Three-Chapter Controversy

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Three-Chapter Controversy, a phase in the

Egypt with Chalcedonian Christianity, following the failure of the Henotikon. The Three Chapters (τρία κεφάλαια, tría kephálaia) that Emperor Justinian I anathematized
were:

  1. The person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia
  2. Certain writings of Theodoret of Cyrus
  3. The letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris

Background

At a very early stage of the controversy the incriminated writings themselves came to be spoken of as the Three Chapters. In consequence those who refused to anathematize these writings were said to defend the Three Chapters, and accused of professing Nestorianism; and, conversely, those who did anathematize them, were said to condemn the Three Chapters as heretical.

At the end of 543 or the beginning of 544 the Emperor

Liberatus adds that Theodorus Ascidas wished to take revenge on the memory of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had written much against Origen.[2]
In his letter to Vigilius, Domitian, Bishop of Ancyra, reports the same story of intrigue.

Although

Facundus, Bishop of Hermiane, pointed out in his Defensio trium capitulorum that Saint Cyprian had erred about the rebaptism of heretics, yet no one would dream of anathematizing him. The condemnation of the "Three Chapters" was demanded primarily to appease opponents of the Council of Chalcedon
. Both Ibas and Theodoret had been deprived of their bishoprics by condemned heretics, and both were restored by the Council of Chalcedon upon anathematizing Nestorius.

The subscription

The leading Eastern bishops were coerced, after a short resistance, into subscribing[

Zoilus the Patriarch of Alexandria, Ephraim the Patriarch of Antioch, and Peter the Patriarch of Jerusalem, all yielded after a brief resistance. Of the other bishops those who subscribed were rewarded, those who refused were deposed or had to "conceal themselves".[3]

While the resistance of the Greek-speaking bishops collapsed, those from the Latin-speaking world, such as Dacius of Milan and Facundus, who were then at Constantinople, stood firm. Their general attitude is represented in two letters still extant. The first is from an African bishop named Pontianus, in which he entreats the emperor to withdraw the Three Chapters on the ground that their condemnation struck at the Council of Chalcedon. The other is that of the Carthaginian deacon, Ferrandus; his opinion as a most learned canonist was asked by the Roman deacons Pelagius (afterwards pope, at this time a strong defender of the Three Chapters) and Anatolius. He fastened on the epistle of Ibas – if this was received at Chalcedon, to anathematize it now was to condemn the council. An even stronger use of the benevolence of the council towards this epistle was made by Facundus at one of the conferences held by Pope Vigilius before he issued his Iudicatum. He wished it to protect the memory of Theodore of Mopsuestia because Ibas had spoken of him in terms of commendation (Cont. Moc.). When Vigilius arrived at Constantinople in January 547, Italy, Africa, Sardinia, Sicily, and the parts of Illyricum and Greece through which he journeyed were fiercely against the condemnation of the Three Chapters.

The matter was further complicated by the fact that the Latin-speaking bishops, Vigilius among them, were for the most part ignorant of Greek and therefore unable to judge the incriminated writings for themselves.

schisms
in the West.

The schism in the West

Main article: Schism of the Three Chapters

The bishops of

anathematized by the Council. Meanwhile, since these bishops and most of their suffragans were soon to become subjects of the Lombards in 568, they would be beyond the reach of the coercion of the Byzantine Exarch at Ravenna
, and able to continue their dissent.

However, the bishop of Milan renewed communion with Rome after the death of bishop Fronto around 581. As he had fled from the Lombards to refuge at Genoa, his successor, Laurence, was dependent upon the Byzantines for support. He subscribed to the condemnation.

In 568, the schismatic bishop of Aquileia had fled eight miles south to Byzantine controlled

Patriarchate of Aquileia contributed to the evolution of the Patriarch of Grado into the present Patriarch of Venice
.

The churches of the Visigothic Kingdom of Spain (

Reccared having converted a short time prior) never accepted the council;[5] when news of the later Third Council of Constantinople was communicated to them by Rome it was received as the fifth ecumenical council,[6] not the sixth. Isidore of Seville, in his Chronicle and De Viris Illustribus, judged Justinian a tyrant and persecutor of the orthodox[7] and an admirer of heresy,[8] contrasting him with Facundus of Hermiane and Victor of Tunnuna, who was considered a martyr.[9]

Its effect in the East

For all of Justinian's intents, this edict was of negligible effect in the East. In the decades following Justinian's death, the local Christians were more concerned for their safety in the wars first against a resurgent Persia, then next against the Arabs, who came to permanently control the territories beyond the Taurus Mountains in the 630s. The Christians in those regions adhered to the edicts proclaimed in Constantinople and Rome, with determination held to their own Non-Chalcedonian beliefs.

References

  1. ^ Hist. eccl., IV, 28
  2. ^ Liberatus, Breviarium, c. 24
  3. ^ Liberatus, Brev., 24; Facundus, Def., II, 3 and Cont. Moc.
  4. ^ Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Mennas" . Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
  5. ^ Herrin, 1989, pp. 240–241
  6. ^ Herrin, 1989, p. 244
  7. ^ Herrin, 1989, p. 241 and the references therein
  8. ^ Isidore of Seville, Chronica Maiora, no. 397a
  9. ^ Herrin, 1989, p. 241

Bibliography

Primary sources

Secondary sources

In English

In German

In French

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Three-Chapter_Controversy&oldid=1199061850"