TEODORO, bishop of MOPSUESTIA. – Bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia (Asia Minor) from 392 to 428, the principal representative of the Antiochene school.
I. LIFE AND WORKS
Born in Antioch of Syria around 350, he was a fellow student of St. John Chrysostom, who induced him to convert and enter a monastery and comforted him, during a severe spiritual crisis, with a splendid letter (Ad Theodorum lapsum: PG 47, 277–316). For ten years he attended the school of Antioch (v. ANTIOCHIA, V), then directed by Diodore, later bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia in 378, and absorbed its spirit extensively. Ordained a priest in 383, he embarked upon his oratorical and, above all, exegetical and polemical career. Between 386 and 392 he was probably in Tarsus, whence he was summoned to the episcopal see of Mopsuestia, in the same Cilicia. Little is known of his episcopate. An energetic pastor and tireless writer, he was widely known and admired. He took part in the Conference of Anazarbus (392) between the orthodox and the Macedonians, and in the Council of Constantinople of 394, which decided the controversy between Agapius and Bagadius over the see of Bostra; between 418 and 422 he Julian of Eclanum (v.) and the other Pelagian bishops expelled from Italy by Pope Zosimus (v.), and before his death in 428 he perhaps held discussions with Nestorius, who had then been appointed to the see of Constantinople. The number of works, as established by the Catalogue of Ebedjesus (1318), the anonymous chronicle of Seert (PG 5, 289–91), the exegetical catenae, and the citations of many writers before and after the Council of Constantinople of 533 (the Fifth Ecumenical Council), places T. among the most prolific writers of ancient Christian literature. Yet only a few complete works and fragments of his remain. The commentaries on the twelve Minor Prophets, the Psalms, St. John, and the minor letters of St. Paul survive intact; among his theological works, only the Catecheses and a large part of the work against the Macedonians (De Spiritu Sancto) survive. The exegetical catenae preserve many fragments, though they are not always authentic(cf. R. Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, in DBs, I, cols. 1084–1233), collected by F. Fritzsche and transcribed in PG (v. BIBLICA); numerous texts are also found in the polemical literature concerning T., especially in Marius Mercator (E. Schwartz, Acta Conc. Oec., I, 5, Berlin 1914, pp. 23–28; PL 48, 1041–46), Leontius of Byzantium (PG 86, 1385–90), in the Fifth Council of Constantinople with the Constitu- tuna of Pope Vigilius (Mansi, IX, 157–858), in the Collectio Palatina, and in the deacon Pelagius (later Pope Pelagius II) and, above all, Facundus of Hermiana, the latter two being favorable to T.
II. EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN
The Eastern Church soon recognized in him the exegete par excellence; but the condemnation of his theological position also compromised his exegetical works, which constitute the greater part of his literary production. Leontius of Byzantium says that, still only eighteen, he began to distort the S. Scripture, despising the teaching of earlier doctors, arbitrarily rejecting the books he did not like (Job, James, Eudra, and Paralipomeni), suppressing the titles of the Psalms, and interpreting the Song of Songs in a Jewish sense.But, with the exception of the letter of James, Job, and the Song, T. did no more than follow the canon recognized by the Church of Antioch. As regards the book of Job, it should be noted that T. left a commentary on it dedicated to S. Cyril of Alexandria. On the Song he showed himself uncertain and proposed, as a hypothesis, that it be regarded as an epithalamium composed by Solomon to celebrate his marriage to the daughter of the king of Egypt. Although in this case he does not mention a deeper interpretation, it should be observed that in his youth he had understood in a spiritual, messianic sense the parallel epithalamium of Psalm 44. Regarding the title of the Psalms, he was confronted with contradictory testimonies and therefore preferred to attribute them all to David.
The Third Council of Constantinople condemned one of his theories, which distinguished two degrees of inspiration (for the sapiential books and for the properly prophetic books): perhaps it could be interpreted in a perfectly orthodox sense (Amann, V. BIBLICA., col. 247, against Pirot). The two works now completely lost, which probably dealt ex professo with the principles of hermeneutics, can be partially reconstructed from his exegetical works. The principal representative of the Antiochene school, T. vigorously criticized the allegorism spread and exaggerated by the Alexandrian school and, after establishing the literal sense, with reference to the original text, even for the Old Testament, although he did not possess a perfect knowledge of Hebrew (cf. R. Devreesse, Essai sur T. de M., V. BIBLICA., p. 59, n. 3), directed his principal attention to clarifying the historical and literary context. He therefore censured the practice of applying passages from the same context to different meanings, which led him to abandon the messianic interpretations, then common, of passages that cannot be applied entirely to the Messiah. He did not, however, reject the typological sense; indeed, he found it precisely where the historical event foreseen or described by the hagiographer does not justify the breadth of his expressions. Thus he recognized as properly messianic certain psalms (2, 44, 15, 54, 88, 109), and others in an accommodative sense (21, 47, 48, 71); he accordingly openly admitted the prophetic value of many texts, although he rejected others commonly regarded as such. Ultimately, in this too he represents the Antiochene school, which the allegorists readily accused of rationalism.
This defect appears more serious, however, in his theology. The school of Antioch, led by Diodore of Tarsus, found itself combating Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ, and Apollinarianism, which mutilated his humanity in order to have it absorbed by the Word. Against these errors Diodore formulated the theory of the «two sons» (the Son of God and the son of Mary, elevated by Grace to divine adoption), a doctrine soon condemned by the Council of Alexandria (562) and subsequently by Pope Damasus (380 and 382). These controversies, which later reached their culmination in the Councils of Ephesus (437) and Chalcedon (451), must be kept in mind in order to understand T.’s position. In such a polemical environment, it is not surprising to find imprecise and equivocal formulations in him. But the calm and complete exposition of his doctrine should be sought less in his polemical works than in the Catecheses, recently translated and published. Nevertheless, this examination too clearly shows that the formulas employed by T. Apostolic Union (v.) betray an erroneous conception of the mystery of the Incarnation. T. already teaches the error to which Nestorius attached his name. Although he attempted to remain within orthodoxy by means of an ambiguous terminology, he in reality divides Christ into two subjects of attribution, into two persons: the person of the Word, born of the Father from all eternity, and the person of the man Jesus, born in time of the Virgin Mary. According to T., the union between the one who assumes (the Word) and the one assumed (the man) is undoubtedly very close and ineffable; it culminates in a single personality, or πρόσωπον, called the πρόσωπον of union; but this single personality is by no means the person of the Word itself; it is a result of the union of the Word and the man, a union that cannot be physical or substantial, but merely moral and extrinsic. It is a conjunction, an adherence from without, and not an inward union, in the depths of being, such as would make it true that in Jesus Christ there is only one physical person, that of the Word, who says «I, or Me» in every action he performs, whether in the divine nature or in the human nature. Here lies the mystery that T. attempted to explain and rationalize: an unfortunate attempt, which corresponds neither to the formulas of the S. Scripture nor to the Creed of Nicaea. Another deficiency in T.’s theology is constituted by his doctrine of original sin; he undoubtedly admits that Adam’s sin caused the fall of human nature, making it mortal and inclined to evil; but he expresses himself obscurely on the transmission of sin through generation. These imprecisions are not surprising in an Oriental who was little informed about the Pelagian controversy debated in the West. When, on the other hand, he expounds Catholic doctrine on prayer and the Sacraments in his Catecheses (in some respects parallel to those of S. Cyril of Jerusalem), he represents the purest Christian tradition.
III. THE QUESTION OF ORTHODOXY
T. lived and died at peace with the Church and with the principal representatives of the time, such as St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Gregory Nazianzen, and was not accused of error by them. His work was highly esteemed by the Eastern Churches and widely disseminated. But posthumous condemnation weighed upon his person and writings, which were preserved almost exclusively in the Churches of Syria and Persia independent of Constantinople.His doctrine became embroiled in the Nestorian and Monophysite controversies. Despite his equivocal and compromising expressions, the Council of Chalcedon refused to condemn him, accepting also the praise contained in the letter of Ibas. The controversy was revived a century later in Three Chapters (v.). Under the influence of the Monophysite movement, supported by the emperor Justinian, and after long hesitations, Pope Vigilius decided to condemn the doctrine and person of T. as opposed to orthodox doctrine.
Today attempts are being made to rehabilitate him by casting doubt on the authenticity of the documents that occasioned his condemnation. But the list of the 55 Theodorian texts that served Pope Vigilius in condemning the Mopsuestian contains 22 certainly authentic items, 2 others barely touched upon, 8 positively doubtful, 5 certainly manipulated for apparently tendentious purposes, and 20 that cannot be verified (Ortiz de Urbina, in Orientalia christiana periodica, 15 [1949], p. 443). Moreover, the Christological doctrine contained in T.’s certainly authentic works proves to be substantially identical with that found in the fragments cited by the Fifth Council (cf. P. Parente, V. BIBLICA.). It is certain, however, that T. did not deserve the fierce hatred that pursued him beyond the grave, especially in the time of Justinian. He had died at peace with the Church; his person could therefore have been respected, while his formulas were condemned. As for the deficiencies of his Christology, it must be borne in mind that he wrote before the great controversies that clarified and defined the problem of the two natures united
in Jesus Christ; but his attempt at explanation, with the formulas in which he expressed it, is not reconcilable with the data of faith.
Martino Jugie-Vittorino Dellagiacoma