Second Constantinople Cathedral

Religious situation in Byzantium

One of the most important questions of the internal policy of the Byzantine Empire of the 5th - 6th centuries was the attitude towards the Monophysites (this is what the Miafizites called John of Damaskin). First, this denomination prevailed among the clergymen of the most important for the state eastern provinces - in Egypt , where the Copts prevailed among the believers, Syria and Palestine - and the allied states of the Caucasus; secondly, the wife of Justinian Theodore , who had a strong influence on the emperor, was on the side of the miafizites.

On the advice of Theodora Justinian, in relation to the Miaphisites, at the very beginning of his reign, he set out on the path of reconciliation. Expelled under Justine and in the early years of Justinian, the Miafisite bishops received the right to return from exile. Many Miafizites were invited to the capital for a religious conciliation meeting in which the emperor took part. Five hundred Miaphisite monks were settled in one of the capital's palaces. In 535, Sevier , then the head of all Miafizites, arrived in Constantinople and stayed there for a year. Thus, by this time the capital of the empire had acquired features characteristic of the era of the emperor Anastasia . The Patriarch of Constantinople became the Bishop of Trapezunda Anfim , known for his conciliatory policies in relation to the Miaphisites. Justinian’s “Inquisitor” has always been a miaphysite John of Ephesus .

The situation caused discontent in Rome , and Pope Agapit I arrived in Constantinople, who, together with the orthodox Akimite party, expressed such a sharp rejection of the policy of Anfim that Justinian was forced to yield. Anfim was displaced, and in his place a staunch orthodox presbyter Mina was appointed. Perhaps this concession from the emperor to the pope was partly due to the fact that the Ostrogothic war in Italy began at that time, and Justinian needed the sympathy of the Catholics of the West.

The question of the "three chapters"

Having made a concession on the issue of the patriarch, Justinian did not abandon his further attempts at reconciliation with the Miaphisites. For this, the emperor raised the well-known question of the “three chapters,” that is, the three church writers of the 5th century, Theodore of Mopsuestia , Theodoret of Kirk and Iva of Edessa , for whom the Monophysites reproached the Chalcedon cathedral that the above-named writers, despite their non-Corian way of thinking , were not convicted on it. Justinian admitted that in this case the Miafizites are right and that the Orthodox should make a concession to them. Therefore, at the beginning of the forties, he issued a decree in which he anathematized the writings of these three writers and threatened to anathema all those who would defend or approve these writings. It was this decree, containing three paragraphs, that gave the name to the whole question, but later on, under the “three chapters” they understood these writers. ^[one]

This desire of the emperor provoked indignation of the Western hierarchs, as they saw in this an encroachment on the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, after which a similar review of the decisions of the Nicene Council could follow on the initiative of the Arian rulers of Western Europe. Also, the question arose whether it was possible to anathematize the dead, because all three writers died in the previous century. Finally, some representatives of the West held the opinion that the emperor by his decree commits violence against the conscience of church members. The last doubt almost did not exist in the Eastern Church, where the intervention of the imperial power in the resolution of dogmatic disputes was fixed by long-term practice. The question of the condemnation of the dead was justified by reference to the episode when the Old Testament King Josiah not only killed the living priests of the idols, but also unearthed the coffins of those who had died long before that time. Thus, while the eastern part of the church agreed to recognize the decree and condemn the three chapters, the western part spoke against it. Justinian’s decree did not receive general church significance.

In order to influence the positive solution of the issue, Justinian summoned the then Pope of Vigil to Constantinople, where he lived for more than seven years. The initial position of the pope, who on arrival openly rebelled against Justinian’s decree and excommunicated this decree from the Church of Constantinople Patriarch Mina, changed, and in 548 he issued a condemnation of three chapters, the so-called ludicatum , and thus added his voice to the voice the four eastern patriarchs. However, the western church did not approve of the concessions of Vigil. The African bishops, having assembled the council, even excommunicated him from church communion, and the schism caused by this existed for 100 years. Under the influence of the western part of the church, the pope began to hesitate in his decision and took back the ludicatum . In such circumstances, Justinian decided to resort to the convocation of the Ecumenical Council, which met in Constantinople in 553.

The council was convened over disputes between the Chalcedonites, whom the adversaries called the followers of Nestorius , and the Miaphisites, whom the opponents attributed to the heresy of Eutychius . The main subject of controversy was the writings of three teachers of the Syrian church, who used to be famous, Theodore of Mopsuestia , Theodoret of Kirish and Willow of Edessa, in which Nestorian delusions were clearly expressed, and nothing was mentioned about these three writers at the Fourth Ecumenical Council .

Opponents of the Miafizites in the dispute with the Miafizites referred to these works, and the Miafizites found in this an excuse to reject the Fourth Ecumenical Council itself and to assert that the Orthodox Church allegedly had turned to Nestorianism .

The Council, which opened in the hall connecting the Cathedral of St. Sophia with the patriarchal chambers, was attended by 165 bishops, chaired by the Patriarch of Constantinople Eutykhius ^[2] .

• At the Council, fathers considered the errors of Presbyter Origen , the famous teacher of the Church of the III century. His teaching on the pre-existence of human souls was condemned. Condemned were both the idealists Plato , whose philosophy fascinated Origen, according to the cathedral, and the Origenists Evagrius of Pontic and Didim the Blind . It was condemned as a heretical and teaching about Apokatastasis - the universal forgiveness of sinners (including the devil and other fallen angels) at the Last Judgment. But Gregory of Nyssa, who adhered to this doctrine, and his other supporters, like the Church of the East and its leaders defending this doctrine, including after the Council, Isaac Sirin , were not anathematized. Apollinarus was convicted for his formulation of the identity of Jesus Christ and the Logos , which Cyril of Alexandria considered the only correct one: “The one nature of God the Word of the Incarnate” ^[3] , but the doctrine of identity itself was not condemned. (Although Apollinarism was condemned at the First Council of Constantinople and the Roman Councils, but the name of Apollinarius was not mentioned in the convictions because of his authority before the V Ecumenical Council). The condemnation of Arius and Eunomia, although the Arians and Eunomians (late Arians) were no longer within the Church, was associated with the wars that Justinian fought against the Arians in Italy, Africa and Spain. ^{[4] [5]}
• The council condemned all the works presented by the emperor for condemnation of the “three chapters” and Theodore of Mopsuetsky himself , if he did not repent, and for the other two writers the condemnation was limited only to their Nestorian writings, they themselves were pardoned because they renounced their opinions and died in peace By the church. Diodorus of Tarsus was not condemned by the council, but Justinian did not demand this, Diodorus was not discussed.
• The Council again repeated the condemnation of the heresy of Nestoria and recognized the correctness and unconditional nature of Orthodoxy Cyril of Alexandria , and recognized any of his opponents as heretics, insisted on by the Miafizites, which opened up the opportunity for them to reconsider the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon as contrary to the teachings of Cyril, but they condemned Eutykhia and against them objected. At the same time, the condemnation not only of Apollinarism, but also of Apollinarius and his Christological formula, advocated by Cyril of Alexandria, and the anathematization of everyone using this formula to deny the unmixed union of the divine nature and human nature of the incarnate God of the Word satisfied the Chalidonites.

• During the V Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 553, Pope Vigilius held a changeable position in relation to the condemnation of the three chapters, and only under pressure from the emperor Justinian (Rome at that time was part of the Byzantine Empire) signed the edict on three chapters. Although the pope was present during the work of the council in Constantinople, he did not attend any meeting of the council, but signed the deeds of the council through the legates. After the Council, the authority of the papacy fell sharply both in Byzantium and in the West, and there was a schism of Western Christians. The split was overcome only after 100 years. Popes began to seek support from the Franks.
• The anathematization of Theodore of Mopsuestia (revered by the Church of the East, if not for Christology, then for his contribution to the liturgy) marked a break with the Church of the East , with which there was a significant rapprochement after the Council of Chalcedon; even with those of her representatives who professed the Chalcedon creed, although Justinian strove for unity with the Church of the East, which at that time did not consider Nestorius to be one of their teachers, and John Chrysostom was worshiped by her often on a par with Theodore of Mopsuestia ^[6] ; and contrary to the documents of the Church of the East about the abdication of the Church of the West from all three Greek teachers of the Church of the East, Diodorus Tarsus was not condemned. From the canonical unity with Orthodoxy, both the Church of the East and, gradually, the Roman Church fell away, and the unity with the Miaphisites turned out to be ephemeral.
• At the same time, the most important positive result of the council was the condemnation of Platonism as the source of the heresies of the followers of Origen and similar to Platonism idealistic teachings as a whole as contrary to Orthodoxy and a confirmation of the teachings of the Holy Fathers, which later helped Gregory Palamas formulate the modern philosophies of Hesychasm . The condemnation of Platonism by the Sobor can also be viewed as a condemnation by Orthodoxy of the totalitarian ideas of a number of works of Plato and totalitarianism as a whole. That is, in spite of the errors of individual fathers of the cathedral and the emperor, for example, their concessions to Caesarepapism and miafizitism , the Orthodox teaching triumphed at the cathedral thanks to the leadership of the Holy Spirit . ^{[7] [8]}

• V.V. Bolotov. "Lectures on the history of the ancient Church" Volume 4
• A.V. Kartashov The Ecumenical Councils Paris, 1963
• John (Metropolitan) . History of the Ecumenical Councils. SPb., 1906.
• Jean Meyendorff. Le Christ dans la Theologie Byzantine. Paris, 1968. In English: John Meyendorff. Christ in the Eastern Christian Thought. New York, 1969. Russian translation: Prot. John Meyendorf. "Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox Theology." M., 2000.
• Bp Gregory (V.M. Lurie). The history of Byzantine philosophy. Formative period. SPb., Axioma, 2006. XX + 553 p. ISBN 5-901410-13-0 Table of Contents
• Igumen Aristarkh (Lebedev) The Origin of the Human Soul (inaccessible link)