The Three Chapters…

…and Justinian’s Legacy

We have already noted that the Monophysite opposition against Chalcedon never stopped accusing the council of Nestorianism…

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

I have covered this controversy, as well as the subsequent fifth council of 553 in the past, so, in this post, I will only include material that was not presented in my earlier reviews.

As a reminder, these Three Chapters were anathemas against the persons and / or writings of Theodore Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa. These were all problematic to the Monophysites, yet were accepted or rehabilitated at Chalcedon.

The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia had been characterized already in 435 by Proclus of Constantinople in his authoritative Tome to the Armenians, as a “weak spider web” and “words written without water.”

This was written in response to the request by the Armenians who were finding some ideas of Theodore and Nestorius coming into some of their clergy. Even in 520, Emperor Justin I would find Theodoret as a man “everywhere accused of error of faith,” along with Theodore and Nestorius. Yet, the Three Chapters involved men who had died in full communion with the Church. Even though Origen was anathematized after his death, it was not a bridge easily crossed.

Rome would see in this another plot to delegitimize Chalcedon. We have already gone into detail about the pressure put on Pope Vigilius to deliver the West into accepting the Three Chapters – he was stuck between the majority of the Western flock and the threats of imperial retaliation. Vigilius attempted to walk a middle line. This would eventually lead to the fifth council, at Constantinople in 553.

The eighth session of the council concluded many decisive points: it endorsed the first four councils, it affirmed the Cyrillian interpretation of Chalcedon, the Theopaschite formulae were used, the twelve anathemas against Nestorius were approved. Further, the Cyrillian formula, “one nature incarnate of God the Word,” was mentioned as legitimate, as long as the “two natures” language of Chalcedon was also accepted.

Finally, the Three Chapters were dealt with in accord with the form given by Justinian: against the person of Theodore, and to writings of Theodoret and Ibas.

Meanwhile, Vigilius continued to vacillate….

In any case, many of these points would have been acceptable to those who rejected Chalcedon if they were made at Chalcedon or shortly thereafter. But now, more than one hundred years later, and after significant violence against them, such goodwill and trust were no longer on the table.

To gain acceptance of this fifth council, Justinian employed drastic measures – bishops exiled or deposed, others went into hiding.

In any case, we now come to Justinian’s legacy. It is easy for us today to look at his role as that of the state interfering in the Church. This would be anachronistic. He and his wife saw the Christological issues as essential to the well-being of society. In this, he saw his responsibility as a Christian emperor.

He did not see himself as infallible, and he did rely on the work of learned bishops and theologians. Yet, it was his responsibility to keep peace in his Christian empire. Less defendable was his use of coercion and Theodora’s deceptive diplomacy; yet these were characteristics of the Byzantine system more than these were somehow unique to this couple.

Some see in Justinian a “zig-zag” quality in his policies. Meyendorff is more charitable, finding the zig-zag in his tactics and methods, but not in substance. Justinian felt it was wrong to interpret Chalcedon as a disavowal of Cyril, yet, as we know, both those for and those against Chalcedon saw Cyril in their position and a betrayal of Cyril in the position of the other.

Meanwhile, those who were “Nestorian” (actually the teaching was that of Theodore of Mopsuestia), left the empire for Persia.

Conclusion

Perhaps the most striking way to remember Justinian is through his building projects: the church of San Vitale in Ravenna, the monastery on the Sinai Peninsula now known as the monastery of St. Catherine, and, most importantly, the “Great Church,” St. Sophia in Constantinople.

Originally built by Constantine, it burned down in 404. Rebuilt, it was them destroyed again during the Nika Rebellion in 532. It was totally rebuilt and consecrated on Christmas Day in 537. It remained the largest church in Christendom until the twelfth century, and was the spiritual center of Eastern Orthodoxy until the fall of Byzantium.

Epilogue

Meyendorff includes a short section on the Origenistic controversies. A one comment from this section is worth noting:

The theology of Origen had been controversial in his lifetime and had remained so ever since. … Without his decisive influence, the achievements of the great Cappadocian Fathers of the fourth century would have been unthinkable.

The reasons for this are not further explained. The main point of this short section was that some Origenistic theologians thought that Origen’s Christological ideas might be useful to resolve the disputes of the time. Justinian and his advisors thought otherwise.