THREE CHAPTERS. - Theological controversy of the 6th century concerning three representatives of the Antiochene school: Theodore (v.) of Mopsuestia, Theodoret (v.) of Cyrrhus, Ibas (v.) of Edessa. The expression T. C. derives from the first edict of condemnation issued by Justinian, who proposed against the three Antiochene doctors certain κεφάλαια (chapters or anathemas); afterwards the incriminated writings themselves were called this, and finally their authors as well.
I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The struggle over the Three Chapters initially presents itself as a continuation of the Nestorian controversy: after Nestorius was condemned at Ephesus (431), attention turned to Theodore (v.) of Mopsuestia, held to be the true father of the heresy, and to Theodoret and Ibas, who had most strongly opposed the work and the Christology of St. Cyril.
The agitation against Theodore began in the period between the Council of Ephesus and the act of union between Cyril and the Orientals (433), through Rabbula of Edessa (d. 438); the latter, who at the Council of Ephesus had still been a partisan of the Orientals, took the side of St. Cyril and put the Armenian bishops on guard against the works of Theodore, which were then spreading widely in the Armenian Church. Proclus of Constantinople also intervened promptly against Theodore; questioned by the Armenians, he replied with his celebrated tome (a.d. 435) which, rejecting the Antiochene distinction between the Son of Man and the Son of God, insisted on the personal unity of Christ (PG 65, 856-73; Acta Conc. Occ., ed. E. Schwartz, IV, 11, Berlin 1922, pp. 187-195); while in the tome Proclus had avoided naming Theodore, three years later (438) he asked the Orientals for the formal condemnation of a collection of passages of Theodore appended to his dogmatic letter. John of Antioch refused to cast anathema upon a bishop who had died in the peace of the Church (letter to Proclus: PG 65, 878); an argument often adduced in the course of the controversy over the Three Chapters. Through the intervention of St. Cyril, Proclus let the request drop, and the struggle undertaken against Theodore subsided for the moment, nor did even the Council of Chalcedon have to deal with him.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, at the request of John of Antioch, had composed a work against the anathematisms of St. Cyril, in which he saw a veiled Apollinarianism; he had repeated his criticisms in a long letter to the monks of the East (Ep. 151: PG 83, 1416-40); at Ephesus and in the subsequent negotiations at the imperial court he had again ranged himself against St. Cyril and, having returned to Cyrrhus, had composed a treatise in 5 books against him and against the Council of Ephesus. After long hesitation he signed the act of union, communicated his acceptance to Cyril and worked to obtain the submission of the bishops still resisting. Around 447 he published the Eranistes, against Eutychus (v.) and his friends. Struck already in 448 by two imperial decrees that confined him to his see and forbade him to take part in the council already convoked, he was deposed by the "Robber Council of Ephesus" (449), his works banned by an edict of Theodosius II, and he himself confined to the monastery of Apamea. Rehabilitated by the Council of Chalcedon (451), admitted, not without violent protests from a faction of the bishops, first as accuser of Dioscorus, then also in his rank as bishop, he subscribed to the tome of Leo and to the profession of faith issued by the Council, and in the 9th session (26 Oct.) was formally restored to his rank, after having anathematized Nestorius.
When, after the Council of Ephesus, Rabbula, then bishop of Edessa, began to attack the ancient Antiochene doctors as responsible for Nestorianism, Ibas (v.), a teacher in the famous school of Edessa, wrote his Christological letter to Maris "the Persian," shortly after the act of union of Jan. 433, in defense of the Mopsuestian (Greek text in Acta Conc. Occ., ed. cit., II, 1, pp. 32-34; Latin translation in Facundus of Hermiane: PL 67, 662-65; the Syriac text is a retranslation from the Greek); while not excusing Nestorius, the letter shows itself severe toward the Christological formula of St. Cyril and vigorously defends the memory of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Ibas was therefore accused before the patriarch of Antioch by Proclus of Constantinople (Ep. 3: PG 65, 875); having succeeded Rabbula in the see of Edessa (436), he was incriminated once more in 448; the trial begun by Domnus of Antioch and continued before a tribunal of Berytus led to the acquittal of Ibas, after the reading of a letter of the clergy of Edessa, which attested the orthodoxy of their own pastor. There followed a kind of reconciliation in Feb. 449 at Tyre, where Ibas declared his adherence to the act of union and to the Council of Ephesus, but already in Apr. of the same year he underwent a new trial at Edessa, was deported to Antioch and deposed by the Ephesine "Robber Council" (22 Aug. 449). In two sessions (the 10th and 11th) the Council of Chalcedon dealt with the case of Ibas; after the reading of the relevant documents, among them the famous letter to Maris, the delegates of the Pope recognized the orthodoxy of the Syrian bishop and the Council restored him to his own see, after he had pronounced the anathema against Nestorius.
The question of Theodoret and of Ibas seemed definitively settled at Chalcedon. But one must bear in mind the profound aversion of the Monophysites to the Council of Chalcedon, the strong concern to conciliate the Monophysites, which established itself at Constantinople under the emperor Zeno (v. HENOTICON), and the constant propaganda against a supposed Nestorian danger, which followed at the end of the reign of Anastasius and continued under Justin (518-27).
II. THE CONTROVERSY OF THE 6TH CENTURY AND THE CONDEMNATION OF THE THREE CHAPTERS
The struggle against the Three Chapters belongs to the series of unfortunate constant theological initiatives of Justinian for an understanding between orthodox and Monophysites (especially the Severians), adhering to the letter of the Council of Chalcedon, but interpreting it in the sense of the writings of St. Cyril and freeing it from every suspicion of Nestorian tendencies; nor should the work of Theodora, favorable to the Monophysites, be forgotten. A starting point for the revival of the controversy over the Three Chapters is usually seen in the demonstrations organized at Cyrus, in Euphratensis, in honor of Diodore, of Theodore of Mopsuestia, of Theodoret and of Nestorius, at the time of the repression of the Monophysites in Syria (519). The immediate occasion, however, is connected with Justinian's Edict against Origenism. Theodore Askidas, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, formerly a monk of the New Laura and of Origenist sympathies, in order to distract the Emperor's attention and to avenge the condemnation of Origen, sought to obtain the anathema against Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had discredited the allegorism of the great Alexandrian, and at the same time to harm Abbot Gelasius of the Great Laura, an opponent of Origen and a great admirer of Theodore. He therefore proposed to the Emperor to condemn Theodore and his writings as well as the letter of Ibas which contained his praise; with this the Council of Chalcedon would have been accepted by all.
At the religious conference, held on the initiative of Justinian in 533 between 5 Chalcedonian bishops and 6 Severian colleagues, the latter had in fact reproached the Council of 451 for having received into its communion certain ancient Nestorians, such as Theodoret and Ibas. The Emperor accepted the suggestion and in the winter of 543-44 published an edict of condemnation against the Three Chapters, the text of which has been lost. The edict was not received favorably even in the East, and the patriarchs and bishops subscribed to it only under compulsion. Menas, patriarch of Constantinople from the year 536, subscribed only with the clause of withdrawing his signature in the event that the Roman See did not accept it. The bishops of the permanent Synod, the patriarchs of Antioch and of Alexandria followed his example in order to avoid deposition.
Much more resolute was the reaction in the West. Stephen, apocrisiary of the Holy See at the court, broke off all relations with the signatories; Pope Vigilius seemed undecided, but on 22 Nov. 545 he was forced by the imperial representative to embark for Constantinople; during a stop of 10 months at Syracuse the reply of the Africans, consulted by the deacon Pelagius, reached him. The Carthaginian deacon Ferrandus, a disciple of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, replied that to condemn the Three Chapters meant to compromise the authority of the Council of Chalcedon (Ferrandus, Ep. 6: PL 67, 921-28).
Vigilius, having arrived at Constantinople on 25 Jan. 547, remained firm for some months and broke off relations with the patriarch Menas, who was unwilling to withdraw his signature. But at last he yielded to the will of Justinian and in two confidential letters to the Emperor in June 547 declared himself ready to condemn the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 351). This condemnation in fact followed on Holy Saturday, 11 Apr. 548, with the publication of the Iudicatum. Of this decree only fragments are preserved in a message of Justinian to the Fifth Council (Mansi, IX, 181) and in a later decree of Vigilius, the Constitutum (Mansi, IX, 104): in it were condemned the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia and all his works, the letter to Maris "which passes as written by Ibas," and the writings of Theodoret against the true faith and against the anathematisms of St. Cyril, but with the explicit reservation that the authority of the 4 great Councils with the condemnations and absolutions pronounced by them remained intact, which was equivalent to saying that the Pope did not intend to proceed against the persons of Ibas and of Theodoret, formally absolved by the Council of Chalcedon.
Notwithstanding these reservations, the decree of Vigilius aroused a violent reaction among the Pope's own household, the deacons Sebastian and Rusticus, a nephew of Vigilius, so much so that together with 6 other members of the Roman clergy they were suspended by the Pope (Mansi, IX, 351-59). The opposition extended to Illyricum, and in Dalmatia the bishops opposed the Iudicatum; the Gauls were uneasy; an African council, presided over by Reparatus, bishop of Carthage, excommunicated the Pope "reservato ei paenitentiae loco" (Victor of Tunnuna, Chron. ad a. 550: PL 68, 958). According to Facundus, the Africans saw in the condemnation of the Three Chapters a satisfaction given to the Monophysites and an attack on the authority of the Council of Chalcedon; moreover they found unheard-of the condemnation of a bishop who had died in the communion of the Church.
Thus a kind of truce was reached between Vigilius and Justinian with the mutual obligation to leave the matter at the status quo until a forthcoming council. The Pope was given back his Iudicatum, but he had to swear to unite his forces with those of the Emperor in order to obtain the condemnation of the Three Chapters (15 Aug. 550; cf. Mansi, IX, 363 ff.). However, Justinian, at the instigation of Theodore Askidas, soon broke the agreement; he sought to eliminate the opposition of the Africans by instigating a political trial against Reparatus of Carthage, who was deposed and exiled, and in July 551 he published against the Three Chapters the celebrated Profession of faith, a kind of lay encyclical, in which, after the exposition of the Christological dogma, there follow 13 anathematisms; the last 3 struck precisely the Three Chapters. There followed the formal rupture between Pope and Emperor. Vigilius, no longer considering himself safe, sought asylum in the church of St. Peter at Constantinople and, later, in that of St. Euphemia at Chalcedon, from where (on 5 Febr. 552) he published an encyclical to the whole Christian world (PL 69, 53-59; Mansi, IX, 50-55), a sentence of deposition against Theodore Askidas and the excommunication of the patriarch Menas. The two, by order of Justinian, asked the Pope's pardon. The latter, having returned to Constantinople, approved (on 28 Jan. 553) the profession of faith of the new patriarch Eutychius, who had succeeded Menas (d. in Aug. 552), and declared himself ready to preside over an ecumenical council to resolve the question of the Three Chapters. But the convocation proved difficult, since Vigilius would have wished to hold the council in Italy or in Sicily, while Justinian intended to exclude as far as possible the representatives of the Latin West, and had chosen those of Africa according to his own taste.
On 20 Apr. 553 Vigilius received from the Emperor a collection of texts drawn from the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and of Theodoret of Cyrus; the Pope promised to reply within 20 days and warned the Council not to decide on the matter before he had communicated his own sentence. The Council nevertheless opened on 5 May 553 without the Pope, who declined repeated invitations, asking for a more numerous representation of Italian bishops. While the Council on 12 and 13 May began the trial against the Three Chapters, the Pope published on 14 May his Constitutum, signed by himself, by 16 bishops and by 3 Roman ecclesiastics, among them Pelagius, in which he condemned 60 propositions, those transmitted by the Emperor, which: "sub Theodori Mopsuesteni episcopi perhibentur nomine praenotata" but the Pope energetically refused the condemnation of the person of Theodore, because he had died in the communion of the Church; he likewise condemned a certain number of propositions attributed to Theodoret, again refusing any condemnation of the person, since he had been "purgata" from the suspicion of Nestorianism by the Council of Chalcedon; similarly the decision of Chalcedon on Ibas of Edessa was to be respected.
Justinian, greatly irritated, demanded in retaliation that the Council erase the Pope's name from the diptychs, while nevertheless insisting on preserving union with the Apostolic See. The Council continued its work against the Pope without further ado, and in the eighth and final session (June 2, 553) issued the final sentence in 14 anathemas, almost all of them reproducing verbatim those of the imperial Confessio of 551; it condemned the person and the writings of Theodore (XII anathema), the writings of Theodoret against Ephesus and against Cyril (XIII anathema) and the letter of Ibas (XIV anathema; text in Denz-U, 226-28). After six months the consent of Vigilius was also obtained, who approved the condemnation of the T. C. (saying nothing about the other anathemas issued by the Council), first in a letter to the patriarch Eutychius (Dec. 8, 553), then with the publication of a second Constitutum (Feb. 23, 554); the authenticity of these two documents has recently been called into question (cf. C. Silva Tarouca, Fontes historiae ecclesiasticae medii aevi, Rome 1930, p. 32). Vigilius left Constantinople in the spring of 555, but died at Syracuse on June 7.
III. SUBSEQUENT SCHISMS
The deacon Pelagius, the principal inspirer of the I Constitutum, attacked Vigilius in a Refutatorium, which has not been preserved, and in a long memorial In defensione Trium Capitulorum (v. bibl.). Imprisoned for this, Pelagius (v.) at an unspecified date must then have drawn closer to Justinian, who sent him back to Italy and, after the death of Vigilius, imposed him as pope (end of 555). Pelagius, however, had to overcome considerable opposition in Rome itself; he therefore professed his own adherence to the first four ecumenical Councils and, without naming the Fifth Council, called Ibas and Theodoret "venerable bishops." Particularly vigorous was the opposition against the condemnation of the T. C. in the African Church. Many recalcitrant bishops were exiled and maltreated; among them Victor of Tunnuna and Facundus of Hermiane, who already in the first years of the controversy had energetically defended the T. C. (Pro defensione Trium cap.: PL 67, 527-852). The Carthaginian deacon Liberatus shared the exile of his metropolitan Reparatus and defended the cause of the T. C. in his Breviarum causae nestorianorum et eutychianorum (PL 68, 969-1050). Felix, abbot of Gilliantum, composed a memorial against the Council, aided by the Roman deacon Rusticus, a nephew of Vigilius. The latter, despite the excommunication and deposition, continued the struggle for the T. C. and compiled, in their defense, an ample collection of conciliar acts (the Synodicum, in Acta Conc. Occ., ed. cit., I, III and IV). In Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia even separated themselves from the Apostolic See, and the invasion of the Lombards favored their opposition. With Aquileia the Churches of Illyricum made common cause. Milan soon returned to communion with Rome, Aquileia (v.) instead only under Pope Sergius I (687-701).
IV. CONCLUSION
The absurd claim of an emperor to settle dogmatic questions by imperial decrees, far from obtaining the desired religious unity, embittered the disputes and ended up leading Justinian himself toward the doctrines of Julian (v.) of Halicarnassus, preparing the series of equally unfortunate imperial interventions in the following century (v. MONOTHELITISM). From the vacillations of Pope Vigilius, who combined moments of true greatness with painful diplomatic maneuvers, the prestige of the Apostolic See emerged gravely diminished. In the doctrinal field, the legitimate affirmation of Neo-Chalcedonian theology which, in order to remove every suspicion of Nestorianism and to facilitate agreement with a Monophysitism that was often merely verbal, sought to integrate the properly Chalcedonian terminology with the formulas of St. Cyril dear to the Monophysites, is obscured by the deficiencies of the juridical action against Theodore and his defenders, conducted in a manner not always objective and fair (the extent of the manipulations must not, however, be exaggerated, cf. J. Ortiz de Urbina, in Or. Christ. Per., 15 [1949], p. 441).
All this, evidently, does not prevent the judgment of the Council, approved by the Popes, from having its full value (v. COSTANTINOPOLI, II Concilio Costantin).