Three-Chapter Controversy
(Schism of the Three
Chapters)
The Three Chapters (trîa kephálaia), a phase in the Monophysite controversy, was an attempt to reconcile the Christians of Syria and Egypt with Western Christendom, following the failure of the Henotikon. The Three Chapters consisted of propositions anathematizing:
-
the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia;
-
certain writings of Theodoret of Cyrus;
-
the letter of Ibas to Maris in Persia.
Background
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 I 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 subscription
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 resistance. 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 Iudicatum. 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 Greece 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 Iudicatum
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 schism in the West
The bishops of Aquileia, Milan, and of the
Istrian peninsula 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 served to deepen 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 Roman 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 Patriarch of Aquileia.
Its effect in the East
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.
Its later effect
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: Three Chapters, but with significant changes.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Chapter_Controversy
|
|
The Istrian Schism
by Darko Darovac
From:
A Historical Outline of Istria
In the middle and in
the second half of the 6th century, above all because of the
caesaro-papism of Justinian and of the efforts for unity within
the Church, the church of Aquileia (and initially also that of
Milan and of most of the churches in the West) split away from
Rome and from Constantinople. It was a movement not founded on
differences of dogma, that is on "heresy", but rather a
manifestation of the desire to protect internal autonomy.
Various internal and
external political factors contributed to the spread and duration
of the schism in Istria. International factors manifested
themselves principally in the continuous quarrelling and tests of
strength between the Byzantine and Lombard States in the upper
Adriatic, after the former was left only with the territory of
Istria and the narrow coastal strip between Aquileia and the
rapidly expanding town in the Venetian lagoon. Contemporary
chroniclers defined the Byzantine territories in the upper
Adriatic, from the adminIstrative point of view, simply as Istria.
Meanwhile the Franks, a danger to both States, were coming
threateningly close to these territories.
Internal political
events were reflected mainly in the continuous rivalry and clashes
between the patriarchate of Aquileia and that of Grado for
metropolitan power over Istria, until at the council of Mantua of
827 it was assigned to the patriarchate of Aquileia. The
establishment and at the same time the separation of the
patriarchate of Grado from that of Aquileia took place in 568 when
the first head of the schismatics, Paulinus, bishop of Aquileia,
fleeing from the advancing Lombards took refuge in Grado bringing
with him the treasures of the church. The patriarchs of Grado for
some time regarded themselves as the legitimate heirs of the
patriarchs of Aquileia, seeing that the latter resided at Cormons
and later at Cividale and Udine, that is to say always in Lombard
territory. They used them to provoke dissension in the Byzantine
State and in Istria, which was entrusted to the patriarchate of
Grado.
There was also
significant pressure from the Pope, who in the last decades of the
6th century succeeded, with the help of Byzantium, in breaching
the formerly tight ranks of the schismatic bishops. However, in
590 at the 'Synod of the Ten Bishops', held at Marano in Byzantine
territory, the schismatic bishops readmitted to their ranks the
patriarch of Aquileia, Severus. He, together with the three
Istrian bishops of Trieste, Poreč and Cissa, had revoked his
adhesion to the schism because of pressures and violence from the
Byzantine authorities in Ravenna, but now he again joined it.
Lastly one must not
forget that danger from the Avars and Slavs, which forced the
Christian communities of today's Slovenian zones to emigrate to
the more secure provinces under Byzantine rule, was also an
important factor. Almost certainly the politico-religious crisis
in the cities of northern Istria (most of the bishops of Pula did
not adhere to the schism) was linked to the arrival of (?catholic)
refugees from the continental hinterland. This vigorous and
unpleasant test of strength, which did not abate till after the
decline of the Lombard State at the end of the 7th century, is
demonstrated by what happened to the catholic bishop Johannes who
came from Pannonia and in 599 (or a little earlier), was named
bishop of Novigrad/Cittanova ('New Castle'; in late Latin sources
also Neapolis or 'New City', in medieval sources Emon(i)a and
Civitas Nova), only to be thrown out later by the schismatic
bishop Severus. There were similar controversies in Koper. In this
city (which for ecclesiastical purposes was united with Novigrad)
the patriarch Severus expelled Johannes the bishop of Novigrad,
and appointed as bishop a schismatic whose name is not known. But
the new bishop, together with the citizenry, soon turned to
Catholicism and broke off relationships with the schismatics. More
evidence of this struggle is to be found in Trieste where Bishop
Firminus turned catholic in 602, although the schismatic patriarch
inspired much resistance in the population.
|
