the Monophysites to accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Pope Leo I, thus bringing religious harmony to the Byzantine Empire. However, Evagrius (Hist. eccl., IV, 28) tells us that Theodorus Ascidas, the leader of the Origenists, had raised the question of the Three Chapters to divert Justinian from a persecution of his fellow doctrinists. Liberatus (Breviarium, c. 24) adds that Ascidas wished to take revenge on the memory of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had written much against Origen. In his letter to Vigilius, Domitian, Bishop of Ancyra, tells the same story of intrigue.
Although Roman Catholic canonists admit that theological errors, and in the case of Theodore very serious ones, can be found in the writings, the mistakes of Theodoret and Ibas were chiefly but not wholly due to a misunderstanding of the language of Cyril of Alexandria. However these errors do not make the decision of condemnation easy, for there were no good precedents for dealing harshly with the memory of men who had died in peace with the Church. Facundus, Bishop of Hermiane, pointed out in his Defensio trium capitulorum that Saint Cyprian had erred about the rebaptism of heretics, yet no one would dream of anathematizing him. The condemnation was not demanded to crush a perceived heresy, but to conciliate implacable enemies of the Council of Chalcedon. Both Ibas and Theodoret had been deprived of their bishoprics by condemned heretics, and both had been restored by the Council of Chalcedon upon anathematizing Nestorius.
The leading Eastern bishops were coerced, after a short resistance, into subscribing. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Pope disapproved of it. Stephen and Dacius, Bishop of Milan, who was then at Constantinople, broke off communion with him. Zoilus the Patriarch of Alexandria, Ephraim the Patriarch of Antioch, and Peter the Patriarch of Jerusalem, all yielded after a brief resistence. Of the other bishops those who subscribed were rewarded, those who refused were deposed or had to "conceal themselves" (Liberatus, Brev., 24; Facundus, Def., II, 3 and Cont. Moc.).
While the resistance of the Greek-speaking bishops collapsed, those from the Latin-speaking world, such as Dacius of Milan and Facundus, who were then at Constantinople, stood firm. Their general attitude is represented in two letters still extant. The first is from an African bishop named Pontianus, in which he entreats the emperor to withdraw the Three Chapters on the ground that their condemnation struck at the Council of Chalcedon. The other is that of the Carthaginian deacon, Ferrandus; his opinion as a most learned canonist was asked by the Roman deacons Pelagius (afterwards pope, at this time a strong defender of the Three Chapters) and Anatolius. He fastened on the epistle of Ibas - if this was received at Chalcedon, to anathematize it now was to condemn the council. An even stronger use of the benevolence of the council towards this epistle was made by Facundus at one of the conferences held by Pope Vigilius before he issued his Judicatum. He wished it to protect the memory of Theodore of Mopsuestia because Ibas had spoken of him in terms of commendation (Cont. Moc.). When Vigilius arrived at Constantinople in January of 547, Italy, Africa, Sardinia, Sicily, and the parts of Illyricum and Hellas through which he journeyed were fiercely against the condemnation of the Three Chapters.
The matter was further complicated by the fact that the Latin-speaking bishops, Vigilius among them, were for the most part ignorant of Greek and therefore unable to judge the incriminated writings for themselves. Pelagius II in his third epistle to Elias, probably drawn up by the future Gregory I, ascribes all the trouble to this ignorance. This handicap should be remembered in judging the conduct of Vigilius. He came to Constantinople very resolute in his opinions, and his first step was to excommunicate Mennas. But he must have felt the ground was being cut from under his feet when he was supplied with translations of some of the most questionable passages from the writings of Theodore. In 548 he issued his Judicatum in which the Three Chapters were condemned, then temporarily withdrew it when the storm it raised showed how ill-prepared the Latins were for it. He and Justinian agreed to convening a general council, in which Vigilius pledged himself to bring about the condemnation of the Three Chapters, but the emperor broke his pledge by issuing another edict condemning the Chapters. Vigilius had twice to take sanctuary, first in the Basilica of St. Peter, and then in the Church of St. Euphemia at Chalcedon, from which he issued an Encyclical letter describing the treatment he had received. An agreement was patched up and Vigilius agreed to a general council but soon withdrew his assent. Nevertheless, the council was held, and after refusing to accept the "Constitutum" of Vigilius, it then condemned the Three Chapters. Finally Vigilius succumbed, subscribed to the council, and was set free. But he died before reaching Italy, leaving his successor Pelagius the task of dealing with the schisms in the West.
The bishops of Aquileia, Milan, and of the Istrian pennisula all refused to condemn the Three Chapters, and excommunicated the Popes for their subscription. Since these bishops were subjects of the Lombards, they were beyond the reach of both the Pope and the Exarch at Ravenna, and maintained their dissent into the 7th century. The see of Milan renewed communion with Rome when its bishop Fronto died about 581. As he had fled from the Lombards to refuge at Genoa, his successor was dependent upon the Byzantines for support, and was induced to subscribe to the condemnation.
On the death of Severus, the Archbishop of Aquileia in 607, the Byzantines made a vain attempt to install a favorable prelate in that office, which only severed to deep the schism along Lombard-Roman lines. Columbanus was involved in the first attempt to resolve this division through mediation in 613.
The remaining primates ended the schism only after the Lombards embraced Catholicism in the 7th century, formally at the Synod of Aquileia in 698. This extended period of independence contributed to the evolution of the independent Patriarch of Venice from the Archbishop of Aquileia.
For all of Justinian's intents, this edict was of negligible effect in the East. In the decades following Justinian's death, the local Christians were more concerned for their safety in the wars first against a resurgent Persia, then next against Islamic Arabs, who came to permanently control the territories beyond the Taurus Mountains in the 630s. The Christians in those regions either adhered to the edicts proclaimed in Constantinople and Rome, stubbornly held to their own Monophysite beliefs, or converted to Islam.
This event is one of several often cited to refute the concept of Papal Infallibility, that holds the proclamations made by the Pope on doctrine are without error.
This article uses text from the Catholic Encyclopedia, but with significant changes.Background
The Subscription
The Schism in the West
Its Effect in the East
Its Later Effect