1
THE THREE CHAPTERS CONTROVERSY
INTRODUCTION
G. K. Chesterton once said,
I have heard that in some debating clubs there is a rule that the
members may discuss anything except religion and politics. I
cannot imagine what they do discuss; but it is quite evident that
they have ruled out the only two subjects which are either
important or amusing.1
In our increasingly secularized twenty-first century, where
politics and religion are often rigidly separated, Chesterton
may find few who agree with him.
Religion and politics are
often considered off-limits in polite company, and oftentimes
unimportant and not very amusing.
Yet such sentiments have not
always been the case in other places or in earlier times.
In
the sixth century, the emperor Justinian and his uncle Justin I
who preceded him, attempted to bring greater unity to the empire
in the areas of politics and religion. These efforts to
establish “a single orthodox faith accepted throughout the
Empire proved elusive.”2
Not only elusive, but in essence these
efforts to compromise with differing and often heretical
theological factions instead resulted in further schism.
Justinian’s condemnation of the so-called  or Three
Chapters, while originally intended to produce greater unity by
Chesterton, G. K., Appreciations and Criticisms of Charles Dickens, (Online
Source – http://www.dickens-literature.com, 2003), Chapter XVII.
2 Markus, R. A., Gregory the Great and His World, (Cambridge: University Press,
1997), p. 125.
1
David Jenuwine
THE 603 B – Dr. Schreck
2/17/05
2
appeasing one group, ultimately created greater division within
the empire in the long run.
THE THREE CHAPTERS
The phrase ‘The Three Chapters’ refers to the writings of
three individuals that were condemned by the emperor Justinian
in 543 AD.
These are:
1. the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia;
2. certain writings of Theodoret against St. Cyril of Alexandria;
3. the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris.3
Beyond this seemingly simple explanation of the Three Chapters
there is another ‘can of worms,’ which when opened requires
further explanation of the personalities and ecumenical councils
of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries – namely, Theodore of
Mopsuestia, Nestorius, Eutyches, Justinian, and Pope Vigilius;
as well as the Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and
Constantinople II.
THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA
Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-428 AD) was “a leading
thinker among the Antiochenes.
In his later years he was bishop
of the small town of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, though most of his
Hardon, John A., S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary, (Bardstown, KY: Inter
Mirifica, 1999), p. 539.
3
David Jenuwine
THE 603 B – Dr. Schreck
2/17/05
3
life was spent as a monk in Antioch.”4
He was the teacher of
Nestorius, and according to Syrian sources, his cousin.5
his lifetime, Theodore was regarded as orthodox.6
During
However, his
writings were later used by both the Pelagians and the
Nestorians to support heretical teachings.7
St. Cyril of
Alexandria was rather blunt in calling Theodore “patres Nestorii
blasphemae,”8 that is, the ‘father of the blasphemous Nestorius.’
Yet even St. Cyril was “unwilling to condemn Theodore, as he had
died in peace with the Church.”9
Nestorius, as we shall see, was
condemned by Cyril and eventually by the Council of Ephesus.
Regarding the writings of Theodore, there are definite
questions of orthodoxy.
In describing the doctrine of
justification, Theodore’s “ideas show a certain resemblance to
the fundamental thoughts of Pelagianism,”10 and he even went “so
far as to deny the possibility of original guilt and
consequently the penal character of the death of the body.”11
In
the area of Christology, he most certainly influenced his
disciple Nestorius.
Although Theodore claimed “that he wished
Norris, Richard A., Jr., The Christological Controversy, (Philadelphia, PA:
Fortress Press, 1980), p. 24.
5 The Catholic Encyclopedia, (New York: Robert Appleton Co, 1912), Volume XIV.
6 The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid, Volume XI.
4
David Jenuwine
THE 603 B – Dr. Schreck
2/17/05
4
to uphold the unity of person in Christ,”12 he nonetheless “spoke
of the two natures [of Christ] in a way which, [when] taken
strictly, presupposed two persons.”13
NESTORIUS
Nestorius (unknown-c.451 AD), like his teacher Theodore,
was also an Antiochine monk.
Constantinople in 428 AD.14
He became the bishop of
In his writings, he gave approval to
“accusations brought against Cyril [of Alexandria] by monks from
Egypt, ... [and] preached ... a sermon attacking the view that
the Virgin Mary is properly called ... ‘mother of God’”.15
That
is, he preached “that the Man Christ was not God; and that God
only dwelt in Him as in a temple, and that he became God by
degrees; in other words, he taught that there were two persons
in Christ, the one human, the other divine.”16
This sermon was “an open challenge to the Christology of
the Alexandrian tradition.”17
St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote to
Nestorius refuting his teachings, while defending the teaching
of the Church.
Nestorius on his part, appealed to Emperor
Ibid, Volume XIV.
Ibid.
14 Norris, p. 26.
15 Ibid.
16 Laux, John, Church History: A History of the Catholic Church to 1940,
(Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 1989), p. 153.
17 Norris, p. 26.
12
13
David Jenuwine
THE 603 B – Dr. Schreck
2/17/05
5
Theodosius II (408-450 AD); while Cyril appealed to Pope
Celestine I (423-432 AD).18
The Holy Father “convened an
assembly of bishops ... in which the writings of Nestorius ...
were unanimously condemned.”19
THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS
This condemnation, however, did not immediately silence
Nestorius. In 431 AD, Emperor Theodosius convoked a council that
met at Ephesus in the church of the Mother of God.20
In session,
the declarations of the Council of Nicea (318 AD) were read so
that “the points at issue ... could be compared with it, and
[whatever] corresponded with Nicea was to be accepted, and
whatever differed was to be rejected.”21 Then the letter of Cyril
to Nestorius was read, and “one after the other [the council
fathers] solemnly asserted the inner unity of the two [viz.
Cyril’s letter and the teachings of Nicea]”.22
Then Nestorius’
reply to Cyril was read, and when asked the same question, “the
bishops gave their verdict in the negative”.23
Laux, p. 153.
Noethen, Theodore, A Compendium of the History of the Catholic Church,
(Baltimore, MD: John Murray, Co., 1876), p. 240.
20 Laux, p. 154.
21 Grillmeier, Aloys, S.J., Christ in Christian Tradition, (Atlanta, GA: John
Knox, 1975), p. 485.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
18
19
David Jenuwine
THE 603 B – Dr. Schreck
2/17/05
6
After the council fathers had unanimously condemned
Nestorius and his teachings, a counter meeting “of bishops
friendly to Nestorius ... declared the action of the [council]
null and void,”24 and in turn condemned St. Cyril of Alexandria.
The emperor, hearing of the condemnations sought to have both
Cyril and Nestorius deposed.
However, “[upon] receiving a
correct account of the council ... [he only] banished
Nestorius”.25
EUTYCHES
The opposite extreme of Nestorius’ heresy of two separate
persons in Christ, was held by Eutyches and his followers.
“while opposing Nestorius, fell into error himself.
Who,
He taught
that there was only one nature in Jesus Christ after the
Incarnation.”26
So, where “Nestorius had divided the persons of
Jesus Christ ... Eutyches confounded the two natures.”27
The
heresy of Eutyches is called Monophysism, from the Greek words
 and ß, meaning ‘one nature.’
In a similar set of circumstances to what happened with the
condemnation of Nestorius by the pope, the Patriarch of
Constantinople, Flavian, “immediately took steps ... [and]
Eutyches was deposed and excommunicated.
24
25
26
27
But he refused to
Grillmeyer, p. 485.
Noethen, p. 243.
Ibid.
Ibid.
David Jenuwine
THE 603 B – Dr. Schreck
2/17/05
7
submit”.28
Instead, another council was called in 449 AD in
Ephesus by the successor and nephew of St. Cyril of Alexandria,
Diocursus.
This synod restored Eutyches and deposed Flavian.29
Additionally, “other bishops were deposed, the legates of the
Pope grossly insulted, and all opposition was overborne by
intimidation or actual violence.”30
When this information got
back to Pope Leo the Great (440-461 AD), he called this second
council a latrocinium31, that is, “a ‘robber synod,’ [and]
insisted upon the authority of the Roman church and demanded
another council to set matters right.”32
THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON
The call of Pope Leo for another council did not
happen until “the death of Emperor Theodosius II and the
accession of Marcian”.33
The early history of [Christological] doctrine now reached its
climax ... It was the purpose of those who were responsible for
the synod to put an end to the bitter internal disputes which had
occupied the period after the Council of Ephesus. For Ephesus
had left unfulfilled a task which by this stage of development
was long overdue: that of creating a dogmatic formula which made
it possible to express the unity and the distinction in Christ in
clear terms. Only in this way could both Nestorianism and
Monophysitism in the long run be countered.34
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Laux, p. 155.
Norris, p. 29.
Laux, p. 155.
Ibid.
Norris, p. 29.
Ibid.
Grillmeier, p. 541.
David Jenuwine
THE 603 B – Dr. Schreck
2/17/05
8
So, just over two years after the ‘robber council,’ a
general council was called in Chalcedon in 451 AD, a suburb of
Constantinople.
The Dogmatic Epistle of St. Leo written to
Flavian was read35 which expounded the “doctrine concerning the
mystery of the Incarnation; that is to say, the unity of persons
and distinction of natures in Jesus Christ.”36
Unfortunately,
“the definition of the Council of Chalcedon was not accepted by
the whole Church.
The Monophysite controversy went on for
nearly a hundred years.”37
EMPEROR JUSTINIAN
As was mentioned in the introduction, Emperor Justinian and
his uncle who preceded him, sought to unify the empire under a
single faith.
To a large extent, this goal,
depended on reconciling Eastern dissidents, ‘monophysites’,
especially in Syria and Egypt, to an interpretation of the
Chalcedonian formula which would not alienate Western churchmen.
In the century since 451, neo-Chalcedonian theologians had been
refining their understanding of the formula adopted at Chalcedon.
For many Eastern theologians the primary need was to banish any
shadow of association with Nestorianism.38
And in fact, the Monophysites “accused the Church of
Nestorianism, and ... pointed to the writings of his teacher
Theodore of Mopsuestia, which were quite as incorrect [as those
35
36
37
38
Laux, p. 156.
Noethen, p. 246.
Laux, p. 156.
Markus, p. 125.
David Jenuwine
THE 603 B – Dr. Schreck
2/17/05
9
of Nestorius], and yet had never been condemned.”39
The Empress
Theodora “was a Monophysite at heart, and used all her influence
to protect the schismatics from persecution.”40
She seems to
have convinced Justinian “that he could easily reconcile the
Monophysites to the Church if [these] three stumbling-blocks
were removed.”41
In reality, this is an enormous over-simplification of the
problem and its solution.
In addition, although the teachings
of Theodore of Mopsuestia are clearly Nestorian, “the mistakes
of Theodoret and Ibas were chiefly but not wholly due to a
misunderstanding of St. Cyril's language. Yet these errors even
when admitted did not make the question of their condemnation an
easy one.”42
Since Nestorianism had already been condemned, the
condemnation of these texts was not necessary, except in order
“to conciliate heretics who were implacable enemies of the
Council of Chalcedon.”43
But “the emperor was persuaded that
Nestorianism continued to draw its strength from the writings”44,
and as such, Justinian issued a ‘theological edict’ and
39
40
41
42
43
44
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV.
Laux, p. 156.
Ibid.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV.
Ibid.
Ibid., Volume IV.
David Jenuwine
THE 603 B – Dr. Schreck
2/17/05
10
anathematized these three writings.45
“After some hesitation,
the Eastern bishops signed the imperial anathemas”.46
POPE VIGILIUS
Despite the assent of the Eastern bishops, “the bishops of
the West, Pope Vigilius at their head, refused their
signatures,”47
most likely because “the procedure was considered
unjustifiable and dangerous, because it was feared that it would
detract from the importance of the Council of Chalcedon.”48
This
refusal by the pope and the bishops of the West resulted in
Emperor Justinian summoning Pope Vigilius,
to start at once on the journey to Constantinople. The
pope was taken immediately to a ship that waited in
the Tiber, in order to be carried to the eastern
capital, while a part of the populace cursed the pope
and threw stones at the ship.49
Hoping to break down the pope’s opposition, the emperor kept him
imprisoned “for nearly three years, and plied [him] with threats
and persuasions and promises.”50
Eventually, Vigilius assented
to the emperor’s pressures “in the hopes of promoting peace,
condemned [the Three Chapters] himself, with this reservation:
In accordance with the authority of the Council of Chalcedon.”51
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Laux, p. 157.
Ibid.
Laux, p. 157.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV.
Ibid.
Laux, p. 157.
Noethen, p. 265.
David Jenuwine
THE 603 B – Dr. Schreck
2/17/05
11
THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
The bishops of the West resented the action of the pope,
and he retracted his condemnation of the Three Chapters.52
However, Vigilius and the emperor agreed “to refer the whole
dispute to a general council.”53
There followed a period of preparation for the inevitable
Ecumenical Council, in which the Pope did his best to demonstrate
his resistance to the Emperor, his loyalty to the Council of
Chalcedon, and the strength of his objections to condemning
anything that was done there or any dead bishop who had died in
communion with the Church. In this no doubt he was sincere.54
Vigilius in turn, refused to attend the Second Council of
Constantinople, and fled to Chalcedon.55
Vigilius presented his
own solution, but in the end decided that “the margin of
difference was not sufficient to justify a schism. Vigilius
accepted the decision of the Council to get his passage home”.56
THE SCHISMS
Despite the efforts to allay a schism between East and West,
in Northern Italy, a council was held at Aquileia “under the
leadership of [the patriarch] Macedonius of Aquileia (535556).”57
This council
inaugurated the schism that for nearly a century separated many
churches of Northern Italy from the Holy See; in it the Bishops
Laux, p. 157.
Laux, p. 157.
54 Every, George, “Was Vigilius a victim or ally of Justinian?” Heythrop
Journal 20 (July 1979): p. 264.
55 Ibid., p. 265.
56 Ibid.
57 The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I.
52
53
David Jenuwine
THE 603 B – Dr. Schreck
2/17/05
12
of Venetia, Istria, and Liguria refused to accept the decrees of
the [Second Council of Constantinople] on the plea that by the
condemnation of the Three Chapters it had undone the work of the
Council of Chalcedon.58
In addition to the schism in Northern Italy, “the Council failed
to satisfy the Monophysites, but the Jacobite resistance, like
the schism in Aquileia, was in limited areas.”59
SUMMARY AND REFLECTION
What can be seen from what has been presented it that not
only are religion and politics strange bedfellows, but also that
you can’t please everyone.
The efforts exerted by the Emperor
Justinian in attempting to placate the Monophysites not only
failed, but also caused an additional schism in north.
The
intent behind the condemnation of the Three Chapters was not
theological, but political.
And while the Second Council of Constantinople and the
condemnation of the Three Chapters resulted in nothing new
theologically, the implications of what these actions
represented caused further fragmentation within the Church for
nearly one-hundred years.
58
59
Ibid.
Every, George, p. 265.
David Jenuwine
THE 603 B – Dr. Schreck
2/17/05
13
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Catholic Encyclopedia, (New York: Robert Appleton Co, 1912).
Baxter, Anthony, “Chalcedon, and the subject in Christ.”
Downside Review 109 (January 1989), pp. 1-21.
Chesterton, G. K., Appreciations and Criticisms of Charles
Dickens, (Online Source – http://www.dickens-literature.com,
2003).
Every, George, “Was Vigilius a victim or ally of Justinian?”
Heythrop Journal 20 (July 1979), pp. 257-266.
Eno, Robert B., “Papal damage control in the aftermath of the
Three Chapters Controversy.” Studia Patristica 19 (1989), pp.
52-56.
Frank, G. L. C., “The Council of Constantinople II as a model
reconciliation council.” Theological Studies 52 (1991), pp. 636650.
Grillmeier, Aloys, S.J., Christ in Christian Tradition, (Atlanta,
GA: John Knox, 1975).
Hardon, John A., S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary, (Bardstown,
KY: Inter Mirifica, 1999).
Laux, John, Church History: A History of the Catholic Church to
1940, (Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 1989).
Markus, R. A., Gregory the Great and His World, (Cambridge, UK:
University Press, 1997).
Noethen, Theodore, A Compendium of the History of the Catholic
Church, (Baltimore, MD: John Murray, Co., 1876).
Norris, Richard A., Jr., The Christological Controversy,
(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980).
Vries, Wilhelm De, “The Three Chapters Controversy: Ecumenical
councils and the ministry of Peter.” Ecumenical consultation
between theologians of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the
Roman Catholic Church, 1973, pp 73-82.
David Jenuwine
THE 603 B – Dr. Schreck
2/17/05