Milton V. Anastos|
Constantinople and Rome
A Survey of the Relations between the Byzantine and the Roman Churches.
M. Anastos, Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium (Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome), Ashgate Publications, Variorum Collected Studies Series, 2001. ISBN: 0 86078 840 7.
8. Justinian Ι and his relations with Rome
(a) Liquidation of the Acacian schism
In his own day, however, Gelasius's distinction between the "two powers'' had little effect, and the Acacian schism was not settled until 519, when a rapprochement with Rome was effected by the Emperor Justin Ι, on the basis of a libellus dictated by Pope Hormisdas (514-23). The settlement,(96) which was sponsored by Justin's nephew and successor, Justinian Ι (527-65), expressly reaffirmed the doctrinal decisions of the Third and Fourth Oecumenical Councils (of 431 and 451). It also provided for the anathematization of Αcacius and all of his followers, whose names, together with those of the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius Ι, were removed from the Constantinopolitan diptychs.
In addition, the Byzantines agreed, as Hormisdas demanded, to endorse the dogma of the Petrine foundation of the Roman Church, and assented to the proposition that in it the orthodox faith is always preserved inviolate. Similarly, they had to approve all of Pope Leo I's letters on Christian dogma (including, of course, Leo's famous Tome to Flavian, which the monophysites and the supporters of the Henoticon rejected as Nestorian), confirm all of the previous decrees of the Roman see, and promise in the future not to commemorate in the liturgy those whom Rome had condemned.
Some believe that this agreement, despite the humiliating surrender it involved
on the part of the Byzantine Emperor and his Church, was made by Justin and Justinian(97) solely out of regard for the papal primacy, and had nothing
to do with the latter's schemes for the reconquest of Italy, which, it is argued,
had not been formulated as early as the year 519. But the extravagant nature of some of the Byzantine concessions would seem to indicate that they were at least partly intended by Justinian as a diplomatic prelude to the campaigns
on which he subsequently embarked to restore the unity and former boundaries of the Roman Empire. Since the reassertion of Byzantine sovereignty
over Italy and Rome proved to be one of the chief goals of his reign, it is not unreasonable to suppose that even in 519 he was preparing the way for his armies by ingratiating himself with the popes, just as in later years he sought to bolster his position in Italy by pronouncing the pope to be the highest among the prelates of Christendom (Cod.Just. 220.127.116.11; 1.1.8. 11, for example, issued in 533), and ranking him above the patriarch of Constantinople (Νov. 131.2, promulgated in 545).
Of no less importance in 519 was Justinian's desire for theological unity throughout the Empire, which always remained one of his consuming passions. Being himself an accomplished theologian, he eagerly sought to break the dominance the monophysites had secured over the Eastern Church and return to the dyophysite Christology of Chalcedon. Since the popes had remained loyal to the Chalcedonian Creed, it is natural that Justinian should have been pleased to embrace them as allies, and to lavish upon them honorific titles and substantial proof of his deference and respect, especially since he did so, as we shall see, without sacrificing anything on his part or in any way jeopardizing the control he chose to exercise over the Church as a whole.
(b) Agapetus and Anthimus
Considerations of a similar nature, it would seem, lay behind Justinian's decision to dismiss patriarch Anthimus(98) of Constantinople (535-36) at the demand of Pope Agapetus of Rome (535-36), who was present in the capital city on a mission for Theodahad, king of the Goths. Anthimus had come under attack both because he had lapsed from Chalcedonian orthodoxy to monophysitism, and because his elevation from the bishopric of Trebizond to that of Constantinople contravened the fifteenth canon of the First Council of Nicaea (325), which had forbidden the transfer of a bishop from one diocese to another.(99) Usually, the Byzantine emperors paid little regard to this canonical prohibition.(100) But in 536 Justinian yielded to Agapetus, and went so far as to grant him the extraordinary privilege, never previously or subsequently accorded a Roman pope, of consecrating the new patriarch (named Menas, 536-52) by his own hand.(101)
Ιn addition Emperor and Patriarch signed libelli,(102) dated March 16, 536, which expressed deference to the Roman see in language taken from the libellus of 519.
To this they added a reaffirmation of the dogmatic decrees of the first two Oecumenical Councils and a paraphrase of the clauses in the Creed of Chalcedon (451), which unambiguously precluded suspicion that Justinian was wavering in his loyalty to Chalcedonian orthodoxy, as indeed he was not. The other patriarchs would present the Pope a similar confession of faith, Justinian guaranteed, and would demand avowals of this kind from the clergy dependent upon them.
Agapetus died suddenly a few days after achieving this unparalleled triumph for the Roman see, and the casual reader of the extant documents might suppose that Justinian had determined to make the pope absolute ruler of the entire Church.
But evidence abounds that he never had any such intention. In the first place, Agapetus himself had to defer to Justinian's wishes with regard to the so-called Theopaschite formula,(103) which the Emperor championed. In endorsing this doctrine at Justinian's request, the Pope remarked that he did so not because he recognized the authority of the secular government in the field of Christian dogma (non quia laicis auctoritatem praedictionis admittimus) but because he deemed the Emperor's theology to be sound on this point Nevertheless, in giving his assent, he reproduced verbatim and with approval a letter from the Emperor Justinian (quoted in note 109 below) containing what amounts to a frank assertion of the Emperor's unlimited right to exert control over the Church.
Secondly, the affirmations of the libelli on dogmatic theology undoubtedly reflect the Emperor's personal convictions; and it is not unlikely that he welcomed an opportunity to rid himself of Anthimus, who, as a willing instrument of the Empress Theodora's monophysite schemes, had become a dangerous enemy of the Chalcedonian Christology, which the Emperor was determine to champion. Thirdly, it should be remembered that, as a result of the deposition of Anthimus, Justinian gained in the new patriarch a loyal and complaisant subordinate, who declared (at a council convoked in 536 to ratify the imperial decision with regard to Anthimus) that "nothing should be done in the most holy Church contrary to his [i.e., the emperor's] wishes and command."(104)
Finally, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Justinian's emphasis in the libellus of 536 on the primacy of the Roman see was intended also to promote the seduction of the Pope and the Italians from the Goths, who the ruled Italy, and thus make the path of reconquest easier for the Byzantine general, Belisarius, who at this very moment (the end of the winter of 535-36) was making his way across from Sicily to Calabria, and heading for Rome, which he captured from the Goths on December 9, 536.(105)
(c) Silverius and Vigilius: Justinian's dictatorial methods in imposing his will
in theological matters upon the entire Church, including Rome.
Justinian's real attitude towards the papacy is revealed best in his behaviour towards the Popes Silverius and Vigilius. In 537, for example, when the Byzantine forces in Rome were being besieged by the Goths under Vitiges, Belisarius accused Pope Silverius (536-37) of treason and deposed him. This he did with the aid of his wife, the beautiful but dissolute and faithless Αntonina, and at the command of the Empress Theodora, who had demanded the removal of Silverius because he had refused to rehabilitate her protégée, the former Patriarch Anthimus. For she had enabled the last-named to remain in Constantinople in defiance of the imperial order that forbade him to reside in the capital or any other major city of the Empire (Νov. 42 pr. 1 pr.), and had hidden him away in a chamber of the royal palace, where he lived unmolested until her death in 548, when he was finally discovered and, despite everything received kindly by Justinian.(106)
Silverius' successor,(107) Vigilius (537-55), in turn, who seems to have been Theodora's choice, was unceremoniously dragged from Rome in 545, and shipped off, first to Sicily, then to Constantinople, which he reached in 547. There he was held virtually a prisoner (547-54) and subjected to many indignities until he consented to defer (553 and 554) to Justinian's judgment in the matter of the Three Chapters.
The apparent contradiction on the part of Justinian between subservient to Rome and violent treatment of Popes Silverius and Vigilius indicates that, despite his willingness to grant concessions with regard to matters towards which he was indifferent, or to issue flattering statements concerning the supremacy of Rome when it suited his purposes to do so, he never intended to relinquish control of the Church to the Roman pope or to anyone else
He ruled the Church with an iron hand. But the force of tradition and his zeal for unity of doctrine throughout the Empire constrained him to secure endorsement for his theological decrees from the ecclesiastical authorities. Special value was attached to papal assent in such matters, and Justinian declared it indispensable. Nevertheless, in 545, in the very Novel in which he proclaimed the pope of Rome to be the "head of all priests" ( primum esse omnium sacerdotum), he gave the canons of the Oecumenical Councils of 381 (the First of Constantinople) and 451 (Chalcedon) the force of law, and thus (by virtue of the third canon of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth of Chalcedon) invested the patriarchal throne of Constantinople with authority which, as we have seen, could scarcely be distinguished from that of Rome (Novel 131.l-2). On another occasion, he referred to the patriarch of Constantinople as the highest-ranking cleric in the Church. Similarly, he always submitted his dogmatic formulations to all five patriarchal sees, thus indicating that he regarded the adhesion of the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem as no less essential than that of Rome.
Eager as he was for the support of the entire Church, he took more than usual pains to win over the pope of Rome. But, the record shows, much as he claimed to honour the papacy, he never left any decision entirely in the hands of Rome, to the exclusion of the other patriarchates, nor did he ever give Rome the power of veto over his theological decrees. He felt that he needed the compliance of the Roman pontiff. But this was something that was always within his reach, and could be obtained either by the dismissal of an uncooperative pope like Silverius, or by argument and compulsion, as he showed when he forced Vigilius to capitulate to his demands. Furthermore, he distinguished between the see of Rome, with which he always wished to be in agreement, and an individual pope. Thus, he made himself the sole arbiter of what the papal position was and dismissed the views of recalcitrant popes as of no consequence.
He used similar tactics when soliciting the support of other bishoprics, and at every stage in the proceedings made it clear that the initiative in theology, as in all other matters, rested exclusively with him. He never sought formal ecclesiastical approval for his dogmatic decrees until after he had made up his own mind with the aid of his advisers, and had transformed his views on Christian theology into laws of the realm. Thus, as we shall see, he set forth edicts requiring the acceptance of the Theopaschite formula (533), the condemnation of Origen (542), and the denunciation of the Three Chapters (ca. 543-44, and again in 551),(108) all of which acquired full legal validity the moment that they were issued.
It was only after these measures had been enacted into law that Justinian submitted them to the Church for approval. The first two were unhesitatingly endorsed by all five patriarchates, including that of Rome, and four of the patriarchs were induced, one way or another, to give their sanction to the third. But when Vigilius withdrew his Judicatum of 548, in which he had at first condemned the Three Chapters, Justinian broke down his resistance by convoking the Fifth Oecumenical Council (553), the Second of Constantinople, and "persuading" it to lend the weight of its authority to his rulings on this subject (anathemas 10-14). The Council could not conceivably have held out against the Emperor's wishes, any more than could Pope Vigilius, who finally surrendered and obligingly anathematised the Three Chapters, as Justinian had bidden him to do.
(d) The significance of Justinian's letter to Pope John II in 533
Justinian's true policy towards Rome (and the Church in general) is nakedly revealed at the end of the letter (Cod.Just. 18.104.22.168-24) he wrote To Pope John II in 533, which is usually cited as proof that he had resigned supremacy in the Church to the papacy. In this document, the full significance of which historians have either ignored or glossed over, Justinian begins by stating that because of the prestige of the see of Rome, which he described as the head of all the churches, he never fails to keep the pope informed of all matters concerning the Church. This he does, he says, to preserve unity with Rome and peace in the Church. For the same reason also, he instructs the clergy of the Eastern Church to bow in submission to Rome.
Up to this point, his tone has been obsequious, and he even adds that the patriarch of Constantinople "exerts himself in all things to follow the apostolic see of your beatitude" [i.e., the Pope]. But after he asks papal confirmation for the Theopaschite formula, he goes on to say:
"For in this way [i.e., by your approval] the affection that all bear you grows, the authority of your see [increases], and the unity of the holy churches with you will be preserved undamaged,(109) since the bishops look upon the pope as the fountainhead of pure doctrine. Beneath these compliments and expressions of humility, there is an unmistakable and only thinly veiled threat: bow to my wishes or else harmony will be broken, the prestige of Rome will decline, and the rest of the churches will follow my command anyway. Yield or perish!
(e) Capitulation of Pope Pelagius Ι, and the Roman position towards the Fifth Oecumenical Council
Even Pelagius, who as deacon had urged and assisted Vigilius to stand firm against Justinian's rulings and had himself written a treatise in defense of the Three Chapters (i.e., against Justinian) as late as the year 553,(110) proved tractable enough(111) when the papacy was offered him as a reward for conformity. As Pope Pelagius Ι (555-61), he not only confirmed the results of the Council of 553 and declared it to be an oecumenical council but also warned that its decisions could not be reexamined in a local synod. Μany in the West dissented from Pelagius and even broke off relations with Rome οn this account, but the last dissident groups were won back by Rome at the Council of Aquileia in 700,(112) and the Council of 553 ranks as the Fifth Oecumenical Council in the West and East.(113)
96. - Collectio Avellana, CSEL, 35, 2, 116 b (Hormisdas's libellus), 159 (Patriarch John's version thereof, 160-65, 167, and 233, pp. 520-22, 607-10, 611-16, 618-21, 683 f.; Stein, Histoire, 2, 182-85, 223-28; Vasiliev, Justin the First, 168 ff.; Eduard Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe; Zur Kirchenpolitik Iustinians (SBAW, 1940, Heft 2 [Munich, 1940]), 35 f., 49; Walter Haacke, Die Glaubensformel des Papstes Hormisdas im acacianischen Schisma (Analecta Gregoriana, 20, Ser. fac. theol., Sec. Β, 10 [Rome, 1939]); Caspar, Geschichte, 2, 150 ff. Ρaul Goubert, "Autour du voyage a Byzance du pape Saint Jean Ι. (523-526)," OrChrP, 24 (1958), 339-52; and W. Ensslin, "Papst Johannes Ι. als Gesandter Τheoderichs des Grossen bei Kaiser Justinos Ι.," ΒΖ, 44 (1051), 127-34, agree that John Ι, who was the first pope to visit Constantinople (in 526), did not perform a second coronation of the Emperor Justin Ι, as many have erroneously supposed (references given by Goubert and Ensslin), but only replaced the Emperor's crown upon his head, as the patriarch usually did, after it had been removed in deference to the celebration of the liturgy. Ensslin shows also that the Emperor did no more in paying homage to John than exchange a kiss and a bow, as he was wont to do with the patriarch on ceremonial occasions. The same rite of solemn greeting, in the same form, was observed by the Emperors Justinian Ι and Justinian II in welcoming Popes Agapetus (see idem, HistJb, 77 , 461 f.) and Constantine Ι, respectively. See also Β. Κ. Stephanides, "The visit of John Ι of Rome to Constantinople (525-26)" (in Greek), EEBS, 24 (1954), 22-36; Caspar, 2, 183-90, 192, 766 f.; Ottorino Bertolini, Roma di fronte a Bisanzio e ai Longobardi (Scoria di Roma, 9 [Bologna, 1941]), 91-93.
97. - Ιn addition to the works cited in note I above, see Wilhelm Ensslin, "Justinian Ι. and die Patriarchate Rom and Konstantinopel," Symbolae Osloenses, 35 (1959), 113-27; idem, "Papst Agapet Ι. and Kaiser Justinian Ι.," HistJb, 77 (1958), 459-66; Mario Α. Casetti, Giustiniano e la sua legislazione in materia ecclesiastica (Pontificium Institutum utriusque iuris, Theses, 123 [Rome, 1958]); Biondo Biondi, Il diritto romano cristiano, 3 vols. (Milan, 1952-54), passim; idem, Giustinianο primο, pricipe e legislatore cattolico (Ρubblicaziοni della Universita cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Serie 2, Scienze giuridiche, 48 [Milan, Ι936]); Gennadios [Arabadzoglu], History of the Oecumenical Patriarchate (in Greek), 1 (Athens, 1953), 205-30; Ε. Η. Kaden, "L'église et l'état sous Justinien," Recueil de travaux: Mémoires publiées par la faculté de droit de Genève, 9 (1952), 109-144; Stein, Histoire, 2, 369-417, 623-90, 735-80, passim; Isidoro Martin, "Εl reconoscimiento del primado romano en la legislacion justinianea," Αnnales de la Universidad de Mureia (1948-49), 103-16; W. Schubart, Justinian and Theodora (Munich, 1943); Eduard Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe; Zur Kirchenpοlitik Justinians, cited in previous note; Ρierre Batiffol, "L'empereur Justinien et le siège apostolique," RSR, 16 (1926), 193-264, reprinted with additions in idem, Cathedra Petri (Paris, 1938), 249 ff; Louis Bréhier in Ρ. de Labriolle et al., De la mort de Théodose à l'élection de Grégoire le Grand (cited in note 14 above), 437-82; L. Duchesne, L'église au VIe siècle (Paris, 1925), 43-283; Martin Jugie, "Justinien 1er," DTC, 8, 2 (1925), 2277-90; Β. Granič "Die Gründung des autokephalen Erzbistums von Justiniana Prima durch Kaiser Justinian im Jahre 535 n. Chr.," Βyzantiοn, 2 (1925), 122-40; J. Β. Βury, History of the Later Roman Empire, 2 (London, 1923), passim; Hamilear S. Alivisatos, Die kirchliche Gesetzgebung des Kaisers Justinian 1. (Νeue Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche, 17 [Berlin, 1913]); Αugust Knecht, System des justinianischen Kirchenvermögensrechtes (Kichenrechtliche Abhandlungen, 22 [Stuttgart, 1905]); idem, Die Religions-Politik Kaiser Justinians I. (Würzburg, 1896); G. Glaizolle, Un empereur théologien, Justinien (Lyon,1905);J. Pargoire, L'église byzantine de 527 à 847 (Paris, 1905), 1-14; Fedele Savio, Il papa Vigilio (Rome, 1904). Despite the valuable work that has already been done, notably by Charles Diehl, Justinien et la civilisation byzantine au VIe siècle (Paris, 1901, reprinted New York, 1960), Alivizatos, Ensslin, and others, we still need a comprehensive work treating Justinian's theology, religious policy, and relations with Rome as a whole. Perhaps Berthold Rubin will cover this subject in the fourth volume of his work, Das Zeitalter Justinians, of which only volume 1 (Berlin, 1959) has appeared.
98. - ACO, 3, 152.22-28 (the texts of the Council of 536 are to be found in ACO, 3, 27-119, 126-86); Liberates, Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, 21, ACO, 2, 5, 135.29-136.17. The account in the Liber Pontificalis, 59, ed. Duchesne, 1, 287-89, exaggerates Agapetus's role and Justinian's original opposition to him. Cf. Wilhelm Ensslin, Symbolae Osloenses, 35 (1959), 118 ff; idem, HistJb, 77 (1958), 459-66 (cited in note 97 above); G. Schwaiger, "Agapet Ι," LThK, 1 (1957), 182; Η. Rahner, "Anthimos," LThΚ, 1 (1957), 603; Ernest Honigmann, Patristic studies (ST, 173 [Vatican City, 1953]), 185-93; Stein, Histoire, 2, 382-84; Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe, 41-46; idem, Kyrillos von Skythopolis (TU, 4 R. 4, 2=49.2 [Leipzig, 1939]), 396-400; Caspar, Geschichte, 2, 222-28; Venance Grumel, "La papauté à Byzance, Saint Agapet (535-536)," Estudis Franciscans, 39 (1927), 11-27; Grumel, Regestes, nos. 234-37.
99. - Novel 42 pr. (ad finem). Strictly speaking, Anthimus was not deposed by Justinian until after the Council of 536. When Agapetus brought charges against Αnthimus, the latter made no defence and simply vacated the patriarchal throne (see, e.g., Liberatus, loc. cit. in previous note). He was replaced by Menas without delay (on March 13). But the Emperor, apparently to avoid the appearance of acting as Agapetus's agent, convoked a special synod to deal with this matter. It was only as a result of its deliberations, after full study and inquiry, that Justinian formally deposed Anthimus (Novel 42 pr. 1 pr.). Note that in Novel 42 pr. 1 Justinian says that Αnthimus had been expelled by Agapetus (apelathenta, expulsum) but condemned and deposed by the council and himself (katadedikasmenon and katheiremenon, condemnatum, depositum).
100. - Canon 15 of Nicaea: Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 1, 1, 597-601. On the frequency of such translations from one bishopric to another in ancient times, see Socrates, ΗΕ, 7, 36, PG, 67, 820; Beck, Kirche, 72 f.; Constantinos Μ. Rhalles, Οn the translation of bishops according to the law of the Orthodox Eastern Church (in Greek) (Athens, 1911). Actually, neither the Greek nor the Roman Church paid much attention to this regulation, although it appears frequently in the canons. It is included in the Decretum of Gratian, ed. cit. (in note 62 above), 576, Causa 7, 1, 19. But Pope Gregory VII in the Dictates papae (ca. 1074-75) 13, cf. 14 f., ed. Mirbt, Quellen (cited in note 3 above), 146, claimed the right to transfer bishops from see to see when necessary.
101. - ACO, 3, 153.16; Mansi, Concilia, 8, 923 D.
102. - Collectio Avellana, CSEL, 35, 1, Εpp. 89 f. (pp. 338-42).
103. - Collectio Αvellana, CSEL, 35, 1, Εp. 91, 3 and 20 f. (pp. 343.8-18, 47.3-Ι4).
104. - ACO, 3, 181.35 f.; Mansi, Concilia, 8, 970.
105. - Procopius, Wars, 5, 7-14 (Gothic War, 1, 7-14).
106. - John of Ephesus, Lives of the eastern saints, Syriac text and English translation by Ε. W. Brooks, 2, ΡΟ, 18 (1924), 685 -687 .
107. - Procopius, Anecdota, 1, 14 and 27; Wars, 5, 25, 13 (Gothic War, 1, 25, 13); Liberatus, Breviarium, 22, ACO, 2, 5, 136.18-138.23 (representing Vigilius as a venal tool of Theodora and a traitor to the dyophysite Christology of Chalcedony; Liber Pontificalis, 60 f. ed. Duchesne, 1, CCLIII f., 292 f., 294 f. (Silverius), XXXVI, XXXIX-XLI, CCXXXI f., CCLIII f., 296-302 (Vigilius). The texts of Vigilius's pronouncements on the Three Chapters: Judicatum of 548 (Mansi, Concilia, 9, 181d); Constitutum of 553, renouncing Judicatum (Collectio Avellana, CSEL, 35, 1, Εp. 83, pp. 230-320); condemnation of Three Chapters οn Dec. 8, 553 (Mansi, Cοncilia, 9, 413-20); on Feb. 23, 554 (ACO, 4, 2, 138-68; Mansi, Concilia, 9, 455-88). See Έ. Amann, "Vigile (pape)," DTC, 15, 2, (1950), 2994-3005; Stein, Histoire, 2, see index; Bertolini, Roma di fronte (cited in note 96 above), 103-9, 129 f., 145-76, 351, 702; Caspar, Geschichte, 2, 229-86, 769-74; L. Duchesne, L'église au VIe siècle (Paris, 1925), 151-55, 178-218; Bury, Later Roman Empire, 2 (cited in note 97 above), 378 ff., 384 ff.; Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 3, 1 (Paris, 1909), 20.38, 93-101. See also the literature cited in note 97 above.
108. - On the subject as a whole, see Ensslin, "Justinian Ι. und die Patriarchate Rom und Konstantinopel" (cited in note 97 above), 113-27; Stein, Histoire, 2, 228-30, 379, 392-94, 632-69; Ε. Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe (cited in note 96 above), 52, 56, 58 ff.; Caspar Geschichte, 2, 193-286, 767-74, n.b. 217 ff., 242 ff. Οn the Theopaschite formula and ecclesiastical confirmation thereof see Cod. Just. l.l.6-8; n.b. l.l.6, 7; l.l.7, 4, 11 (by the Byzantine Church); 1.1.8, 14, 25 ff. (by Pope John ΙΙ); Collectio Avellana, CSEL, 35, 1, Εp. 91 (pp. 343.8-26, 344.4 ff., 346.1-9, 347.20-30) (by Pope Agapetus); Εp. 92 (pp. 34923 ff, 350.10 ff.) (by Pope Vigilius); Chronicon Paschale, CSHB, 630.1-8, 632.13-21, 633.15 f. (all patriarchates); cf. Έ. Amann, "Theopaschite (Controverse)," DTC, 15, 1 (1946), 505-12; V. Grumel, "L'auteur et la date de composition du tropaire Ηο Monogenes," ΕΟ, 22 (1923), 404 ff. Οn Origen, Cassiodorus, Institutiones divinarum litterarum, 1, PL, 70, 1111; ACO, 3, 208.18 ff.; ACO, 2, 5, 139.33-140.12 (Liberatus, Breviarium 23, ad fin.); Schwartz, Kyrillos vοn Skythopolis (cited in note 98 above), 192.12-17; idem, Vigiliusbriefe, 52 f., insists on 542 (against the widely accepted 543) as the date for the edict against Origen, which is to be found in ACO, 3, 189-214. Cf. also R Diekamp, Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten im 6. Jahrhundert (Münster i.W., 1899). All the fragments that can be recovered of the first edict against the Three Chapters have been assembled by Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe, 55 n.1, 73-81; who published Justinian's edict of 551, Drei dogmatische Schriften Ιustinians (ABAW, philos.-hist. Abt., N.F. 18 [Munich, 1939]), 72-111 (Greek and Latin); see ibid., 114-17 and his treatise on the same subject, ibid., 45-69; cf. Liberatus, Breviarium 24, ACO, 2, 5, 140 f. For an account of the reception of Justinian's edict against the Three Chapters, see Facundus, Pro defensione trium capitulorum, 4, 4, PL, 67, 625.7; idem, Contra Mocianum, ibid., 861CD; E. Amann, "Trois-chapitres," DTC, 15, 2 (1950), 1868-1924; Stein, Histoire, 2, 634-37; Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe, 56 ff.; Caspar, Geschichte, 2, 243 f. 109.- Cod.Just. 1.1.8, 22 f: "Petimus ergo vestrum paternum adfectum, ut vestris ad nos destinatis litteris et ad sanctissimum episcopum huius almae urbis et patriarcham, vestrum fratrem, quoniam et ipse per eosdem scripsit ad vestram sanctitatem festinans in omnibus sequi sedem apostolicam beatitudinis vestrae, manifestum nobis faciatis, quod omnes, qui praedicta recte confitentur, suscipit vestra sanctitas, et eorum, qui Iudaice ausi sunt rectam denegare fidem, condemnat perfidiam. Plus enim ita et circa vos omnium amor et vestrae sedis crescit auctoritas et quae ad vos est unitas sanctarum ecclesiarum inturbata servabitur, quando per vos didicerint omnes beatissimi episcopi eorum, quae ad vos relata sunt, sinceram vestrae sanctitatis doctrinam." These words are quoted verbatim and approved by Pope Agapetus: see note 103 above.
110. - Robert Devreesse, ed., Pelagii diaconi ecclesiae Romanae in defensione trium capitulorum (ST, 57 [Vatican City, 1932]); cf. Ephrem Sloots, De Diaken Pelagius en de verdediging der Drie Kapittels (Nijmegen-Utrecht, 1936); Bertolini, Roma di fronte, 147-224, 269; Caspar, Geschichte, 2, 287-305, 774; Duchesne, L'église au VIle siècle, 219-37.
111. - Pius Μ. Gassó and Columba Μ. Batlle, edd., Pelagii I Papae epistulae quae supersunt (556-561) (Scripta et dοcumenta, 8 [Abadia de Montserrat, 1956]), Εp. 3, 3 and 9, pp. 7.21 ff., 9.50-55. Εp.1921, p. 59.99-60.109: "universalis ecclesiae concursum"; Εp. 59, 7, p. 157.29-158.36: "istud canones nulli permittunt, post universalem synodum et post iudicium quod tamquam uno ore grope quatuor milia episcopi [n.b. hyperbole] tam in metropolitanis suis quam singulares Constantinopoli protulerunt, iterum contentiones ad medium revocare. Sed nec licuit aliquando nec licebit, particularem synodum ad diiudicandum generalem synodum congregari"; Εp. 60, 3, p. 160.13-161.3.
112. - Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 3, 1, 141-56; Bihlmeyer-Tüchle, Kirchengeschichte, 58, 7.
113. - Charles Moeller argued in a provocative article, "Le chalcédonisme et le néochalcédonisme," in Das Κonzil von Chalkedon, ed. Α. Grillmeier-Η. Bacht, 1 (Würzburg, 1951), 687-90 (cf. Έ. Αmann, "Trois-chapitres," DTC, 15, 2, 1868-1924), that only those canons of the Council of 553 which were specifically endorsed by Pope Vigilius can properly be regarded as valid in the Roman Church. According to this hy-pothesis, the dogmatic scope of the Fifth Oecumenical Council would be restricted, so far as Rome is concerned, to its denunciation of the Three Chapters, since, he maintains, this was the only part of the doctrinal decision of the Council that Vigilius specifically approved. But this argument fails to take into account the fact that the chief doctrinal sources of the theology of this Council (the Epistola synodica [no. 17] of Cyril of Alexandria [PG, 77, 105-21], the Theopaschite formula, and the condemnation of Origen) had all been confirmed by Rome: see note 108 above, and on Cyril's Epistola synodica (Mansi, Concilia, 9, 457D-458A) see my "The immutability of Christ and Justinian's condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia," DOP, 6 (1951), n.b. 137, 159. Moreover, Pope Pelagius Ι insisted (see passages quoted in note 111 above) that the canons of the Council of 553, which he describes as an "assemblage of the entire Church," had been approved by "nearly 4,000 [sic] bishops" and were not subject to review by smaller conclaves. Hence, there can be no doubt that all the dogmatic decrees of the Council of 553 (i.e., its fourteen canons) received the approbation of Rome. Pope Leo ΙΧ (1049-54) specifically endorsed all the decisions of 553: Mansi, Concilia, 19, 663ABC, along with those of the other six Oecumenical Councils: "Quidquid supradicta septem sancta et universalia concilia senserunt et collaudaverunt, et sentio et collaudo, quoscumque anathematizaverunt, anathematizo." (The excerpt in Denzinger-Umberg, Εnchiridion, no. 349, omits the specific reference to the Second Council of Constantinople.) Similarly the Decretum of Gratian (ca. 1150), ed. cit. (in note 62 above), 46, Distinctio 16, c. 10, 4, ascribes all fourteen canons of 553 to Justinian and Vigilius: "qui XIV capitula anathematizando scripserunt contra Theodori et sociorum eius blasphemias." Note also ibid., 45, Distinctio 16, c. 8, which testifies to the unqualified acceptance by the Latin Church of the eight Oecumenical Councils (the eighth being the anti-Photian council of 869-70, on which see § 16) and all their decisions: "Auctoritate Romani Pontificis sancta octo concilia roborantur. Item ex Libro Diumo professio Romani Pontificis. Sancta octo universalia concilia, primum Nicenum, Constantinopolitanum, Ephesinum, Calcedonense quintum et sextum, Constantinopolitanum; item Nicenum; octavum quoque Constantinopolitanum usque ad unum apicem immutilata servare, et pari honore et veneratione digna habere, et que predicaverunt et statuerunt omnibus modis sequi et predicare, quecumque condempnaverunt ore et corde condempnare profiteor." Cf. ibid., 34-41, Distinctio 15, cc. 1-3; ibid., 44-45, Distinctio 16, cc. 7 and 9. Note also that F. Χ. Funk, "Die päpstliche Bestätigung der acht ersten allgemeinen Synoden," HistJb, 14 (1893), 485-516, holds, after a survey of the evidence, that papal confirmation was not essential to give a council oecumenical status. According to Byzantine theory, an oecumenical council was one convoked by the emperor, and attended by the bishops of the "Roman" (i.e., Byzantine) Empire and by the emperor himself or his representatives. The business of such an assembly was to decide problems concerning the faith authoritatively by vote or by the formulation of a dogmatic decree. Local synods, on the other hand, did not involve the invitation of bishops from "the whole of the inhabited world" (i.e., the realm ruled by the Byzantine emperor, which was deemed to be coextensive with the whole of the inhabited earth) and involved only the confirmation of the results of previous councils, the deposition of dissident clerics, or canons and problems that concerned ecclesiastical order. This is my paraphrase of Coisliniani Graeci, 36 (f. 7v) and 120 (f. 31); and Vaticanus graecus 640, published by Robert Devreesse, "Le cinquième concile et l'oecumenicite byzantine," in Miscellanea Gioνanni Mercati, 3 (ST, 123 [Vatican City, 1946]), 14 f. Though the texts are late (the oldest dates from the tenth century: Dvornik, Photian schism, 452 ff.), there is no doubt that they faithfully represent traditional Byzantine doctrine. (Devreesse contends that by the Fifth Oecumenical Council the Byzantines meant not only the Synod of 553 but also all the other ecclesiastical councils, which met at Constantinople during the reign of Justinian.) The Roman position to the contrary, which goes back to Pope Nicholas Ι (858-67), was that only the pope could convoke a council or give effect to its decisions: MGH Epist., 6, Karolini aevi, 4, 271.4-31; Gratian, Decretum,ed. cit., 50 f., Distinctio 17, c. 1: "Absque Romani Pontificis auctoritate congregari sinodus non debet"; c. 2: "Non est ratum concilium, quod auctoritate Romanae ecclesiae fultum non fuerit."