Introduction
The position of the Oriental Orthodox Churches with regard to the latter councils of the Eastern Orthodox seems one of positive rejection of Chalcedon[1], and a studied non-commitment with regard to Constantinople II, Constantinople III and Nicaea II. The Second Agreed Statement of the Joint Commission refers to these councils in Section 8, which says,
“Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage. In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 are the teachings also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.
In relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice of the veneration of icons taught by that Council are in basic agreement with the teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that we have no disagreement in this regard.”[2]
This statement allows us to legitimately engage with the Eastern Orthodox on the basis of their own present understanding and interpretation of these latter councils. We are permitted to respond positively to the Eastern Orthodox description of them as to be taken in every sense in accordance with the three councils which we accept.
Further than that, we are permitted to express the view that the Nicaea II is in ‘basic agreement’ with the teaching of our own Orthodox Church. Of course the statement also makes the judgement, synodically approved by our own bishops, that,
“In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.”[3]
So the position of the Oriental Orthodox may be taken as being that we consider the Eastern Orthodox to be truly Orthodox and to have maintained the same faith which we confess. We may read and study their later councils with their own understanding and interpretations in mind as theological documents and need not take them only in an historical sense as documents associated with particular theological controversy. We may also positively recognise where there is agreement with our Orthodox faith in these councils, as the holy bishops of our Churches have already illustrated in their comments about Nicaea II.
The ‘Proposals for lifting Anathemas’[4], issued at Chambesy by the Joint Commission suggest that the lifting of our own anathemas against the teachers and fathers of the Eastern Orthodox such as Leo of Rome will be performed on the basis of an understanding of them as being Orthodox in the intent of their teachings, however ambiguous or controversial those teachings may have become. This means that even though we may never accept either the Tome of Leo, or the Council of Chalcedon, as authoritative, yet we are able to accept them as being at least liable of an Orthodox explanation on the basis of the Eastern Orthodox interpretation of these documents as being in accordance with the first three councils.
It is perhaps well known that the council held at Constantinople in 553 AD re-introduced a more traditional Christological terminology to exclude those who were seeking to promote Chalcedon as supportive of Nestorius.[5] This council has been understood to mark an important point of development for modern Eastern Orthodox Christology and its greater Cyrilline content may be a useful means of understanding how it is possible to interpret Chalcedon in an Orthodox manner, the possibility of which the Agreed Statement has already made clear. Those heretics, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa were at last condemned, even though they had been excommunicated by our own fathers at the council of Ephesus in 449 AD. More than any other of these latter councils we might expect to find some degree of agreement. At this early period the Eastern Orthodox councils had not yet introduced explicit anathemas against St Dioscorus and St Severus which complicate some of the other councils.[6]
Our Oriental Orthodox Churches are at the forefront of an honest ecumenical activity that does not skate around the most difficult and controversial matters. Yet the constant criticism of many Eastern Orthodox is that the Oriental Orthodox continue to reject the seven councils, that is the latter four councils of course. It seems reasonable that, without going as far as according any special status to any of these councils, nevertheless if it were possible to accept the theological documents, with necessary revisions, in our Holy Synods as being at least liable of an Orthodox interpretation then this would be of great benefit to the prayerful efforts being made to reconcile the Eastern Orthodox with our own Orthodox Churches. Such a process would not in any way commit our Orthodox Churches to the acceptance of these councils as being ecumenical, or indeed changing our traditional negative stance towards the historical events themselves.
A brief historical review of the context of this council at Constantinople suggests that it was the intent of the Emperor Justinian, inspired by the true devotion of the Orthodox Empress Theodora, to bring about a measure of unity within the Empire by the final and authoritative rejection of the Christology represented in these controversial documents, which came to be known as the Three Chapters. Once the council has been placed in historical perspective a review of the dogmatic Statement and the Canons of the council will also enable us to consider how far these documents might be able to be accepted in to the Oriental Orthodox.
Historical Background
When the council of Constantinople opened on the 5th May, 553 AD. those Orthodox who had rejected the proceedings of the council of Chalcedon, some 100 years previously, had already been forced by persecution and circumstance to establish a separate communion and apostolic succession. This had not been necessary until the decades after 518 AD. when the non-Chalcedonian Patriarchs who held the Sees of Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria had been forced into exile. Until that time the controversy concerning Chalcedon was played out within the Imperial Church, and much like modern democratic states the ecclesiastical position of each of the major sees swung first one way, and then another, depending on the theological and political approach of succeeding emperors.
Attempts had been made from time to time to reconcile the two parties of pro and anti-Chalcedonians. The last had been a series of conferences held in Constantinople in the years 532-535 AD. These conferences had taken place under the patronage of Emperor Justinian. His wife, Theodora, was an anti-Chalcedonian and constantly provided support to the Orthodox bishops and Churches. By 531 AD it was clear to Justinian that the harsh and repressive measures used by his predecessor Justin I had completely failed to eliminate the Orthodox who rejected Chalcedon. Indeed, Theodora had used her influence even before her husband became emperor to help many anti-Chalcedonian Orthodox monks and nuns who had been cast out of their monasteries even during the depths of winter, forced to wander and perish in the wilderness.
In 531 AD there were riots in Antioch caused by the persecution directed against the anti-Chalcedonian Orthodox by the Chalcedonian Patriarch Ephraim. When the persecution was suspended[7] Justinian and Theodora invited eight of the anti-Chalcedonian bishops to come to Constantinople. They came with 500 monks and were housed in the Hormisdas Palace, next door to the Great Palace, and the Church of St Sergius and Bacchus was constructed, or at least made available, for their worship. The Empress visited them every two or three days and on occasion the Emperor Justinian also came to speak with them.
In the Spring of the following year a three-day conference was held in which five bishops of each side debated the controversial matters which perpetuated their division. Neither side could accommodate the other’s view of the Tome of Leo and no agreement was reached. In the next year Justinian published his own confession of faith which managed to exclude any mention of the Tome of Leo. It seemed that the Emperor was now committed to the peaceful reconciliation of the Orthodox who rejected Chalcedon, rather than their persecution. In fact, he proposed merely that Chalcedon should be accepted only as far as the expulsion of Eutyches and that the Definitio need not be accepted at all.
In the record of this conference Justinian’s offer is noted in the words,
Would [the following conditions], perhaps, be acceptable to them: they might anathematize Diodore, Theodore, Theodoret, Ibas, Nestorius and Eutyches, and accept the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril, while anathematizing what had been written against them; they might confess one nature of God the Word incarnate, but they should refrain from anathematizing those who speak of two natures after the inexpressible union, [anathematizing] instead those who hold Nestorian views and divide up Christ into two natures… They should accept the council at Chalcedon as far as the expulsion of Eutyches was concerned, but they need not accept the definition of the faith made there; they should cease their anathema of the Tome of Leo; and the libelli of the Romans should not be suspended.[8]
Justinian and Theodora then invited Severus from his exile in Egypt. He reached Constantinople in the winter of 534 AD. The Patriarch Severus was introduced to the new Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople. Anthimus was so impressed and convinced by Severus’ presentation of the Orthodox faith that he also came to reject the council of Chalcedon as flawed.
At about the same time Timothy, Patriarch of Alexandria and a Chalcedonian, died and Theodora took the opportunity to place Theodosius, a disciple of Severus, on the Patriarchal throne. Unfortunately, far from marking the restoration of the anti-Chalcedonian fortunes the enthronement of Theodosius ended up in a riot and the Julianist party in Egypt installed their own Patriarch, Gaianus. Despite receiving political support from Theodora and Justinian, Theodosius was forced to retire to Constantinople where he lived under the Empress’ protection, and then that of Justinian, until he died after 548 AD.
These three active opponents of Chalcedon, with the constant assistance of the Empress Theodora hoped to make some headway against the Chalcedonian ascendancy in the Empire. Anthimus wrote to Severus and Theodosius expressing his willingness to restore communion on the basis of the three councils, and the Henotikon of Zeno, interpreted as condemning Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. Severus and Theodosius were both in agreement with this doctrinal basis, including the Twelve Anathemas of St Cyril. The Emperor himself was impressed with Severus and had received him ‘in a friendly manner’.[9] There was the possibility, for a short while, that anti-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy might recover its fortunes. Indeed, had the Emperor thought entirely as his wife did then this must have almost certainly been the case.
Justinian was actively engaged in trying to restore control of the Italian peninsular with the aid of Belisarius fighting against the Ostrogoths. He could not be seen to alienate the Chalcedonians, and with the arrival of Pope Agapetus in 536 AD as ambassador for the Ostrogoths he took decisive action.[10] Patriarch Anthimus was deposed and together with Severus he was exiled by Imperial command. Grillmeier expresses the opinion of any unbiased student of this Endemousa Synod which condemned Severus, Anthimus and others when he says, ‘The four accused were unjustly placed in a retinue of the heresies of Eutyches, Nestorius and Manes’.[11] Within the Empire the works of Severus were to be destroyed, and neither Patriarch was to dwell in any major city. In fact, Theodora intervened again and Anthimus spent the rest of his days in the palace with Theodosius of Alexandria, and Severus returned safely to Egypt where he died in 538 AD.
By this time Justinian had taken a firmly and decidedly Chalcedonian position, rejecting even the acceptability of the mia-physis formula and insisting that in fact St Cyril had always and everywhere spoken of two natures. He also made clear that he considered physis to be synonymous with ousia and hypostasis to be synonymous with prosopon. By defining these terms to suit his own understanding he could easily condemn those who rejected Chalcedon for holding a false Christology. Never unwilling to use force when it was required edicts were issued which forbade those who believed with Severus to even worship together under threat of severe penalties.
In 541 AD al-Harith, the sheikh of the Ghassanid tribe of Saracens, was in Constantinople on business, and approached Theodora, seeking bishops. Theodosius consecrated two monks, one of whom was Jacob Baradeus and the other Theodore, as Metropolitans of Edessa and Bostra respectively. Until this time there had been some hesitancy on the part of Theodosius to establish a separate apostolic succession and communion among the Orthodox who rejected Chalcedon, but in fact Jacob Baradeus[12] consecrated and ordained many bishops and priests and established the anti-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy in the East where it had been under constant threat from a withering persecution.
The Emperor Justinian was certainly interested in the possibility of restoring ecclesiastical unity within the Empire. He continued to make some effort to reconcile the two parties, even though on occasion he could resort to force. In 544 AD he issued an edict condemning the Three Chapters, the writings of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ibas of Edessa and Theodore of Mopsuestia. He may well have hoped to show the anti-Chalcedonian Orthodox that the Imperial position was not one in support of Nestorius. Certainly it was not his intention to diminish the authority of Chalcedon in any way.[13] But by the time that the Council of Constantinople took place in 553 AD he seems to have abandoned the thought of reconciling the anti-Chalcedonians to his Imperial Church, though he clearly wished to avoid making things worse, and believed that he needed to show at least that those who supported Chalcedon were not Nestorians. The purpose of the council became, by necessity, rather an attempt at reconciling those Chalcedonians in the West who believed he had already undermined the authority of Chalcedon by his statements and actions over the preceding decade.
In the West, Vigilius was now Pope, and he was forced by the opposition of North Africa and Italy to refuse to accept the edict. His own clergy urged him not to condemn the Three Chapters and he received numerous petitions from the African Church.[14]
The Imperial Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch had only given their conditional support to this edict, pending the approval of the Pope of Rome, Vigilius. But when Vigilius was brought to Constantinople in 547 AD he nevertheless broke off communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Then he found himself able to make a private statement against the Three Chapters. The Emperor allowed him to call a council of bishops to discuss the matter but Vigilius was forced to break up this meeting as one of his Latin bishops eloquently defended Ibas against any censure. Finally, in 548 AD, he issued a public condemnation, his Iudicatum, which incensed the West, so much so that the North Africans excommunicated him, failed to placate the anti-Chalcedonians since it was careful to preserve the language of that council, and caused even the Pope’s own fellow bishops in Italy to desert him. The Emperor and Pope decided to withdraw both edict and Iudicatum in 550 AD until a representative council could be called at Constantinople.
The Emperor broke his silence the following year and issued another edict. This time the Pope responded by excommunicating Askidas, the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who constantly had the Emperor’s ear. The Emperor responded by attempting to arrest the Pope and a riot broke out. The Pope managed to escape across the Bosphorus to Chalcedon. After only a little reflection Justinian realised that he needed to repair his relationship with Vigilius, and there was much coming and going of bishops and emissaries, smoothing things over. The new edict was withdrawn and Vigilius consented to a council at Constantinople being called. But over the next two years there was constant vacillation on the part of Vigilius, who one moment spoke in support of a council and then objected, until finally refusing to have anything to do with it.
When the council opened, without the Pope of Rome, it began by reading the documents in question while the bishops present expressed their condemnation of them. Vigilius, on the contrary, issued his own Constitutum in which the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia – but not his person – were condemned, and the writings of Ibas and Theodoret were not condemned since Vigilius contended that they had been received as Orthodox at Chalcedon. This document was most unwelcome to Justinian who refused to present it to the council. Instead he handed to them all the documents in which Vigilius had condemned the Three Chapters over the preceding years and a decree requiring the excommunication of the Pope for his vacillation and failure to attend the council.
The bishops gathered together at the council condemned the Three Chapters, and their statement and canons will be studied shortly. But Vigilius and his successor Pelagius, failed to convince their Western brethren. Indeed, the Metropolia of Milan and Aquileia refused to have anything to do with the new Pope. Even when he confessed that he especially received the Orthodoxy of Ibas and Theodoret.
It seems reasonable to conclude that there were two parties within Chalcedonianism in evidence at the time of this controversy. In the first place there were those bishops who believed that Chalcedon had commended the writings of Ibas and Theodoret. These were especially evident in the West and in North Africa. On the contrary, the position of the Emperor, and those who agreed with him, was that Chalcedon had not received these writings and indeed that Theodore of Mopsuestia was worthy of anathema. It seems permissible for us to continue to debate whether Chalcedon had or had not done these things, but it is quite clear that from this time on the Eastern Orthodox themselves believed that Chalcedon had rejected the writings of Ibas and Theodoret and that they themselves rejected these writings together with the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia. As we read the Dogmatic Statement and Canons we must concede that these bishops, and Eastern Orthodoxy at this stage, had explicitly rejected for themselves one definition of Chalcedon, which may or may not have been historically accurate, and had confirmed a different definition, which has been preserved ever since.
When we deal with the Eastern Orthodox in the 21st century it must be on the basis of what they confess now, and indeed have done since this Council of Constantinople in 554 AD. It is not reasonable to judge their present faith on the basis of what might have been true of some or perhaps many Chalcedonians, but certainly not all, during the period between Chalcedon and Constantinople II. Indeed, the fact that the majority of bishops in the West believed that Chalcedon had exonerated Ibas and Theodoret and their writings suggests that the criticism made by our Fathers was entirely justified, there was indeed a party supporting Chalcedon who also accepted at least a semi-Nestorian Christology. But at Constantinople II this position is explicitly rejected and it is necessary for the anti-Chalcedonian Orthodox to bear this in mind as they study the documents produced at the time.
The Oriental Orthodox seem to be better able to exhibit a flexible approach in ecumenical contacts without ever allowing our Orthodox faith to suffer any loss. Perhaps we may be able to consider the ecumenical documents of the Eastern Orthodox, and without granting them ecumenical status we may be able to come to some measure of agreement, as far as we are able, where the Eastern Orthodox find themselves unable to move by the weight of their own historical understanding of the controversial period. The prayer of Christ, ‘that they may be one’, should impress itself on us all. Is it the particular witness of our own Churches to go the extra mile in these dialogues? Whatever has been said and done in the past it is always necessary for us to go further, work harder, give of ourselves more completely, for the sake of the Church and without doing harm to the faith.
We must now proceed to a careful study of the documents of this council. Each paragraph will be taken in turn and comments will be made as they seem appropriate. This process will then allow us to determine how completely it is in accord with our own Orthodox faith and how easily the text at least, leaving aside the ecumenicity and context of the council, could perhaps be approved by our own Holy Synod.
The Sentence of the Synod[15]
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[16], 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.
This paragraph seems entirely acceptable to any Oriental Orthodox. It is a Biblically based introduction to the main work of the Council. With historical insight this passage can be seen to relate to the position of Vigilius, who is the one who is seen to neglect to correct the impiety of others. As has already been described, Pope Vigilius had vacillated between a hesitant condemnation of at most the writings of the three accused persons and an unwillingness to even accuse them of any error since he considered Chalcedon to have received their persons and writings.
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.
This again may be read as a straightforward explanation of the role of the Holy Bishops of the Church. Indeed, in any council of the Oriental Orthodox this would be a more than acceptable Biblical reference to begin any deliberations. In the context of this council it is clear that the tares refer to those who were seeking to absolve Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas of any blame.
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.
It is not necessary for us to intrude all of the difficulties we may have relating to Chalcedon into this study. So we may read this statement, and indeed this passage, as if it were being presented to us fresh from the pen of an Eastern Orthodox bishop or council. We are seeking agreement within these documents only, as a first step. So we need not return to Chalcedon and find there the root of these controversies, at least not for now. Instead we find in this passage sentences with which we can surely be in complete agreement. It speaks of impious Theodore of Mopsuestia and his impious writings. It speaks of the wicked epistle of Ibas and the impious writings of Theodoret. How glad we should be that the Eastern Orthodox have come to an understanding of these things. Long before this council took place at Constantinople we had already condemned these writings and bishops at the council of Ephesus in 449 AD. We must surely leave aside the question of whether the Eastern Orthodox should have condemned these writings and persons earlier, what is of importance is that we find agreement in these condemnations as they are defined in this document.
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 the 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.
It seems that this historically based passage is also unobjectionable. It describes how Vigilius had in the past given his agreement to the Three Chapters and how the members of the council had urged him to participate so that a common statement might be composed. It also describes the fact that the issue of the Three Chapters; the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the writings of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa, were indeed still controversial and required being addressed.
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.”
This passage then follows on from the first and makes clear the scriptural allusion to the council of Jerusalem where unanimity had produced the sentence of the Apostles concerning those matters required of Gentile converts. There is nothing controversial in these words, and they are intended to stress the need for a unanimous rejection of the Three Chapters in the face of opposition from Vigilius and others.
But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy councils, following the example of the 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.
Here perhaps the anti-Chalcedonian Orthodox would wish to substitute three for four. It is not that there is a substantial difference in the content of the passage, we are agreed that the fathers have met together to reach agreement on controversial matters, but the status of the council of Chalcedon is one of these matters of controversy itself. We are not seeking by this exercise to find unanimity in all things therefore we must highlight those sentences and phrases that cannot be accepted without qualification. What should be noted is that while Justinian was able to produce other theological works in the preceding decade which did not always refer to Chalcedon, in the statements of the Council which he had carefully managed in advance, he wished to make it clear to all, and especially in the West, that he was a supporter of Chalcedon.
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.”
Again, the purpose of this passage is to urge the necessity of bishops coming together in synod to discuss the faith and preserve this Church. These passages have relation to the absence of Vigilius from the council. We are in agreement with these sentiments, they are wholly Orthodox. It is right and proper for brother bishops to help brother bishops.
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.”
Passage upon passage heaps up this thought of the Orthodoxy of councils and synods, and the anti-Chalcedonian Orthodox concur. Each of our own Churches holds such synods and even within living memory the Patriarchs of our sister Churches have met together with increasing frequency, and our Metropolitans and Bishops engage in constant conciliar and fraternal activity. How can we disagree with the very words of our Lord Himself?
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 them were holy fathers and doctors, handed down to the people credited to them.
Now we find ourselves coming to the meat of this statement. Once more the council makes the point that Vigilius had separated himself from their deliberations and the passage is phrased so that we may understand that at the very last, after every effort, the council was forced to commence without him.
The council begins to positively confess what is the basis of its faith. In the first place they confess that faith which the Lord handed to His Apostles and through them to the Holy Churches. We confess the same. By the time of this Council of Constantinople in 553 AD, both the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian communities had accepted the modifications to the Nicene creed which were adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. This can be seen from the references to this council in the writings of non-Chalcedonian Fathers over the preceding century.
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 Nicaea, 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 the 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 who 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.
We also confess the faith of the 318 fathers at Nicaea, and the 150 at Constantinople who explained and set forth that same faith and then indeed the 200 fathers who assembled at Ephesus. Now the references to Chalcedon are of course problematical. We do not hold Dioscorus condemned by the Council of Chalcedon and we are not convinced that all of the fathers of Chalcedon did indeed follow and teach what had been taught by the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus. And it seems reasonable to note that if there had been no issue at all with the proceedings which took place at Chalcedon then there would have been no need to hold this Council of Constantinople in 553 AD. This was the line that Justinian was attempting to follow, since those Chalcedonians who resisted his condemnation of the Three Chapters were also convinced that he was undermining Chalcedon itself. Yet his desire to deal with the Three Chapters seemed to indicate that Chalcedon had, at least, been inadequate and insufficient.
Now it will be necessary for us to make certain changes to this passage, before it is acceptable, since the issue of Chalcedon remains to be resolved. But it is clear that the Eastern Orthodox are stressing two points with which we may agree. Firstly, that the faith of the later councils must be based on that of the first three, and secondly that the Eastern Orthodox wish the latter councils to be understood with reference to the first three. The later councils, including Chalcedon and this second council of Constantinople, must be understood only in a manner which is consistent with the teaching of the Faith described in the first three Councils. We are in agreement with any and every effort to maintain the primacy of the first three councils and the fact that the Eastern Orthodox wish these latter councils to be understood in accordance with the same faith provides us with a means of bringing them into the boundaries of our own Orthodox faith. The terminology of some of these councils may be alien to us but if the Eastern Orthodox themselves confess that every word must be judged by the first three councils then we have a means of understanding how their own councils may be understood as being capable of an Orthodox interpretation.
We may read the surprise and indignation of these bishops with some surprise ourselves. Had they never been aware of the offence these documents had caused the Orthodox from the beginning? Nevertheless, we may be grateful that one hundred years later than our own fathers they became aware of the heretical nature of these writings, and with their anathematisms we may whole heartedly concur.
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.”
A passage now follows in which the prophecy of the prophet Hosea, is turned against Theodore of Mopsuestia. These must have been the same sentiments as felt by all of our holy Bishops from the time of St Cyril. Had the Chalcedonians never realised what he had written? That is altogether a different question, but what matters more is that the content of the Eastern Orthodox faith is explicitly not Nestorian, or Theodorian, from this council onwards. It is clear that at last they had come to share our own conclusions respecting the man and his writings. The purpose of this paper is to consider whether these texts can be received as Orthodox and consistent with our own Faith. It is therefore not necessary, with such an object, to determine whether or not Theodore of Mopsuestia should have properly been condemned much earlier. What matters is the substance of these words, this criticism of the teaching of Theodore, with which our Orthodox Church is in agreement.
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.
The condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia continues in this passage. Further prophecies are used against him. We are in complete agreement with this passage, indeed it could have been written, in other circumstances, by one of our own Orthodox bishops. Theodore rejected many of the prophetic allusions to Christ which the Church finds in the Holy Scriptures. He preferred to limit the interpretation of Scripture following a more narrowly historical approach, and it is on this basis that the statement from the Council of Constantinople speaks of him making the words of Scripture into fables and of him rejecting the words of the prophets.
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.
Again we may wonder why it took well over a hundred years for these things to become plain. They were clear to our own fathers. Nevertheless, in the context of this consideration of the sentence of this council we may agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments. It is possible for us to agree with these words, even while being in some disagreement about how and why it became necessary to write them. St Cyril and Proclus of Constantinople had been well aware of the error in the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Therefore, in the context of this text, it is possible and appropriate to agree with these words written against the writings and teachings of Theodore.
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.”
This passage is particularly relevant to the position of Vigilius of Rome. It was he who considered it unlawful to anathematise one who had died. It is clear that this passage should not be read back to the time of Chalcedon but is concerned with those who supported Theodore of Mopsuestia in the middle of the 6th century. We applaud the efforts of these bishops to come to the truth concerning Theodore. We should have no hesitancy in thanking God that he made plain the heresy of the man. Though we were not even present at this council we may still make this condemnation of the Mopsuestite our own, and accept this passage as representing our own Orthodox opinion. Proclus of Constantinople had already wished to condemn Theodore even before Chalcedon, and it was St Cyril who persuaded him that what was required was resistance to his teaching, not the immediate anathematising of his person. But there was most certainly a resistance to his teaching, as being the source of the error of Nestorius. His condemnation among the non-Chalcedonians was already well established by the authority of St Cyril himself. Therefore, we may certainly agree with this condemnation however it came about.
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.
This is again a clearly Orthodox passage. One who is anathematised, even though dead, is in fact one who has anathematised himself. It is the content of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s faith that separates him from ‘the true life’, not the sentence of the council as such. Indeed, as the council can only reflect the Orthodox faith, so its judgements can only ever reflect the reality of any person’s faith. We might conclude equally that one who has been verbally anathematised and yet is in reality no stranger to ‘the true life’, is not truly anathematised before God and when the error of those making such an anathema are made clear then his restitution is before men and not before God, who sees all and knows all.
For what have they to answer to the Apostle again when he says, “A man that is a heretic reject after the first and second corrections. Knowing that such a man is perverse, and sins, and is condemned by himself.”
Again this is teaching common to us all, based as it is on the very words of the Apostles themselves. We should not be afraid to confess our common faith when we find it presented even by the Eastern Orthodox in these most controversial documents. We do not seek unanimity and union without prayer and effort but if we are in agreement we should confess it gladly. The issue in focus during this study is not whether or not the Eastern Orthodox acted in error in history, but whether these texts of the Council of Constantinople can be accepted as being in accordance with our Orthodox Faith. It is not necessary to reflect on every aspect of the relation of Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians to be able to positively respond to this passage
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.
When this council confesses the words of our father among the saints St Cyril we can hardly dispute them. Even if we may believe that at times his Christology was badly handled and interpretations of his words were forced upon his writings by those who failed to comprehend them correctly. Nevertheless, we must return to this document and not to the whole history of our controversy with the Chalcedonians. We also confess one Lord Jesus Christ and condemn those who write or speak of two Sons and two Christs. Therefore, this passage must be considered wholly Orthodox according to our own measure of right belief.
There are undoubtedly some difficulties in understanding how it is that the words of St Cyril against Theodore of Mopsuestia are accorded such importance in 553 AD, and yet the condemnation of his followers was reversed at Chalcedon. Indeed, his disciples, Theodoret and Ibas were never even questioned about their devotion to Theodore. But such difficulties do not need to undermine an acceptance of this passage and others as being essentially Orthodox.
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 things 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 this 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.”
The substance of this passage is that the supporters of Theodore of Mopsuestia were not above taking passages from St Cyril and Proclus of Constantinople, and editing them outside of their context so that they appeared to defend him. This was a criticism many of our non-Chalcedonian Fathers made against other Chalcedonian controversialists. St Severus, for instance, in his work Philalathes, analyses in some detail the way in which writings of St Cyril were being used to say something other than what he had intended and what could be found by reading his work in context and as a whole.
We need not disagree with this, even if it seems that elsewhere the writings of St Cyril have been misused by others in defence of teachings he did not intend. But we can surely agree that Theodore was properly condemned by St Cyril and Proclus of Constantinople, and others, and that those who try to use their words to avoid such a condemnation of Theodore are in error.
When we had thus considered Theodore and his impiety, we took care to have recited 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 case of Theodoret, although he had been deposed by the Council of Ephesus 449 AD, he had been restored by the Council of Chalcedon. This was one of the major reasons for a continuing rejection of Chalcedon. If, as the Council of Constantinople states clearly here, his writings against the true faith were so manifest and explicit, so that there was no doubt that they deserved to be rejected, why was it that he was restored to his See simply by condemning Nestorius, and not on the basis of condemning Theodore of Mopsuestia? Why were none of his writings, which had caused him to be censured at Ephesus, not presented to be examined at Chalcedon? These are reasonable objections which were made from the beginning, but in regard to the acceptance of this text they need not prevent us agreeing with the content as it is presented, which is that the writings of Theodoret against St Cyril and the true faith are to be condemned.
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 saying 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?
The issue of the reception of Ibas of Edessa at Chalcedon, after his condemnation at Ephesus in 449 AD was also one of the most important stumbling blocks in the response to Chalcedon. He was well known as a supporter of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and had been translating and distributing his teachings in Syria. It seems clear that the Council of Constantinople is not concerned with defending Ibas, so much as defending Chalcedon from the accusation that it had received this letter to Maris the Persian as Orthodox. Justinian was the first to suggest that the letter had not been received, and that it was not by Ibas. Vigilius, the Pope of Rome, and the whole of the North African and most of the Western European Church were convinced that it was a letter of Ibas and that it had been received as Orthodox, and that therefore to condemn it was to condemn Chalcedon. Those who rejected Chalcedon on this very basis, and were non-Chalcedonian agreed entirely.
It is problematic to have history revised by a simple Imperial statement. Nevertheless, even this difficulty does not necessarily prevent the acceptance of this text as Orthodox in dogmatic character, even if there remain differences of opinion about historical events. We may agree completely that Ibas had properly been condemned. We may also agree that the teaching in the letter attributed to him is error. What matters most here is that there is a common view towards Ibas and the teachings he certainly supported, and those found in the letter of Maris. Whether or not in some other Council these were accepted is a secondary question entirely to this primary one, which is whether or not we agree in the condemnation from the time of the Council of Constantinople until the present, of these heretical views. This statement from the Council of Constantinople shows that this is the intent of the Eastern Orthodox who consider this council to be authoritative, and we know, as non-Chalcedonians, that we had always and everywhere rejected the teaching and condemned the person of Ibas of Edessa.
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.
If we review these several passages together we see that they have included a condemnation of the writings of Ibas of Edessa and Theodoret of Cyrrhus. This is commendable on the one hand because it once more makes clear that the fathers of the Eastern Orthodox had come to understand that the writings of St Cyril had been misused by those who wanted to preserve the teachings of Theodore and those with him. The fathers of this council clearly separate themselves from such as those. It is surely right that as these matters are considered by our Orthodox bishops we should accept the condemnations of these teachers and their writings as being sincere. There is nothing in this passage that should lead us to some other conclusion. We need not consider here the opinions of any of those who supported Chalcedon and yet also supported Theodore, or the writings of Theodoret and Ibas. This council puts these into the past and from this point the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox rejects any acceptance of these heretical teachings. We are engaged in a dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox as it is after these things had been determined. We may have may controversial and heated exchanges concerning the one hundred years between Chalcedon and Constantinople, but Constantinople definitely rejects the Three Chapters.
Now we may have some objection to the references in this place to the council of Chalcedon. Indeed, we may justifiably consider that at Chalcedon there was too much concession given to Theodoret, Ibas and the followers of Theodore. Perhaps it would be best to remove those phrases which refer to that council. Nevertheless, it seems that this council is more concerned with expressing its own faith and its own understanding of the controversial matters. It does not appear that the bishops were concerned to justify the condemnation of Dioscorus for instance. Their focus seemed entirely on explaining the presence of Theodoret and Ibas, and dealing with those among the Chalcedonians who pointed to Chalcedon as supporting Theodore of Mopsuestia. What this passage says is that even the Tome of Leo and the Definitio of Chalcedon can be understood in an Orthodox manner. It is not necessary to read them in accord with the Christology of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas.
These statements also seem to accept the fact that some Chalcedonians had not taken them in an Orthodox sense and it is these heretical understandings they wish now to exclude. It is positive that the Eastern Orthodox were able to revisit Chalcedon and draw a tighter fence around the statements produced there. Now is not the time to consider the Tome and the Definitio, but if the Holy Synods of our own Churches have agreed that the Eastern Orthodox have maintained an Orthodox Christology then that means that somehow the Tome and the Definitio must be able to be understood in an Orthodox manner, otherwise by accepting those documents the Eastern Orthodox must necessarily be heretical. We may refuse to give the Tome and the Definitio the authority which the Eastern Orthodox give it, but there must be a way of understanding the words which is Orthodox.
And so we reject, historically speaking, the opinion that from the beginning the Tome and Chalcedon were without flaw, but we should welcome the re-interpretation of those documents by these fathers in a way that excludes the teaching of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas. We find at Constantinople a different Chalcedonianism than that which produced Chalcedon itself. It’s Christology is tighter and much more in accord with our own Orthodoxy. The heresy of Theodore and Nestorius is much more explicitly rejected. Using the same words as in the Tome and the Definitio, but with a different definition of which positions are acceptable, should allow us to understand that we are dealing with a different Eastern Orthodoxy after 554 AD. Perhaps we may conclude it is still defective in some respects, but we should not, out of all charity, continue to believe that the Church which rejects Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas is crypto-Nestorian.
This last passage indicates that the Eastern Orthodox wish the statements of their faith to be understood in accordance with the faith of the Fathers, so that even the Definitio is to be understood in continuity with the Orthodox Faith and not as contrary to it. This is how the Second Agreed Statement also requires us to understand controversial texts, as being in continuity even if a different language is used. And it is on the basis of such continuity with the Orthodox Faith, which we have certainly preserved, that even the Letter of Ibas is condemned, since it is found to be contrary to the Definitio when the Definitio is read in continuity with the Orthodox faith. It seems to me that we can agree with this also, and have done so. Our concern must be with the faith we hold, and only secondarily with whether or not particular events upheld that faith in an adequate manner.
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.
Of course the Oriental Orthodox may insist with some justification that in fact the Definitio of Chalcedon does not agree with the faith of the 318 and 150 fathers. But if we have allowed that the Eastern Orthodox are indeed Orthodox then again we must allow that the way in which the Eastern Orthodox read and understand the Definitio must also be Orthodox, even if we will not allow that it is authoritative, let alone ecumenical. So we should read this passage, not with our own criticism of Chalcedon in mind but with the rejection by this council of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas at the forefront of our thoughts. The Definitio being defended here is not the same one as that presented at Chalcedon, even though the words may be the same. The context and understanding of it are completely different.
As for the second section of this passage it is clear that this is indeed our own faith. We have always believed that Ibas represented the heretical aspect of Chalcedonianism and now we find the Chalcedonians purging themselves of those who had always been condemned by the Orthodox.
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.
Now again we could concentrate on Chalcedon and discover how much we still have a divergent understanding of the history of that period. Or we might concentrate on the more positive aspect of what is being defined here. This passage allows us to conclude that the Eastern Orthodox have repudiated Ibas and do not wish to be considered as supporting him in any sense. Do we disagree about what actually happened at Chalcedon, perhaps? Can we accept a definition of Eastern Orthodox theology which excludes Ibas? Yes, we must, if we wish the Eastern Orthodox to respond to us in return as we ourselves actually believe. It does seem that even within the bounds of our own understanding of Chalcedon we can allow that Ibas was indeed required to anathematise Nestorius, even though we may doubt his sincerity. More was surely required of Ibas. He was not asked to repudiate Theodore of Mopsuestia, and his letter already showed that he was willing to use the term Theotokos without accepting a Cyrilline Christology. It was never enough to ask him simply to abandon Nestorius. That being so we can nevertheless accept this passage without modification when we read it as a condemnation of Ibas and his supporters. This was the intent of the council after all, and those supporters in mind were not those of Chalcedon but those in the 6th century Certainly we should receive these things as the Eastern Orthodox declare them here and in later times, there is no benefit in us continuing to treat the Eastern Orthodox as if this 5th council had never taken place.
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.”
We are not seeking to justify Chalcedon. Rather we must attempt to understand these documents with charity. The Eastern Orthodox at Constantinople are clearly determined to reject any sense in which Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas have influence in their communion. Our criticism of the Definitio of Chalcedon lies especially in its use of the phrase ‘in two natures’, and in the Tome of Leo. Now can we allow that Ibas and Theodoret were required to anathematise Nestorius before they were received? The Acts of the Council certainly seem to suggest that this took place.[17] It is clear from the Acts that both Theodoret and Ibas were considered heretical by a significant group of bishops at Chalcedon, and that they were only received at the council after anathematising Nestorius. Certainly in the case of Ibas a minority of bishops, including the Roman legates, gave the opinion that in fact the letter of Ibas was Orthodox. But this council of Constantinople shows that in fact the Orthodox opinion, first given at Ephesus in 449 AD against Ibas, finally prevailed even among the Chalcedonians by 553 AD. Can we bear with the Eastern Orthodox interpretation of Chalcedon as being without reproach in this respect? Even if it is not an interpretation we share. Surely there are enough other aspects of Chalcedon with which we have real difficulties. It seems that this passage may be accepted, limited as it is to the matter of fact that Theodoret and Ibas did anathematise Nestorius, whatever their own motives, and even though this was not enough to clear them of charges of heresy.
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.
This final lengthy passage condemns and anathematises the heretic Theodore of Mopsuestia and his writings, together with the letter of Ibas and the writings of Theodoret. Of course there is the standard reference to Chalcedon, numbering it among the councils. But again the main issue is not how many councils there are but that these Three Chapters are explicitly and determinedly excluded from the Church. Where we find the council of Chalcedon mentioned in the second half of the passage it is to repudiate any connection between the heresy of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas and the Christology of the Chalcedonians.
If the Eastern Orthodox at this Council, however much it seemed necessary to Justinian to preserve the authority of Chalcedon, also considered it necessary to explicitly reject the teachings of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, then it is this latter fact which should be especially commended and appreciated, even while there are other historical issues related to persons and events which remain outstanding.
This is the content of the Sentence then. A minority of Chalcedonians had been insisting that Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas were in fact wholly exonerated by Chalcedon. The main body of the supporters of Chalcedon, exhorted by the Emperor Justinian with his sympathy towards the anti-Chalcedonians, made clear that in fact the majority opinion was that Orthodoxy required the rejection of these Three Chapters. This was in effect the acceptance of the disciplinary position of the council of Ephesus in 449 AD. Chalcedon continues to receive support throughout this council but in fact the emphasis is on the condemnation of the Three Chapters.
Those of us who confess the Orthodox faith must decide whether, without considering the council of Constantinople of ecumenical status, we can accept the majority of this Statement as being Orthodox in substance and intent. If it’s intent is to reject the error of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas then we can agree with this Statement. There are some sentences which cause some difficulty but these ae entirely those passages which mention Chalcedon in a more positive light than we many wish or count them with the 3 Councils. If we exclude those passages while perhaps allowing those passages that describe the Eastern Orthodox understanding of some of the events which took place at Chalcedon, then we may have a possibility to help the Eastern Orthodox move forward towards unity.
The Canons of the Synod[18]
Now perhaps we can give some attention to the canons issued by this council. If the Statement was concerned to condemn Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas then we might expect the canons to exhibit the same concern. If we can accept some number of these canons as being in accordance with our Orthodox faith, then this might also be a means of encouraging the efforts towards unity being made by our Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox.
Canon I.
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.
This canon seems to be in accordance with our own understanding of the Orthodox faith. Of course nature is to be understood in this context as meaning essence or ousia. But we confess that the ousia of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is One, and that the Holy Trinity is consubstantial and that the Godhead is worshipped in three hypostases or persons. We must insist that nature does mean essence here, but with that condition this is an expression of our own Orthodox Faith.
St Severus writes in a way which is consistent with this canon in one of his letters, and in many other places of course, saying, For the fathers said that the Holy Trinity exists both in one essence, and in the being of each, that is, three hypostases, existing severally, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[19]
Canon II.
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.
This canon is also acceptable to all those who believe rightly. We confess with the Eastern Orthodox that the Word of God has two nativities as they describe, and we should consider it positively that the confession found here among the Eastern Orthodox of the Theotokos is the same as our own Orthodox Faith. Seeing that the rejection of the Theotokos and the two nativities of the Word was always the sign of error we should make plain that we agree with this canon and find it wholly Orthodox. The confession of the two nativities of the Word of God are a safeguard against the false Christology of Theodore and Nestorius.
We find this same teaching, as well as in many other places, in the letter which Anthimus, Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote to St Severus expressing his agreement in faith. In the letter he says,
For He who was begotten without time and without a body of God the Father, the same submitted to a second birth in a body.[20]
Canon III.
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.
This canon contains the important phrase ‘one and the same’ and excludes the heresy which divides Christ into one and another with him. It confesses that the miracles and the sufferings were all of the one and the same person, the Word of God. This is an advance on the Tome of Leo which makes the glory to belong to the Word while the flesh bears the suffering, as though both glory and suffering did not belong to the person of the Word. From this we must understand that the Tome, which this canon corrects, must be understood by these same Eastern Orthodox as meaning the same as this canon. We may find the Tome of Leo ambiguous, even erroneous according to our interpretation, but the Eastern Orthodox, after the Council of Constantinople, wish us to read it in accordance with this canon. We may consider the Tome badly worded at least, but this canon requires us to understand the controversial passages as not being taken as meaning that the Word was so divided from His own flesh that the incarnation is undone. Can we do such a thing? Well of course we may not choose to accept the Tome as ecumenical, but we must perhaps receive in our minds the Tome as the Eastern Orthodox hear it and not as we hear it. And the key is this canon, among others, which excludes the division of Christ and the making of Him into two persons.
Canon IV.
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 Theodore, 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” (thj enwsewj) 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 Theodore 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.
This canon also seems to reflect our own Orthodox position. The union is not allowed to be described as according to grace or honour or some such relation. Nor again is any place given to the thought of there being two persons, but the hypostatic union is explicitly confessed such that there is only one person, Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity. Indeed, we even find a reference to the words of St Cyril who rightly described the different ways of using the word ‘union’. Together with the Eastern Orthodox our Orthodox Church may easily reject a union which confounds the humanity and Divinity of Christ as Apollinaris and Eutyches did in their different ways. Perhaps there are many Eastern Orthodox who consider that our Orthodox faith is encompassed by their rejection of Eutyches. They are wrong, and we can reject his error as comprehensively as that of Apollinaris and Theodore and Nestorius. In this passage we should also understand that firstly the canon speaks especially of a plurality of natures in the sense of ousia and not hypostasis, and secondly that they are clear that the union is hypostatic, it allows no separation and that there is only one person, one of the Holy Trinity. In slightly different words to those confessed by the Orthodox it seems that we may also express agreement with this canon.
St Severus speaks about this union in many places. In one of his letters he says,
If Emmanuel is one, consisting of Godhead and manhood which have a perfect existence according to their own principle, and the hypostatic union without confusion shows the difference of those which have been joined in one in dispensatory union, but rejects division, both the elements which naturally belong to the manhood have come to belong to the very Godhead of the Word, and those which belong to the Word himself have come to belong to the very manhood which he hypostatically united to him.[21]
This expresses the same sense that Christ is one, the Word himself, and that while the humanity and divinity retain their difference and integrity in the union, both humanity and divinity belong to the Word, and the humanity is not that of some other human person.
Canon V.
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 Theodore 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.
Do we confess two hypostasis or two persons? God forbid! Now perhaps we do calumniate the council of Chalcedon and do consider that it made use of the expression ‘one hypostasis’ in the sense of covering some semi-Nestorianism, but the main object of this canon is not the Orthodox who rejected Chalcedon but those Eastern Orthodox who believed that there was a home for Theodore and his teaching in the Church. So it seems that we can accept the canon with no qualification as far as the dogmatic content goes, but we may wish to exclude all mention of Chalcedon at this point for the sake of simplicity.
As far as our understanding of history is concerned, there were certainly some at Chalcedon who wished to understand what was determined there in the manner of Theodore and Nestorius. The very fact that this canon was required to exclude their opinion shows that this is so. If none of the Chalcedonians had said that such views were canonised by Chalcedon, then there would never have been a need to condemn them. But in fact many of those who objected to condemning the Three Chapters believed sincerely that Chalcedon had received the Letter of Ibas, for instance, and that therefore this letter represented the teaching of Chalcedon. The non-Chalcedonians also took this view, but it was not unique to them. Nevertheless, what matters most is not the different views which may be held about history but the substance of our Christological beliefs. With this in mind, it is entirely the case that we can find our Orthodox Faith represented in this canon, as an expression of how the Eastern Orthodox wished Chalcedon to be understood.
Canon VI.
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]; 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 or the Mother of Christ, 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.
Once again this canon is wholly Orthodox as far as the dogmatic content allows. The confession of the Theotokos has always been one of the measures of an Orthodox Christology. We reject all of the heretical positions which are rejected in this passage. Of course we do have some hesitancy about Chalcedon. It is useful to understand that the Eastern Orthodox are here rejecting particular interpretations of Chalcedon, and this allows us to have a clearer idea of which false positions they have rejected since Chalcedon. Nevertheless, it may again be best to leave mention of Chalcedon in this context and propose acceptance of this canon without it, concentrating on the dogmatic content.
From our Orthodox perspective, Ibas and Theodoret did not absolutely and explicitly confess the Virgin Mary as Theotokos, and understood it as a relative term, saying no more than that she was the Mother of God only in the relative sense that Christ was the Temple of God, and not the Word himself. Again, it is necessary to ask why this canon is required if none of those who supported Chalcedon held to the views which are condemned. It is surely the case that they are anathematised precisely because some Chalcedonians did hold these views and wished to insist that Chalcedon had taught it. Positively speaking, we can certainly agree with this canon as far as the dogmatic content is concerned, though we will wish to dispute the historical narrative which is assumed.
Canon VII.
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 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.
This is a most important canon. It refers to the controversial phrase ‘in two natures’ but it shows us how the Eastern Orthodox wish this phrase to be understood. We see that firstly it refers to ‘a difference’, but it also refers to ‘an ineffable union’ and a ‘hypostatic union’. St Severus makes plain that we never refuse to confess the difference but we reject an independent duality. Now this canon confesses the continuing difference of the humanity and the Divinity in the union, but also uses the Severian concept of comprehending the difference through careful contemplation, or as here, in theoria. En Theoria does not mean, in theory, as if the difference was not real. Rather it means that by careful contemplation and reflection we understand the integrity of the humanity and divinity remain, while we find them manifest in Christ as a unity.
Of course the number two appears here more than would be usual in any writing from among our own fathers, but the Eastern Orthodox are careful to express the view that the use of two must not divide the natures or make them persons. Is this within the bounds of our own Orthodoxy, it would seem so. This canon even speaks of one being composed from two. There is nothing in this canon which cannot be understood in a manner consistent with our Orthodox Faith on the one hand, and as rejecting a Nestorian division on the other.
Canon VIII.
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.
In this canon the Eastern Orthodox turn their attention to those of us who especially confess with St Cyril that Christ is ‘of two natures’. Now there is no time or place when any of our fathers have confessed ‘of two natures’ or ‘the one nature made flesh of God the Word’ and meant by those words that there was one ousia, made by a mixture or indeed by the exclusion or absorption of the humanity. Nor have we ever confessed a confusion of humanity and Divinity but we have always and everywhere believed and taught that each nature of humanity and Divinity remained what it was, as our fathers have written. We also confess loudly and plainly the double consubstantiality of the Christ and we join with the Eastern Orthodox in condemning both those who divide and those who confuse the natures of which Christ is.
This canon is important because it allows that the language of St Cyril, one incarnate nature of the Word, is also acceptable within Eastern Orthodoxy, even though it had been rejected at Chalcedon. St Severus speaks about our understanding of this phrase in one of his letters,
When we say ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’, as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word, we use ‘nature’ in place of ‘individual designation’, denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself.[22]
This reference, and there are many others that could have been selected shows explicitly and clearly that in our Orthodox use of this phrase, one incarnate nature of the Word, we do not mean to use nature in the sense of ousia or essence, but in the sense of hypostasis, or person, and we are stating that the one hypostasis of the Word has himself become incarnate. This canon reflects the same understanding, and rejects the same errors which our Orthodox Church has always condemned.
Canon IX.
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 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.
It is clear that the main emphasis of Justinian and the fathers of this council is not in fact our own Orthodox position but rather the heretical position being taken by some of the Chalcedonians themselves. That is why so few of these canons actually have any bearing on our own controversy with the Eastern Orthodox. We can most certainly agree with the bishops in Constantinople who condemned those who introduced two adorations, this means that the divided Christ into the Word and a man, but equally we can agree with their condemnation of those who confess one ousia, for this is how nature should be taken in this instance. Indeed, the Eastern Orthodox seem to have understood here what we had always believed, that Christ is to be worshipped with one adoration, ‘God the Word made man, together with his flesh’. We may accept this canon together with the previous, and this acceptance, without in any way granting ecumenical status to these canons, would surely be of benefit in our ecumenical efforts without compromising the integrity of our Orthodox faith. If what is stated is in accordance with our Orthodoxy, then it is appropriate to recognise that what has been said is Orthodox.
Canon X.
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.
This canon comes close to the Theopaschite formula ‘one of the Holy Trinity was crucified’. It is positive that the Eastern Orthodox confess with us the mystery of our salvation, that indeed it was one of the Holy Trinity who suffered in the cross. This was not always the case. Especially in the West there was a resistance to the clear statement that one of the Holy Trinity suffered on the cross. Some pressure had to be applied by Justinian to convince Pope John II that he should allow a Theopaschite formula. The teaching that it is God the Word himself who was crucified in his own flesh is an essential aspect of our Orthodox Faith and therefore we can surely accept this canon.
Canon XI.
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.
May we accept this canon? Well of course we also anathematise all of these named heretics as well as their writings. There is a problem in that the Eastern Orthodox may well take these ambiguous references to ‘all other heretics’ to refer to our own fathers, especially St Dioscorus and St Severus. Now if reference is made to the ‘three Holy Synods’ then the canon becomes acceptable to us. Perhaps it remains unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox but our intent should be to make every acceptable effort towards unity, in the end the Byzantines must search their own hearts and respond to our efforts as they feel able.
There is certainly an agreement in rejecting the teaching of these named persons, and in rejecting the teaching of any who hold to the opinions of these named persons, though we are well aware that both St Dioscorus and St Severus never embraced any of the heresy of those named in the canon. On the contrary, after Chalcedon it was the non-Chalcedonians who were most active in excommunicating any who proposed Eutychian ideas. Just one example is that of St Timothy Aelurus, the successor of St Dioscorus, who excommunicated clergy in Constantinople who held such views and would not be persuaded that they were not Orthodox.
Canon XII.
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.
We can accept this canon as acceptable to the Orthodox faith. We have long condemned Theodore of Mopsuestia and all his writings. The issue of Chalcedon was always that it seemed reasonable to conclude that it was possible to be a disciple of Theodore and also support Chalcedon. Neither Theodoret nor Ibas ever renounced Theodore, and the Letter of Ibas, which the Western Church insisted had been received as Orthodox at Chalcedon describes Theodore as the Teacher of the Church.
What is required of us as Orthodox, it seems to me, is to be able to receive this canon, and the others like it, as a firm rejection of the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, while separating out the questions about how far the teaching of Theodore was given space at Chalcedon, and even had support. It is possible to have a different opinion about the latter while sharing in a rejection of what Theodore taught.
Canon XIII.
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.
And Theodoret is also condemned by all Orthodox. In fact, this canon goes further and makes plain that the Twelve Anathemas of St Cyril against Nestorius are also to be accepted by the Eastern Orthodox. Perhaps we have our doubts about whether the Twelve Anathemas were accepted at Chalcedon, but we cannot doubt that the Eastern Orthodox, those with whom we are engaged, do entirely accept the Twelve Anathemas as being part of the Orthodox Tradition.
There remain historical issues in relation to Theodoret. He refused to condemn Nestorius for 20 years, and only did so under great duress at Chalcedon. Moreover, in his correspondence after the Council of Chalcedon he made it plain to his own followers that he had never changed his Christology at all, which remained firmly Theodorean, and that he had simply interpreted the Definitio of Chalcedon to suit his existing Christology. It is problematic that such a man should be considered Blessed by the Eastern Orthodox, but it is certainly not an absolute obstacle, since this canon insists that any teaching of Theodoret which is contrary to the teaching of St Cyril and the Orthodox Faith is to be rejected.
Canon XIV.
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.
This final canon expresses the councils censure of Ibas and the letter he is said to have written to Maris the Persian. It confirms once more that the Eastern Orthodox position is that Mary is the Theotokos, that Christ is one person, and that the writings of St Cyril are to be taken as the measure of Orthodox Christology.
What is significant is that the attitude of the North Africans and Romans, that no previous Council, and especially Chalcedon, could ever be subject to revision and explanation, was absolutely rejected. This Letter of Ibas was defended by those who believed that no Council could be revised, and it is those who hold such a view that are anathematised.[23]
This is certainly a view which is held by many Eastern Orthodox in the present time, but it has already been rejected by one of their own councils. The North Africans always tended to a very legalistic attitude towards the life of the Church but though accorded respect their views on most issues were never universally adopted by the wider Church.
In regard to the Letter of Ibas, it is interesting that the North African and Western Church all believed it had been received as Orthodox at Chalcedon. The non-Chalcedon Orthodox also all believed it had been received at Chalcedon, as did the followers of Theodore remaining in the East. There is no evidence that it had not been considered as having been received until the time of Justinian. This makes it all the more important that Justinian was able to impose a new narrative about Chalcedon which modified the understanding of what had taken place. What mattered to Justinian, though respectful of Chalcedon as he understood it, was that the Faith be preserved from misrepresentation and error. Therefore, he was entirely willing, as was the Council of Chalcedon, to modify the decisions of Chalcedon, even as the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD had modified Nicaea, and the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD had modified and developed the explanation of Faith given at Nicaea and Constantinople.
Whether or not our own Orthodox criticism of Chalcedon is valid from an historical perspective, what is most important in regard to the texts produced at the Council of Constantinople in 553 AD is that they describe an Orthodoxy which is in accord with our own Orthodox Faith, and therefore whatever the other concerns, it is possible and appropriate for at least a form of these texts to be accepted as Orthodox, and therefore for it to be said in some sense that this Council of Constantinople is also received as Orthodox, and therefore as a faithful representation of the Orthodox Faith which we hold and have always confessed.
Thoughts concerning the Council of Constantinople 553 AD.
If we study the Statement issued by the Council, we find that of the twenty-two passages it contains there are only five in which there appears to be any controversy as regards our own Orthodox position. Of these five passages none could be considered to contain any dogmatic error. The matter of controversy is entirely in what measure of acceptance should be given to Chalcedon.
If this statement were to be re-written excluding these passages, or changing them to speak of Three Holy Councils rather than four, then it would seem that the Statement could be accepted by any Orthodox synod. This might not satisfy those Eastern Orthodox who wish to insist on our acceptance of the council in its entirety but it would surely be a great step forward and a sign that the Oriental Orthodox takes the dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox very seriously and are willing to properly engage with the various conciliar documents which are authoritative within Eastern Orthodoxy but not within our Orthodox Church. In fact, throughout the controversial period of the 5th-7th centuries there were many times when the reception of Chalcedon was reduced to an understanding that it only represented a rejection of the error of Nestorius and Eutyches. The hard-line view held by the North-Africans and some Romans was not adopted in the East, which was always willing to be more flexible and pragmatic.
If we turn to the Canons of the Council of Constantinople we find that only three of the fourteen canons contain any controversial matter. Once again in each of these cases it is the reference to Chalcedon which causes any problem. In many respects the canons appear to provide a description of our own Orthodox Christology. To accept these canons, saving the references to Chalcedon, is not to give way on any important theological position but is in fact to highlight how far the Eastern Orthodox had been required to explain and interpret their own position since Chalcedon and in the face of those who wished to use Chalcedon to support the Three Chapters.
At a time when Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas are being extensively rehabilitated it must be important for those of us who understand most clearly the error of their teachings to be united with the Eastern Orthodox in standing firm on the Orthodox principles which they first expressed in this council of Constantinople and which had always been our own position.
We lose nothing by accepting as far as we can, and as authoritatively as we can, this Statement and these Canons. Our Orthodox faith is not compromised. On the contrary our commitment to the Orthodox faith which we find, after some explanation, in these documents is a measure of how seriously we take the Tradition we have received. It does not belong to us and is to be joyfully embraced wherever we find it.
By way of a proposal, a revised copy of the Statement and Canons, with references to Chalcedon removed or changed, has been appended to this essay. They are not exactly the same as the documents of Constantinople, but they are certainly dogmatically and substantially the same. Perhaps they will not be received by some Eastern Orthodox as being unacceptably different to those documents, while others might well be able to receive an acceptance of these slightly revised texts as a genuine movement towards reception of the Council of Constantinople. They could be a significant step towards a mutual understanding of both our own and the Eastern Orthodox position. Indeed, if this procedure were acceptable then the sixth and seventh councils could also be considered, revised and received by the Holy Synod in the same way. Would we then be the Church of Six Councils? Not at all. Our faith needs the addition of no other Synodal definitions and statements. But for the sake of our Eastern Orthodox brethren, and the unity of Holy Churches of God, for which we pray, it would bring us closer without damaging our faith or our history.
A Proposal for the Synodal Reception of the Text of the Council of Constantinople 553 AD
The four latter Councils which the Eastern Orthodox accept as authoritative cannot easily be passed over in silence if we wish to experience further movement towards reconciliation between the Eastern Orthodox and our Orthodox Church. Therefore, our Orthodox Church must address the substance of these latter Councils as far as is possible within the integrity of our Faith. When we engage in a discussion of history it becomes difficult to find agreement. But when we restrict ourselves to the acceptance of a text as being consistent with our Orthodox Faith, then agreement becomes possible.
The texts of the Council of Constantinople contain no explicit condemnation of any of our Orthodox Fathers, and are especially concerned to reject Christological errors which our Orthodox Church also rejects. Therefore, they are ideally selected as the first to be considered in an organised manner as being Orthodox and have the possibility of allowing a model to be developed for the reception, as far as is possible, of other Eastern Orthodox texts in so far as they can be considered Orthodox.
It is proposed that the revised texts of the Council of Constantinople 553 AD, provided here as an Appendix, which have been modified only to the extent that references to the Council of Chalcedon have been removed, should be considered by appropriate members of the Church and Synod, and that further revisions me made, if they are shown to be necessary, while preserving the original text as far as possible. These revised texts might then be presented to the Synod with whatever detailed explanation of each section is useful so that the Synod can comment on the revised text. If further revisions are required these may also be made before the texts are presented to the Holy Synod for approval. Such an approval should perhaps be couched in terms that what is being proposed is a clear acknowledgement that the texts are acceptable in regard to our Orthodox Faith, and that they may therefore be received as Orthodox texts.
It is to be hoped that such an acceptance of texts that are substantially and essentially the same as the original, and contain the same dogmatic content, and reject the same errors, would be welcomed by the Eastern Orthodox and would provide a means and a model for further dialogue and definite agreement in understanding of the Orthodox Faith.
What is clear is that a continued failure to deal with these latter Eastern Orthodox Councils and their texts will produce an insurmountable obstacle to further progress towards unity.
Appendix
Revised Text of Statement
Revisions are indicated by []
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.
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.
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.
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 the 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.
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.”
But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy councils, following the example of the 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.
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.”
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.”
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: 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 them were holy fathers and doctors, handed down to the people credited to them.
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 Nicaea, 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 the 200 holy fathers gathered for the same faith in the first Council of Ephesus.
[….] And all those who from time to time have been condemned or anathematized by the Catholic Church, and by the aforesaid [three] 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.
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 spoke iniquities against me, and when they had thought them out, they spoke 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.”
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 Habakkuk said of those who teach falsely, “Woe unto him that gives his neighbour drink, that puts your bottle to him and makes him drunken that you may look on their nakedness,” that is, their doctrines full of darkness and altogether foreign to the light.
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.
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.”
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.
For what have they to answer to the Apostle again when he says, “A man that is a heretic reject after the first and second corrections. Knowing that such a man is perverse, and sins, and is condemned by himself.”
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.
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 things 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 this 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 profits 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 spoke 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 recited 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. [….]. 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. [….]
[….] We ordered to be recited the decisions of the holy Synods, to wit, of first Ephesus, [….], with regard to the Epistles of Cyril of blessed memory [….]. 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, [….].
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.
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.
For this they observed in the case of Theodoret, and required him to anathematize those things of which he was accused. [….] 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.”
Having thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again confess that we receive the [three] holy Synods, that is, the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first of Ephesus, [….], 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 [three] 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 Theodore 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, [….].
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.
Revised Text of Acts
Revisions are indicated by []
Canon I.
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.
Canon II.
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.
Canon III.
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.
Canon IV.
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 Theodore, 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” 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 Theodore 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.
Canon V.
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 Theodore and Nestorius insanely have written; [….] 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, [….]: 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.
Canon VI.
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; [….]; or if anyone shall call her the mother of a man or the Mother of Christ, 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, [….]: let him be anathema.
Canon VII.
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 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.
Canon VIII.
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.
Canon IX.
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 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.
Canon X.
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.
Canon XI.
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 [three] 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.
Canon XII.
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.
Canon XIII.
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.
Canon XIV.
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 [….], and shall remain in these offences unto the end: let him be anathema.
[1] Examples of the rejection of Chalcedon can be found throughout the writings of any Oriental Orthodox father. St Severus writes negatively in one letter, given merely as an instance out of many, saying “We therefore judge that which was desired by those who assembled at Chalcedon against the truth, to banish the confession that Christ is to be recognised as from two natures, and to introduce instead the confession that he is to be recognised as in two natures, as the company of Nestorius desire, to be abominable and also impious, and we will never propound the same teaching”. Brooks E.W. A Collection of Letters of Severus of Antioch 1915, p36. St Timothy also writes, in the context of the reception of those who turn to Orthodoxy from the error of the diphysites, “Let him anathematise in writing, before the Orthodox who belong to the whole place, the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome by wicked Leo of Rome”. Ebied R.Y. and Wickham L.R. Syriac Letters of Timothy Aelurus, Journal of Theological Studies. Vol XXI Part 2. 1970. p362.
[2] Second Agreed Statement, Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue, Section 8
[3] Second Agreed Statement, Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue, Section 9
[4] Proposals for Lifting Anathemas, Communique of the Joint Commission 1993
[5] Evans David. B. The End of the Age of the Fathers Byzantine Studies Conference Abstract 1980. David Evans writes, “The Council of Constantinople of 553, the Fifth Ecumenical Council, represented the definitive victory of Neo-Chalcedonianism in the Byzantine East, a condemnation of the tradition of the School of Antioch which has perplexed Westerners both religious and scholarly to the present;–but the names of the representatives of Byzantine Orthodoxy at the council are buried in relative obscurity. Only the reputation of the emperor Justinian persists, and justly, for without his patronage Neo-Chalcedonianism would probably be merely an historical curiosity. As for Dionysius, his name was revered but his teaching honoured only in its purification by Maximus. Nonetheless without Dionysius and the Neo-Chalcedonians later Byzantine Orthodoxy can hardly be conceived. They are the foundations on which the works of Maximus and John of Damascus repose.”
[6] The 6th council describes Dioscorus as ‘hated of God’, it speaks of the ‘wicked doctrine of … Severus’ while the 7th council speaks of the ‘blasphemers…Dioscorus and …Severus’.
[7] Aloys Grillmeier Christ in Christian Tradition, II pt 2, p 345
[8] Richard Price Acts of the Council of Constantinople I p.11
[9] Aloys Grillmeier Christ in Christian Tradition, II pt 2, p 348. Hamilton F.J. and Brooks E.W. trans. The Syriac Chronicle of Zachariah Mitylene Methuen 1899. p265. The Syriac Chronicle describes St Severus eventually travelling to Constantinople after several invitations from Justinian. Zachariah writes, “Now the well-tried Severus, after receiving pressing summonses from the king, at last came to Constantinople in the year fourteen, and was received in a friendly manner in the palace by the king, who was disposed and incited thereto by Theodora the queen, who was devoted to Severus, and he was honourable and venerable in her eyes.”
[10] Ibid. p266. “These men also accordingly came to Rome to Agapetus, and they delivered the epistle and were received; and the man was pleased with their epistle, in which he found agreement with his opinions. And he came with them to Constantinople in the month of March in the year fourteen; and Severus was there, and Anthimus was chief priest. And the whole city was disturbed at the arrival of Agapetus; and the earth with all that is upon it quaked; and the sun began to be darkened by day and the moon by night, while ocean was tumultuous with spray (?) from the 24th of March in this year till the 24th of June in the following year fifteen. And Agapetus, when he appeared before the king, had a splendid reception from him, because he spoke the same language and was chief priest of the country of Italy, which had been conquered and brought into subjection to him. And he was instructed in the outward words of Scripture but did not understand its meaning; and he held an ignoble opinion upon the Incarnation of Jesus, our Lord Christ, God the Word, and he would not consent to call the Virgin Mary the Theotokos, and divided the unity into two natures, since he held the priority of the conception of the babe, like those of the school of Diodorus and Nestorius. And he abstained from communion with Anthimus and Severus, and they yet more from communion with him; and one of them he called an adulterer and the other a Eutychianist: and he perverted the love of the king towards them and made him hostile to them; and he drove them from the city.”
[11] Aloys Grillmeier Christ in Christian Tradition, II pt 2, p 355
[12] Hamilton F.J. and Brooks E.W. trans. The Syriac Chronicle of Zachariah Mitylene Methuen 1899. p314. “Lest the heads of the communities of believers should be blamed, or because the priests who were among the Persians belonged to the opposite party, and they were assailed by affliction and trouble, they procured provisions; and then after due deliberation they consecrated and appointed chief priests in Arabia; and these were Theodore the monk, a strenuous man, and James, the laborious and industrious, the very strenuous, who was then in the royal city. And he was to be found everywhere, visiting and exhorting with readiness. And he was a practicer of poverty and an ascetic, and swift on his feet, and travelled like ‘Asahel.”
[13] Aloys Grillmeier Christ in Christian Tradition, II pt 2, p 424
[14] Fulgentius Ferrandus, one of the leading theologians of the North African Church writes to Rome in support of the Three Chapters, saying, After Pope Leo, Anatolius, Maximus, Juvenal and other priests of that time, has there been anyone among their successors who could read more attentively, so as to perceive that the letter of the venerable bishop Ibas had been wrongly included by the synod? It is the complaints of heretics that have now begun to prompt Catholics to think of criticizing this letter. Richard Price Acts of the Council of Constantinople I p.118 The Church of Carthage, following a line developed in Rome by Pope Leo, did not believe that a previous Council could be criticised, let alone revised, and that there was nothing worthy of censure in the Letter of Ibas to Maris the Persian.
[15] The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol 14
[16] Matthew 25:14
[17] Father V.C. Samuel The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined p 112
[18] The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol 14
[19] E. W. Brooks A collection of letters from numerous Syriac manuscripts 1915 p. 21
[20] F.J Hamilton and E.W. Brooks Syriac Chronicle 1899 p.273
[21] E. W. Brooks A collection of letters from numerous Syriac manuscripts 1915 p. 7
[22] E. W. Brooks A collection of letters from numerous Syriac manuscripts 1915 p. 25
[23] Fulgentius Ferrandus insisted that whatever was accepted at Chalcedon must never be criticised, including the Letter of Ibas. No revision of the Council of Chalcedon or of similar councils is to be approved, but what has once been decreed is to be kept intact. Richard Price Acts of the Council of Constantinople I p.120
A Proposal towards the Oriental Orthodox receiving the texts of the Council of Constantinople 553 AD added by cmadmin on
View all posts by cmadmin →
One Response to "A Proposal towards the Oriental Orthodox receiving the texts of the Council of Constantinople 553 AD"