TRE CAPITOLI. — A theological controversy of the 6th century concerning three representatives of the Antiochene school: Teodoro (v.) of Mopsuestia, Teodoreto (v.) of Ciro, Ibas (v.) of Edessa. The expression T. C. derives from the first edict of condemnation issued by Justinian, which proposed against the three Antiochene doctors certain κεφάλαια (chapters or anathemas); subsequently, the writings themselves that were indicted were called by this name, and finally their authors as well.
I. HISTORICAL PREMISES
The struggle concerning the T. C. initially appears as a continuation of the Nestorian controversy: after Nestorius was condemned at Ephesus (431), attention turned to Theodore (v.) of Mopsuestia, regarded as the true father of the heresy, and to Theodoret and Ibas, who had most strongly opposed the work and 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 Rabbūlā of Edessa (d. 438); he, who at the Council of Ephesus had still been a partisan of the Orientals, took the side of St. Cyril and warned the Armenian bishops against the works of Theodore, which at that time were being carefully disseminated in the Armenian Church. Proclus of Constantinople also soon intervened against Theodore; when consulted by the Armenians, he replied with his celebrated tome (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); whereas in the tome Proclus had avoided naming Theodore, three years later (438) he asked the Orientals formally to condemn a collection of passages from Theodore appended to his dogmatic letter. John of Antioch refused to anathematize a bishop who had died in the peace of the Church (letter to Proclus: PG 65, 878), an argument frequently advanced in the course of the controversy over the T. C. Following the intervention of St. Cyril, Proclus dropped the request, and the struggle undertaken against Theodore subsided for the time being; nor did the Council of Chalcedon concern itself with him.
Theodoret of Cyrus, at the request of John of Antioch, had composed a work against the anathemas of St. Cyril, in which he discerned a concealed Apollinarianism; he repeated his criticisms in a long letter to the monks of the East (Ep. 151: PG 83, 1416–40); at Ephesus and during the subsequent negotiations at the imperial court he again took a stand against St. Cyril and, having returned to Cyrus, 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 secure the submission of the bishops who were still resisting. Around 447 he published the Eranistes, Eutyches (v.) and his supporters. Already struck in 448 by two imperial decrees that confined him to his see and prohibited him from participating in the Council that had already been convened, he was deposed by the “Robber Council of Ephesus” (449); his works were banned by an edict of Theodosius II, and he himself was confined to the monastery of Apamea. Rehabilitated by the Council of Chalcedon (451), and admitted—despite the violent protests of some of the bishops—first as an accuser of Dioscorus and then also in his capacity as bishop, he signed Leo’s tome and the profession of faith issued by the Council and, in the IX session (26 October), was formally restored to his rank after anathematizing Nestorius.
When, after the Council of Ephesus, Rabbūlā, then bishop of Edessa, began attacking the ancient Antiochene doctors as responsible for Nestorianism, Ibas (v.), a teacher at the famous school of Edessa, wrote his Christological letter to Mârl “the Persian,” shortly after the act of union of January 433, in defense of the Mopsuestian (Greek text in Acta Conc. Occ., ed. cit., II, 1, pp. 32–34; Latin translation in Facundus of Hermiana: PL 67, 662–65; the Syriac text is a retranslation from the Greek); although it did not excuse Nestorius, the letter was severe toward St. Cyril’s Christological formula and vigorously defended 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 Rabbūlā in the see of Edessa (436), he was charged again in 448. The trial initiated by Domnus of Antioch and continued before a tribunal at Berytus ended with Ibas’s acquittal, after the reading of a letter from the clergy of Edessa attesting to the orthodoxy of their shepherd. A kind of reconciliation followed in February 449 at Tyre, where Ibas declared his adherence to the act of union and to the Council of Ephesus; but already in April of the same year he underwent a new trial at Edessa, was deported to Antioch, and deposed by the Ephesian “Robber Council” (22 August 449). In two sessions (the 10th and 11th), the Council of Chalcedon dealt with Ibas’s case; after the documents relating to it had been read, including the famous letter to Mârl, the papal delegates recognized the orthodoxy of the Syrian bishop, and the Council restored him to his see after he had pronounced an anathema against Nestorius.
The question of Theodoret and Ibas seemed to have been definitively resolved at Chalcedon. But one must bear in mind the profound hostility of the Monophysites toward the Council of Chalcedon, the strong concern to accommodate the Monophysites that emerged in Constantinople under the emperor Zeno (v. ENOTICO), and the constant propaganda against a supposed Nestorian danger, which began at the end of Anastasius’s reign and continued under Justin (518–27).
II. THE CONTROVERSY OF THE SIXTH CENTURY AND THE CONDEMNATION OF THE T. C. — The struggle against the T. C. belongs to the series of unfortunate and persistent theological initiatives undertaken by Justinian to reach an understanding between the orthodox and the Monophysites (especially the Severians), while 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 activity of Theodora, who favored the Monophysites, be forgotten. A starting point for the revival of the controversy concerning the T. C. is usually seen in the demonstrations organized at Cyrus, in Euphratensis, in honor of Diodore, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and Nestorius, at the time of the repression of the Monophysites in Syria (519). The immediate occasion, however, was connected with Justinian’s Edict against Origenism. Theodore Askidas, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, formerly a monk of the New Laura and sympathetic to Origenism, sought, in order to divert the Emperor’s attention and avenge the condemnation of Origen, to obtain an anathema against Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had discredited the great Alexandrian’s allegorism, and at the same time to harm the abbot Gelasius of the Great Laura, an opponent of Origen and a great admirer of Theodore. He therefore proposed that the Emperor condemn Theodore and his writings, as well as the letter of Ibas that contained his eulogy; in this way the Council of Chalcedon would be accepted by everyone.
Indeed, at the religious conference held on Justinian’s initiative in 533 between five Chalcedonian bishops and six Severian colleagues, the latter had reproached the Council of 451 for having admitted into its communion certain former Nestorians, such as Theodoret and Ibas. The Emperor accepted the suggestion and published, in the winter of 543–544, an edict of condemnation against the T. C., the text of which has been lost. The edict was not favorably received even in the East, and the patriarchs and bishops signed it only under duress. Mena, patriarch of Constantinople from 536 onward, signed only with the proviso that he would withdraw his signature if the Roman See did not accept II. The bishops of the permanent synod and the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria followed his example in order to avoid deposition.
The reaction in the West was much more resolute. Stephen, the representative of the Holy See at the imperial court, broke off all relations with the signatories; Pope Vigilius seemed undecided, but on 22 Nov. 545 he was compelled by the imperial representative to embark for Constantinople. During a ten-month stopover in Syracuse, he received the response of the Africans who had been consulted by the deacon Pelagius. The Carthaginian deacon Ferrandus, a disciple of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, replied that condemning the T. C. meant compromising the authority of the Council of Chalcedon (Ferrandus, Ep. 6: PL 67, 921–28).
Vigilius, who arrived in Constantinople on 25 Jan. 547, remained inactive for several months and broke off relations with the patriarch Mena, who refused to withdraw his signature. But he finally yielded to Justinian’s will and, in two confidential letters to the Emperor in June 547, declared himself ready to condemn the T. C. (Mansi, IX, 351). This condemnation in fact followed on Holy Saturday, 11 Apr. 548, with the publication of the Iudicatum. Only fragments of this decree have been preserved in a message from Justinian to the Fifth Council (Mansi, IX, 181) and in a later decree of Vigilius, the Constitutum (Mansi, IX, 104): it condemned the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia and all his works, the letter to Mârl « which is held to have been written by Ibas », and the writings of Theodoret against the true faith and against the anathemas of St. Cyril, while explicitly reserving the fact that the authority of the four great Councils, together with the condemnations and acquittals pronounced by them, remained intact. This amounted to saying that the Pope did not intend to proceed against the persons of Ibas and Theodoret, who had been formally acquitted by the Council of Chalcedon.
Despite these reservations, Vigilius’s decree provoked a violent reaction even among the Pope’s own household, the deacons Sebastian and Rusticus, Vigilius’s nephew, so much so that they were suspended by the Pope together with six other members of the Roman clergy (Mansi, IX, 351–59). The opposition spread to Illyricum, and in Dalmatia the bishops opposed the Iudicatum; Gaul was disturbed; 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 T. C. a concession made to the Monophysites and an attack on the authority of the Council of Chalcedon; moreover, they considered the condemnation of a bishop who had died in communion with the Church unprecedented.
Thus a kind of truce was reached between Vigilius and Justinian, with the reciprocal obligation to leave the matter in its status quo until a forthcoming council. The Pope was given back his Iudicatum, but he had to swear that he would join his forces to those of the Emperor in order to secure the condemnation of the T. C. (15 Aug. 550; cf. Mansi, IX, 363 ff.). Justinian, however, at the instigation of Theodore Askidas, soon broke the agreement. He sought to eliminate the opposition of the Africans by bringing a political trial against Reparatus of Carthage, who was deposed and exiled, and in July 551 he published against the T. C. the celebrated Profession of Faith, a kind of lay encyclical, in which an exposition of Christological doctrine was followed by thirteen anathemas; the last three specifically struck at the T. C. A formal breach between Pope and Emperor followed. No longer considering himself safe, Vigilius sought asylum in the church of St. Peter at Constantinople and, later, in that of St. Euphemia at Chalcedon, from where (on 5 Feb. 552) he published an encyclical to the entire Christian world (PL 69, 53–59; Mansi, IX, 50–55), a sentence of deposition against Theodore Askidas, and the excommunication of the patriarch Mena. At Justinian’s order, the two asked the Pope’s forgiveness. After returning to Constantinople, Vigilius approved (on 28 Jan. 553) the profession of faith of the new patriarch Eutychius, who had succeeded Mena (d. in Aug. 552), and declared himself ready to preside over an ecumenical council to resolve the question of the T. C. The convocation, however, proved difficult, since Vigilius wished to hold the council in Italy or Sicily, whereas Justinian intended to exclude the representatives of the Latin West as far as possible and had selected the African representatives according to his own wishes.
On 20 Apr. 553 Vigilius received from the Emperor a collection of passages drawn from the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrus. The Pope promised to reply within twenty days and warned the Council not to decide the matter before he had communicated his own judgment. Nevertheless, the Council opened on 5 May 553 without the Pope,
who declined repeated invitations, requesting a larger representation of Italian bishops. While the Council began proceedings against the T. C. on 12 and 13 May, the Pope published his Constitutum on 14 May, subscribed by himself, sixteen bishops, and three Roman ecclesiastics, among them Pelagius. In it he condemned sixty propositions—the ones transmitted by the Emperor—which «sub Theodori Mopsuesteni episcopi perhibentur nomine praenotata»; but the Pope vigorously refused to condemn Theodore’s person, since he had died in communion with the Church. He likewise condemned a certain number of propositions attributed to Theodoret, again refusing to condemn his person, since he had been «purged» of the suspicion of Nestorianism by the Council of Chalcedon; similarly, the decision of Chalcedon concerning Ibas of Edessa was to be respected.
Justinian, exceedingly irritated, in retaliation demanded that the Council remove the Pope’s name from the diptychs, while nevertheless claiming to preserve union with the Apostolic See. The Council continued its action against the Pope without further ado and, in its eighth and final session (2 June 553), issued the definitive judgment in 14 anathemas, almost all reproducing verbatim those of the imperial Confessio of 551; it condemned the person and writings of Theodore (anathematism XII), the writings of Theodoret against Ephesus and Cyril (anathematism XIII), and the letter of Ibas (anathematism XIV; text in Denz-U, 226–28). After six months, the consent of Vigilius was also obtained: he approved the condemnation of the T. C. (while remaining silent about the other anathemas issued by the Council), first in a letter to Patriarch Eutychius (8 Dec. 553), and then through the publication of a second Constitutum (23 Feb. 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 7 June.
III. CONSECUTIVE SCHISMS
The deacon Pelagius, the principal inspiration behind the I Constitutum, attacked Vigilius in a Refutatorium, which has not been preserved, and in a lengthy memorandum, In defensione Trium Capitulorum (v. BIBLICA). Imprisoned for this, Pelagius (v.) at an unspecified date must subsequently have drawn closer to Justinian, who sent him back to Italy and, after the death of Vigilius, imposed him as pope (at the end of 555). Pelagius nevertheless had to overcome considerable opposition in Rome itself; he therefore professed his adherence to the first four ecumenical Councils and, without naming the Fifth Council, called Ibas and Theodore «venerable bishops». The opposition to the condemnation of the T. C. was particularly vigorous in the African Church. Many recalcitrant bishops were exiled and mistreated, among them Victor of Tunnuna and Facundus of Hermiana, who had already energetically defended the T. C. in the first years of the controversy (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 memorandum against the Council, assisted by the Roman deacon Rusticus, nephew of Vigilius. The latter, despite excommunication and deposition, continued the struggle for the T. C. and, in their defense, compiled an extensive 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 went so far as to separate from the Apostolic See, and the invasion of the Lombards favored their opposition. The Churches of Illyricum joined forces with Aquileia. Milan soon returned to communion with Rome, Aquileia (v.) did so only under Pope Sergius I (687–701).IV. CONCLUSIONE
L'assurda pretesa di un imperatore di dirimere le questioni dogmatiche con decreti imperiali, lungi dall'ottenere la desiderata unità religiosa, inasprì i dissidi e finì per portare lo stesso GIULIO (v.) di Alicarnasso preparando la serie di altrettanto infelici interventi imperiali nel secolo seguente (v. MONOTELISMO). Dalle oscillazioni di papa Vigilio, che unì a momenti di vera grandezza penose manovre diplomatiche, il prestigio della Sede Apostolica uscì gravemente menomato. Nel campo dottrinale la legittima affermazione della teologia neocalcedonianache, per allontanare ogni sospetto di nestorianesimo e per facilitare l'accordo con un monofisismo spesso soltanto verbale, cercava di integrare la terminologia propriamente calcedoniana con le formole di s. Cirillo care ai monofisiti, si trova offuscata dalle deficienze dell'azione giuridica contro Teodoro e i suoi difensori, condotta in maniera non sempre oggettiva e leale (la misura delle manipolazioni non deve però venir eagerata, cf. J. Ortiz de Urbina, in Or. Christ. Per., 15 [1949], p. 441).
Tutto questo, evidentemente, non impedisce che il giudizio del Concilio, approvato dai Papi, abbia il suo pieno valore (v. COSTANTINOPOLI, II Concilio Costantin).