THEODORE, 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 at Antioch in Syria about 339, he was a fellow-student with St. John Chrysostom, who induced him to convert and enter a monastery and consoled him in a severe spiritual crisis with a splendid letter (*Ad Theodorum lapsum*: PG 47, 277-316). For ten years he attended the school at Antioch (v. ANTIOCHIA DI SIRIA), then directed by Diodorus, who later became bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia in 378, absorbing its spirit in large measure. Ordained priest in 383, he began his career as an exegete and above all as a polemical writer. Between 386 and 392 he was probably at Tarsus, whence he was called to the episcopal see of Mopsuestia, in the same province of Cilicia. Little is known of his episcopate. A zealous pastor and indefatigable writer, he was widely known and admired. He took part in the Conference of Anazarbus (392) between orthodox and Macedonians, in the Council of Constantinople in 394 which decided the controversy between Agapius and Bagadius for the see of Bostra; between 418 and 422 he gave hospitality to Julian of Eclanum (v.) and the other Pelagian bishops expelled from Italy by Pope Zosimus (v.), and before his death in 428 he may have had conversations with Nestorius, who had then been promoted to the see of Constantinople. The number of his works, as listed in the Catalogue of Ebedjesu (1318), in the anonymous Chronicle of Seert (PO 5, 289-91), in the exegetical chains and in the citations of many writers before and after the Council of Constantinople of 533 (Fifth Ecumenical Council), place him among the most prolific writers of ancient Christian literature. Yet of him only a few complete works and fragments remain. Intact are his commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, on the Psalms, on St. John, and on the minor epistles of St. Paul; of his theological works only the Catecheses and a large part of the work against the Macedonians (*De Spiritu Sancto*). The exegetical chains preserve many fragments, but not always authentic ones.(cf. R. Devreesse, *Chaines exégétiques*, in DBs, 1, cols. 1084-1233) collected by F. Fritzsche and transcribed in the PG (v. BIBLICA); numerous texts are also found in the polemical literature concerning T., especially from Marius Mercator (E. Schwartz, *Acta Conc. Occ.*, I, 5, Berlin 1914, pp. 23-28; PL 48, 1041-46), Leo of Byzantium (PG 86, 1385-90), the Fifth Council of Constantinople with the *Constitutum* of Pope Vigilius (Mansi, IX, 157-85), the *Collectio Palatina*, and the deacon Pelagius (later Pope Pelagius II) and especially Facundus of Hermiana, the latter two being particularly hostile to T.
II. EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN
The Eastern Church soon saw in him the foremost exegete; but the condemnation of his theological position compromised even his exegetical works, which constitute the greater part of his literary output. Leo of Byzantium says that even at the age of eighteen he began to distort Holy Scripture, despising the teaching of earlier doctors, arbitrarily rejecting the books he did not like (*Job, James, Ezra and Chronicles*), suppressing the titles of the *Psalms* and interpreting the *Song of Songs* in a juridical sense.But with the exception of the Epistle of James, *Job* and the *Song of Songs*, 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 he left a commentary on it dedicated to St. Cyril of Alexandria. On the *Song of Songs* he was uncertain and suggested as a hypothesis that it might be considered an epithalamium composed by Solomon to celebrate his marriage with the daughter of the king of Egypt. Although in this case he does not hint at a deeper, spiritual interpretation, it is to be observed that the Fathers had already understood the parallel passage of Psalm 44 in a Messianic sense. As to the titles of the *Psalms* he found himself faced 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 books properly prophetic): this might perhaps be interpreted in a perfectly orthodox sense (Amann, V. BIBLICA., col. 247, against Pirot). The two works completely lost, which probably treated *ex professo* of the principles of hermeneutics, can be partly reconstructed from his exegetical writings. As the principal representative of the Antiochene school, T. vigorously criticizes the allegorism exaggerated and diffused by the Alexandrian school and, after establishing the literal sense with reference to the original text, even for the Old Testament (though he did not know Hebrew perfectly: cf. R. Devreesse, *Essai sur T. de M.*, V. BIBLICA., p. 59, n. 3), he directs his main attention to clarifying the historical and literary context. He therefore condemns the practice of applying passages from the same context to different senses, which leads him to abandon the Messianic interpretations then current of passages which cannot be entirely applied to the Messiah. Yet he does not reject the typical sense; on the contrary, he finds it precisely where the historical fact foreseen or described by the narrative does not justify the fullness of its expressions. Hence he recognizes as properly Messianic certain psalms (2, 44, 15, 54, 88, 109) and in an accommodated sense others (21, 47, 48, 71); thus he openly admits the prophetic value of many texts though rejecting others commonly held to be such. In this also he is in the end a representative of the Antiochene school, which the allegorists were quick to accuse of rationalism.
This defect appears even more serious in his theology. The School of Antioch, led by Diodorus of Tarsus, found itself combating Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ, and Apollinarianism, which mutilated His humanity by absorbing it into the Word. Against these errors, Diodorus formulated the theory of 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 (362) and later by Pope Damasus (380 and 382). These controversies, which later culminated in the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), must be kept in mind to understand T.’s position. In such a polemical environment, it is not surprising to find imprecise and equivocal formulations in his writings. However, rather than in his polemical works, the serene and complete exposition of his doctrine must be sought in his Catecheses, recently translated and published. Yet even from this examination, it is clear that the formulas T. used to explain the Hypostatic Union betray a mistaken conception of the mystery of the Incarnation.
T. already teaches the error later associated with the name of Nestorius. Though attempting to remain within orthodoxy through ambiguous terminology, he in fact divides Christ into two subjects of attribution, into two persons: the person of the Word, eternally begotten of the Father, and the person of the man Jesus, born in time of the Virgin Mary. According to T., the union between the one assuming (the Word) and the one assumed (the man) is indeed very close, ineffable; it results in a single personality or *pò-sonov* of union. But this single personality is by no means the person of the Word himself; it is a resultant of the union between the Word and the man, an union that is not physical, substantial, but merely moral and extrinsic. It is a conjunction, an external adherence, not an inner union within the depths of being, such 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 His divine or human nature. Here lies the mystery that T. sought to explain, to rationalize—an unfortunate attempt that does not align with the formulas of Sacred Scripture or the Creed of Nicaea.
Another gap in T.’s theology is his doctrine of original sin. He certainly admits that Adam’s sin caused the fall of human nature, rendering it mortal and inclined to evil; yet he expresses himself obscurely regarding the transmission of sin through generation. These imprecisions are not surprising in an Eastern theologian little informed about the Pelagian controversy raging in the West. However, when he expounds the Catholic doctrine of prayer and the Sacraments in his Catecheses (somewhat parallel to those of St. Cyril of Jerusalem), he represents the purest Christian tradition.
III. The Question of Orthodoxy
T. lived and died in peace with the Church and with the leading figures of his time, such as St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Gregory Nazianzen, and was never accused of error by them. His work was highly esteemed by the Eastern Churches and widely disseminated. Yet a 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 entangled in the Nestorian and Monophysite controversies. Despite his equivocal and compromising expressions, the Council of Chalcedon refused to condemn him, even accepting the praise contained in the letter of Ibas. The controversy was revived a century later in the dispute over the Three Chapters. Under the influence of the Monophysite current, supported by Emperor Justinian, and after prolonged papal hesitation, Vigilius finally condemned both the doctrine and the person of T. as contrary to orthodox teaching.
Today, attempts are made to rehabilitate him by questioning the authenticity of the documents that motivated the condemnation. Yet “the list of 55 Theodorean texts used by Pope Vigilius to condemn the Mopsuestene includes 22 certainly authentic passages, 2 barely touched upon, 8 positively doubtful, 5 certainly manipulated for what appear to be tendentious purposes, and 20 unverifiable” (Ortiz de Urbina, in *Orientalia christiana periodica*, 15 [1949], p. 443). Moreover, the Christological doctrine contained in T.’s certainly authentic works proves substantially identical to that found in the fragments cited by the Fifth Council (cf. P. Parente, see bibliography). It is certain, however, that T. did not deserve the bitter hatred that pursued him beyond the grave, especially in the time of Justinian. He had died in peace with the Church, and thus his person could have been respected even while condemning his formulas. As for the deficiencies in his Christology, it must be remembered that he wrote before the great controversies that clarified and defined the problem of the two natures united.
BIBL.:
Ortiz de Urbina, I., *Orientalia christiana periodica*, 15 (1949), p. 443.
Parente, P., v.