After Justinian

The failure of Justinian’s attempt to bring about religious unity in the East was not merely a political one.

Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD 450 – 680, John Meyendorff

Neither theological arguments nor coercion could overcome the deep distrust of the masses in Syria and Egypt regarding Chalcedon. This distrust, according to Meyendorff, was planted in the people by the first opponents of the Council.

I am not sure I agree with this view by Meyendorff, as the bishops at Chalcedon who opposed the Council knew that when they returned home, they would be killed if they agreed to the Chalcedonian definition. In other words, the masses didn’t need their bishops to sour their appetite.

In any case, in the decades since Chalcedon, many attempts were made at coming to some sort of reconciliation. Western historians generally resent these concessions and overtures, seeing them all as a betrayal of Chalcedon, and, inherently, a repudiation of Leo’s authority and his Tome.

Meyendorff has tried to demonstrate that such betrayal did not occur; I have generally stayed out of trying to parse the arguments he has made, as the details are secondary to my purpose. Meyendorff sees that the mysteries of the Incarnation could be expressed in different terminologies – and, as we have seen, the terms used did not have consistent definitions nor were they understood the same way by all participant.

Following is a list of some of the necessities, clarifications, and concessions made during the years after Chalcedon:

· Cyrillian terminology was needed to exclude Nestorianism.

· Chalcedon was necessary as a barrier to Eutyches.

· The term Theotokos and the inclusion of the Theopaschite formulas were included in confessional and liturgical texts, offering evidence that Cyril was not disavowed by Chalcedon.

· The Chalcedonian “in two natures” did not invalidate the Cyrillian “of two natures.”

· The formula of Severus of Antioch, admitting the distinction of “two natures” in Christ but only “mentally” corresponded to the faith of the Church.

These positions were endorsed at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, some one hundred years after Chalcedon.

Was the opposition then based on cultural, national, and ethnic factors only? Were doctrinal issues artificially used, as cover for the cultural separatism of Syrians, Armenians, and Copts, and their hatred for the Greeks and the Byzantine empire?

Cultural differences played a role, but not decisively. We have seen why on purely Christological grounds the non-Chalcedonians had a point. But why, after 553, did the opposition remain, given the above list of concessions? Meyendorff identifies the conservatism of the masses and their distrust of a vacillating ecclesiastical leadership. Of course, time also had a way of making more important the cultural and national issues (as well as violence perpetrated by one side or the other).

The “Monophysite” position consisted essentially in a sort of “Cyrillian fundamentalism” which allowed no compromise at all.

Meyendorff sees that a “catholic” (universal) Church had to leave room for different terminologies expressing the same thing. By allowing no compromise, the Monophysites were deliberately moving toward sectarianism.

Here again, I will take a somewhat different view. It was immediately understood at Chalcedon that all sides accepted Cyril, yet there was disagreement regarding the acceptance of the Chalcedonian definition. Had this been dealt with immediately, or in the next years – before time had hardened positions – perhaps the issues could have been resolved. Further, throughout much of the period after Chalcedon, it was Rome that would accept no compromise.

In any case, there was no immediate split (as we have seen from this and other studies). Ultimately, Meyendorff identifies two factors which contributed to the perpetuation of the schism: a separate, parallel, Monophysite church (with Theodosius under the court’s protection in Constantinople, which continued to hold hope of reconciliation), and the internal divisions of the Monophysites.

By the end of the sixth century, just in Egypt there were twenty distinct Monophysite groups, each claiming canonical purity. Problematic when it came time to negotiate. Increasingly, the moderates, represented by Theodosius and Severus, were distrusted by the masses. In any case, they accepted no formulas that differed from that of Cyril.

In 571, Justin II published a program addressed to all Christians – a “Neo-Chalcedonian” theology: orthodox Christology can be expressed in both Cyrillian and Chalcedonian languages. It was a program designed to agree on substance, not terminology; prior excommunications could be revisited. Even this was not sufficient for union.

When examining the specifics of the Syrian Monophysites, Meyendorff considers that it was only on the eve of the Persian invasion that confessional loyalties became interwoven with ethnicity:

…words such as “Syrian” and “Egyptian” turned into normal designations for opponents of Chalcedon, whereas the term “Greek,” more often than not, became synonymous with “Melkite” (the “emperor’s man”) and reflected Chalcedonian loyalty.

As for the Alexandrians and the Copts, they had a long tradition of intellectual and political strength on their side: Athanasius, Theophilus, and Cyril were giants not only in Alexandria but throughout Christendom. It was also a very wealthy community, with, for example, thousands of pounds of gold held in the bishop’s house. Eventually the Persian, but especially the Muslim, conquest of Egypt cemented the schism with Constantinople.

Armenian and Syrian Christians suffered from the age-long competition between Persia and Rome. We have studied before how these communities were on the borderlands between the two empires, often divided between the two.

Armenians, from the beginning of national acceptance of Christianity, made it an integral part of the life of their nation. Their local councils consisted of their bishops and the aristocratic clan leaders – an example of uniting religious, political, and cultural norms. This unity was necessary to survive, as the eastern part of Armenian was under the rule of the Zoroastrian Persians.

Meyendorff cites the necessity of demonstrating loyalty to the Persians as one reason the Armenians rejected Chalcedon – in other words, to demonstrate that the Armenians were not connected to Constantinople and Rome. I have elsewhere read something along these lines, although at the same time there were many Armenians on the Greek side of the divide that also rejected Chalcedon.

In any case, the Armenians in Persia had other options if their objective was for distance from Constantinople: Nestorianism was a more viable possibility, given that the Syrians in Persia held to this theology – and the pressure by the Syrians on the Armenians was immense. In fact, one reason for the creation of the Armenian alphabet in the fifth century was to escape the need to rely on Syrian, hence Nestorian, texts.

Armenians did not attend Chalcedon and, in fact, were in battle against the Persians in the same year, 451. No help would come from Byzantium – even though the communion was not yet broken!

In 505-506, the Armenian catholicos held a council at Dvin. At this council, Nestorianism was repudiated, a traditional Cyrillian confession affirmed, and they confirmed that “the Greeks, the Armenians, and the Georgians…have the same rule of faith.” This conformed essentially with Zeno’s Henotikon. In other words, even fifty-five years after Chalcedon, Armenians believed themselves to be in conformity with the orthodox Church – which, at the time, was believed to be represented by the Henotikon.

Some took this council to be an official rejection of Chalcedon by the Armenians, but there is no evidence of this in the synodal letter itself, only in a secondary personal letter -the authenticity of which is in question.

It is clear in 555 that the rejection of Chalcedon was official, along with condemnation of Eutyches, Nestorius, the Three Chapters, the Tome of Leo, and, also, Severus of Antioch (a saint for the Coptic Church) – in the latter’s case, for his doctrine of “corruptibility” of Christ’s body.

What we see are theological, historical, cultural and political factors involved regarding the official position of the Armenians in Persia. At the same time, Armenians in the Byzantine Empire held a social position second only to the Greeks. Two of the greatest generals of Justinian’s time, Belisarius and Nerses, were Armenian. Emperors Maurice and Heraclius, as well as several of their successors, were also Armenian. Of course, in these cases, they belonged to the official orthodox Chalcedonian Church.

Conclusion

Meanwhile, there was the Nestorian Church, extending from Syria, to Persia, and to points further east. This Church expanded to India, lasting there until the Portuguese conquest of the late fifteenth century, and there is even evidence for it in China. (I have written several posts in the history of this Church, found here under the author “Philip Jenkins.”)

The modern history of this church is tragic. Designated “Assyrians,” their numbers were greatly reduced by Western proselytism (hence the Chaldean Church united with Rome), and through massacres perpetrated by Muslim Kurds.

Epilogue

In the East, some form of structural and theological unity was lacking – maybe even not possible. This was not to be the case in the West, as shall be reviewed in the next post.