Category Archives: Church History Series 1

Church History Series 1, Post 21: The Filioque Dispute

Posted on by
Reply

The Preceding Trinitarian Definition

The Son and the Spirit are co-essential, or consubstantial, with the Father (homoousios with the Father).  Properly speaking, there is one God, the Father.  He eternally begets and spirates (or breathes forth) his Son and his Spirit, who, being eternally produced from the Father’s own being, are all that it means to be God.

The Beginnings of the Filioque [“and the Son”] Dispute

In the midst of the second struggle against the iconoclasts, another dispute began, one which cut to the heart of the rule of faith.

Some statements by the fourth century saints Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose of Milan stated that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Augustine (354-430) wrote of the Father and the Son as sources for the Spirit’s existence.  At times, he wrote of the Spirit being the bond in love that joins the Father and the Son.  Augustine’s starting point is not that there is “one God, the Father.”  Rather, for Augustine, the one God is “the Trinity itself” (De Trinitate).  The reason for this seems to be that Augustine was not living in the East and having to address the details of the issues that confronted the East between the first and third ecumenical councils.  Augustine knew the orthodox/catholic faith to be that there is one God in three persons and that this was revealed through the ministry of one person, Jesus Christ, who existed in two natures.  In other words, he knew the summaries, but did not have to invest himself in the largely Eastern controversies.

One Christian source for Augustine was Marius Victorinus (ca. AD 280-365), who strongly connected the Son and the Spirit in order to argue against Arians.

In 589, a local council, the Council of Toledo, in Toledo, Spain, condemned local Arians.  When the council cited the Creed, it said “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son [filioque].”  It seems that they may have thought the Creed itself originally included these words.

The Conflict Begins

In 796 or 797, Paulinus, bishop of Aquileia, held a council for the region of Friuli (the part of Italy containing Aquileia).  Given the task of addressing radical, adoptionist Arians, Paulinus’ council spent a fair amount of time addressing the subject of the filioque, arguing that a council could add something to the Creed.  Paulinus of Aquileia’s main line of argumentation is that interpolation (or even subtraction!) can occur (in his case by the council of Friuli) if the addition or subtraction does not go against the Fathers’ “intention” and “a blameless discernment.”

It used to be thought the debate reached an early head in 806, when some Western monks in a Latin monastery in Jerusalem began singing the filioque in the Creed, but current scholarship now disputes that.  A summary may be found in Tia Kolbaba’s Inventing Latin Heretics: Byzantines and the Filioque in the Ninth Century. I might review the book on here some day, but for now, I turn to my summary of this dispute.

Boris, Pope Nicholas I, Ignatius of Constantinople, and Photios of Constantinople

In 865, Boris, the leader of the people in what is today Bulgaria, decided to become a Christian.  Boris had flexed his military muscle but Byzantium flexed its military muscle in turn.  Boris asked Photios to baptize him and Emperor Michael III to be his godfather.

Photios (patriarch from 858-67 and again from 878-886), sent missionaries into Bulgaria.  When Boris did not get all of the concessions he wanted from Constantinople (especially his own patriarch for his capital city) he asked for Rome’s help and sent the Byzantine missionaries back to Constantinople.  The missionaries reported on the different practices of the Latin missionaries they encounter.  A significant difference is the filioque.

In response, Photios issued an encyclical to the major Eastern sees, wherein he condemned the filioque and calls for a council to address the issue.  This council met in 867 and condemned the filioque and Pope Nicholas I.  Later that same year, a new emperor took the throne (almost certainly through leading the murder plot that killed Emperor Michael).  Photios submitted his resignation and Ignatius, Photios’ predecessor, is re-instated.

In the meantime, supporters of Ignatius had gone to Rome and told the pope an exaggerated story of how Photios became patriarch.  In 867, Nicholas I died.  In 869, his successor, Hadrian II, sent representatives to Constantinople who demanded that a council be held to undo Photios’ 867 council and to condemn Photios.   The 869 council condemned Photios’ earlier actions and reinstated Ignatios.

In 877, Ignatius died and Photios was re-elected as patriarch of Constantinople.

Resolution

In 879-80, however, another council convened in Constantinople, with the desire to settle the matter between Hadrian II’s successor, Pope John VIII,  and Photios.  At this council, the papal legates pressed for a Roman-centric perspective, but signed the conciliar documents, documents which reveal a more “ecumenical” mindset.  At this council, it was proclaimed that whatever Rome decides within her jurisdiction, Constantinople must accept and vice-versa.  Also, all additions to the Creed were condemned.  No addition was to be made (following the 3rd and 4th Ecumenical Councils), which meant the filioque was prohibited.  The question of the jurisdiction of Illyricum (Bulgaria) was left to the emperor to decide and he did decide to give the jurisdiction back to Rome, but little ever came of this, as Bulgaria was now looking toward the East and Byzantine Orthodoxy remained the dominant form of Christianity in Bulgaria from then on.

Pope John VIII wrote to Photios sometime after the council to assure Photios that Rome does not support the filioque, but rather “We judge them [those who say filioque] with Judas because they have done as he did, since, although it is not the Body of Christ which they subject to death, they nevertheless bring schism to the faithful who are his members.”  He concluded, however, by arguing for a slow decrease in its usage since many in the West had been saying it for some time.

This council did not completely settle matters, however.  In 883, Photios wrote to the patriarch of Aquileia, encouraging him to listen to the pope (John VIII) and to note the stance of Pope Leo III earlier.  He also provided arguments against the filioque.  Things did not improve, and traditionally, people have believed he shortly thereafter he wrote his On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, but Tia Kolbaba has justly suggested the document, at least as we have it today, was actually not written by Photios.

John 16.15

“All that the Father has is mine.  Because of this, I said that he [the Spirit] receives what is mine and proclaims [it] to you.”

Central arguments put forth by the West

The most basic Western concern was that the East was “Arianizing” by refusing the filioque.

Ratramnus of Corbie (786-860) became a key spokesperson for the West and presented at least three major lines of defense.

1)The New Testament clearly speaks of the Spirit as being the Spirit “of the Son.”  This is, indeed, one of his most important apologetics, with an exegesis of Galatians 4.6 playing a key role.

2)Ratramnus builds on John 16.15 to say that whatever the Spirit receives must refer to an eternal reception and so the Spirit receives the substance of His being from the Son.

3)Ratramnus argues that the pope has the power equal to or greater than an Ecumenical Council and can, should he so desire, interpolate the Creed at will.

 

 

St. Photios’ main arguments against the filioque

Photios objects to the filioque for four central reaons (each of which may be found in his Letter to the Patriarch of Aquileia).

1)He objects to a change in the Creed.  According to both Ephesus and Chalcedon, the Creed may not be altered.  At the very least, any change would require an ecumenical council.

2)The filioque confuses hypostatic (personal) and natural properties.  So, he argues that if the Son receives divinity from the Father and part of what he receives is property of producing of another, then the Spirit must also receive that ability if he is truly divine because the ability to produce another being who is fully God would be a “natural” quality, not the quality if the person of the Father.  This criticism is the main objection because if there is a divine, or Godly, property that is part of what it means to be God and the Spirit does not have it, then the Spirit is not fully God.

3)He says the filioque also argues against the perfection of God, as the Father apparently needs the Son’s help.  Also, if there are two causes, then the Spirit is a composite being, which calls into question his perfection as well.

4)Exegetically, Photios notes that Jesus says “of mine,” not of me, meaning the “mine” is something He has received, such that the Spirit is eternally and ontologically from the Father and the Son is sending Him in view of God’s mission into the world.  He also notes that the West dogmatizes that the Father proceeds from the Son since the Bible says “Father of the Son.”  And what does the West do with phrases like “Spirit of power” or “Spirit of Wisdom”?  That is to say, “the Spirit of His Son” is not a subjective genitive or a genitive of sources.

Church History Series 1, Post 20: Some Specific Iconodule Arguments

Posted on by
Reply

I noticed that in that last post on the iconodules, I failed to provide much by way of any quotations that might prove helpful.  So, I offer a couple more citations in this post.

Here are the three anathemas attached to the horos (definition of faith) proclaimed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which I’ve translated from the Greek text found in Tanner’s first volume of Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils:

1) If anyone does not confess that Christ our God may be circumscribed according to his humanity, let him be anathema.

2) If anyone does not admit the Gospel narratives produced in art, let him be anathema.

3)  If anyone does not salute such representations as signifying the name of  [in the sense of standing in for] the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.

Another argument worth noting is St. Theodore of Studios’ response to the dilemma proposed by Constantine V when he said: “According to the view of the Church we confess that the hypostasis of the Word became the common hypostasis of the two natures, lending the human nature subsistence in it . . . the same hypostasis of the Word is uncicumscribed according to the nature of the divinity, but circumscribed accoding to the being shared with us, having its existence not in a self-subsistent and self-circumscribed bypostasis alongside the Word, but in it.  For there is no nature without concrete existence, and it is beheld and circumscribed in it as in an individual. [Antirrhetorici 3.1.22, emphasis mine, from Andrew Louth, Greek East and Latin West, though this is based on an earlier English translation].

To be sure, this does not say everything and there is much more that could be said, even beyond what was argued at the time, but I think these two citations at least lay out the beginnings of what Orthodox were arguing at the time.  Those interested in reading more ought to consult the writings of Ss. John of Damascus and Theodore of Studios that have been published in English translations through St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press as part of the seminary’s “Popular Patristic Series,” currently edited by Fr. John Behr.

Church History Series, Post 19: The Iconodule Arguments

Posted on by
Reply

I have recently outlined the iconoclastic controversies.  Obviously, there is more that can be said and perhaps I shall return to this topic.  Ok, I’ll almost certainly post on icons and iconography again later.

What I want to do here is explore the iconodule arguments.  Why do Orthodox have icons?  Why not accept the position of the iconodules, especially Constantine V’s position?  Pooping in the baptismal font cannot be reason enough to reject his argument, right?  Indeed!  As we shall see, there were various arguments made and ultimately, what matters, is the Christological argument.  For Orthodoxy, iconography is not just something optional.  It is necessary.  Orthodox Christology requires iconography.

The iconodules argued from tradition by saying that in light of the biblical witness, the iconoclasts failed to make a necessary distinction.  Rather than reading arguments against idolatry as opposing any and all images, the iconoclasts should have read those arguments simply for what they were—arguments against pagan idols, nothing more, nothing less.  In addition, the defenders of icons referenced arguments from the tradition that had said veneration given to the image of the emperor actually passed on to the prototype, the emperor himself.  The iconodules also argued on behalf of unwritten tradition.  Not everything was written down, as evidenced by St. Basil the Great’s treatise on the Holy Spirit, where he mentioned practices such as the signing of the cross, triple immersion at baptism and an eastern orientation during worship.

In response to Constantine’s supposed Christological dilemma, the defenders of icons responded with orthodox Christology.   Two prominent defenders of correct Christology were St. John of Damascus, who began writing around 730, and St. Theodore the Studite, who wrote about a century later.  Both men emphasized the importance of the incarnation.  An icon of Christ does not depict a “nature,” as though a nature can be abstractly circumscribed in an image, but depicts the hypostasis (the Greek word that meant something similar to “person”) of the Son Incarnate.  Accordingly, St. John of Damascus noted that prior to the incarnation, one could make iconoclastic arguments, but in light of the incarnation, anything iconoclastic is docetism.[1] Doceticism was a heresy that taught that Jesus’ humanity was not true and complete.  A docetist would claim Jesus “appeared” human, but did not possess a human body capable of the sort of suffering and death he experienced.  So, when St. John of Damascus made his claim, he was stating that if one refused to depict Christ in art, one was refusing to depict the reality of the incarnation of the Son of God himself.  The hypostasis of the Son is truly incarnate, which means, he must be depictable or his humanity is not actually humanity.  Furthermore, St. John of Damascus believed that that a nature had no independent existence, but was visible only in persons.[2] For this reason, St. Theodore the Studite observed that just as three hypostases do not divide the one divine ousia, so two natures do not divide the one hypostasis.[3]

What Constantine had done, was to treat the incarnation as an incarnation of natures, not an incarnation of a person (hypostasis), the Son of God.  The only way an iconoclast could avoid that problem would be to accept Nestorianism, as Constantine noted one could do with images.  Orthodox Christology, of course, taught that the hypostasis of the Logos/Son of God took on human nature, which found its personal expression in the person of the Son.  Yet, that very human nature is truly human nature.  Therefore, one cannot be an iconoclast without denying the reality of the incarnation.  If one believes in the full reality of the incarnation, one is, of necessity, a defender of icons.

[1] On the Orthodox Faith, PG 94.1304.

[2] On the Orthodox Faith, PG 94.1004A.

[3] Antirrheticus, PG 99.184.

Church History Series 1, Post 18: The Second Iconoclastic Period

Posted on by
Reply

Leo V became emperor in June of 813 after Michael abdicated and became a monk.  Michael’s reign had been short, following the death of Emperor Nikephoros, whose skull was inlaid with silver and used as a drinking chalice for the Bulgarian Khan Krum.  Leo V ordered Patriarch Nikephoros (obviously a different Nikephoros than the emperor of the same name) to destroy all icons that could be reached and touched and/or kissed.  The patriarch refused.  The emperor hired some soldiers to throw mud and stones at the icon of Christ above the gate to the imperial palace so that he could remove it under the pretext of protecting it.  Patriarch Nikephoros was later forced to exile, despite having held a local synod that included leading iconoclasts and yet ruled in favor of icons.  In other words, the saintly patriarch had actually held a local synod that included a fair representation of the opposition and oversaw a ruling in favor of icons.  It did not matter.

Monks were forced to sign statements supporting iconoclasm or at least receive communion from an iconoclast priest.  Bishops who refused to support iconoclasm were anathematized and deposed.  During this time, one could go into the home of another and destroy any icons without any fear of legal reprisal.  The strongest iconodule (supporter of icons) and opponent to the imperial, iconoclastic regime was St. Theodore from the Stoudios monastery in Constantinople.  He was arrested and beaten severely but wrote many letters from prison in which he took a hard line, claiming that those who supported iconoclasm should not receive communion even if they had repented.  This hard line recalls the stance taken by Novatianists and Meletians (in Egypt) with respect to those who sacrificed to the emperor.  Leo V died in 820.  Michael II reigned briefly, followed by Theophilos, who lived until 842.  When he died, his wife, the Empress Theodora, once again allowed iconography in Constantinople and the empire.  It was then, on March 11, 843, that the Triumph of Orthodoxy was celebrated on the first Sunday of Great Lent.  It has continued to be celebrated every year since.

Church History Series 1, Post 17: The First Iconoclastic Period

Posted on by
Reply

Background

There are very few texts arguing against the use of images in Church life.  Judaism during late antiquity also used images.  The notion that Judaism was strictly aniconic was something that developed later.  Archaeological evidence demonstrates that both Jews and Christians were using art in their worship spaces.  What’s more, Jews did not limit themselves to images from the Law, Psalms, and Prophets.  The also included pagan imagery in their synagogues during late antiquity.  Eusebios of Caesarea and Epiphanios of Salamis are the two examples most often cited for early arguments against images.  In the fifth century, images proliferated and we begin to have debates between Christians and Jews, as well as some intra-Christian debates.[1] The textual evidence suggests the debates were primarily between Christians and Jews and increased in the seventh century.  In other words, the Christian use of images was largely taken for granted.  One should not be anachronistic and think the kind of formal traditions we have now surrounding iconography were all in place (note: there seems to have been no official prayer of blessing even by 787, the Seventh Ecumenical Council itself).  On the other hand, an honest look at the historical and archaeological record indicates that icons/imagery were in use from the beginning.

First Iconoclastic Period

726, Emperor Leo III had an icon over the palace gate destroyed by a group of soldiers[2] and in 730, he made iconoclasm imperial policy.  Patriarch Germanos I of Constantinople refused to cooperate with the heresy and was deposed.  In 731, Pope Gregory II of Rome held a synod and condemned iconoclasm.  The Eucharist and the Cross, however, were still venerated by the iconoclasts.

In response, St. John of Damascus wrote three treatises against iconoclasm.  John argued that one needed to distinguish between worship and honor.  Christians paid honor to icons but did not worship them as God.  The honor paid to saints in the icon was directed not at the icon itself but at the archetype.  So, the honor paid to an icon of St. Luke is directed not to the icon, but to St. Luke.  John of Damascus also believed that images were integral to human understanding.  Iconoclasm undercuts the very way we humans understand things.  In response to those who would venerate the cross only, John asked how is it that someone who venerates the cross would not also venerate the Crucified One himself.

Leo III died in 740 and in 754 his son Constantine V (aka Constantine Copronymos, or the “shi# called,” because he pooped in the baptismal font during his baptism) called a synod at the palace of Hiereia, just across the Bosphorus from Constantinople.  This 754 synod immediately declared itself ecumenical despite having no representatives from any patriarchate other than Constantinople.

Emperor Constantine V posed a Christological dilemma that was taken up by the 754 synod:  either an image of Christ portrayed both his divine and human natures or it portrayed only his human nature.  The first implied that one could circumscribe (restrict and define) the divine nature in an image while the second resulted in Nestorianism!  Constantine’s point was that Christology necessitated iconoclasm.  The assumption behind his position, however, is one that would be the iconoclasts’ undoing, for Constantine V assumed that a true image was identical in essence (homoousios) with its prototype.  In his writings (for he was not at the 754 synod) St. John of Damascus argued that such was only one kind of image, the kind found in the Son of God, who is the Image of the Father.  The Synod of Hiereia also objected to a lack of official annointing prayer for icons.  It must be noted at this time that abuses were occurring, abuses such as chipping pieces from icons into the chalice and having icons stand in for godparents during baptisms.

In 780, Constantine VI came to the throne but because of his youth, his mother Eirene served as co-ruler.  Eirene came from Athens, an a city that was in an area of iconodule resistance to the imperial iconoclastic policy.  In 787, Eirene had a council called.  This one met in Nicea and had representatives from each of the five patriarchates.  The council declared the use of images to be Orthodox and dismissed criticisms.  It rejected Constantine V’s argument by stating that if the Eucharist is merely a “type” of the body and blood of Christ, that one might be denying the real presence of the body and blood within the bread and wine.  The council countered the concern with lack of official annointing prayers for icons by noting that icons were not merely inventions of painters but a living part of the tradition.  Although this council would come to be seen as the Seventh Ecumenical Council, another iconoclastic period was on the horizon.

[1] For a mid fifth century debate concerning the use of images (and relics) between an Orthodox-Catholic Christian and a member of the Novatianist Church, see Alexander Alexakis, “The ‘Dialogue of the Monk and Recluse Moschos concerning the Holy Icons,’ an Early Iconophile Text,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 52 (1998): 187-224, which includes a critical text and translation, in addition to commentary.    For a brief history of the Novatianist church, see Martin Wallraff, “Socrates Scholasticus on the History of Novatianism” Studia Patristica (1997): 170-7.

[2] The historicity of this event is disputed by some historians.

Church History Series 1, Post 16: St. Maximos the Confessor, Monothelites, and the Sixth Ecumenical Council

Posted on by
Reply

St. Maximos the Confessor and the Monothelite Heresy

Unfortunately, the Fifth Ecumenical Council did not reconcile very many to the Church.  The great majority of non-Chalcedonians (or “monophysites”) remained non-Chalcedonians.

Later in the sixth century, Emperor Heraclius decided to try yet again to attain unity between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians.  Their compromise was monoenergism, which teaches that there is only one “energy” or “activity” in Jesus.  This was perfectly acceptable to non-Chalcedonians because philosophically, “energy” represented the concrete manifestation of a “nature.”  So, to them, one “energy” implied one “nature.”  The patriarch of Constantinople at the time actively sought reunion with non-Chalcedonians based on this position.

In 633, a monk named Sophronios objected.  Taking his objections seriously, Sergius reneged on monoenergism and instead published a psephos, or authoritative opinion, in which he ordered all to cease from discussing “one energy” versus “two energies” and instead to simply teach that at no time were their “two wills” present in Christ, as that would imply conflict, or opposition.  In 634, Sophronios became patriarch of Jerusalem.

Sergius was not completely satisfied with his own position.  He wrote to Rome and asked Pope Honorius I what the pope thought.  The pope replied not only in the affirmative, but by expressly stating what Sergius was implying, “We confess the one will of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  That is to say, Honorius proclaimed monothelitism, or the belief that Christ has only one will.

In response to this, a monk named Maximos rose to the occasion.  Maximos had fled the Muslim Invasion that conquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and then North Africa.

Pyrrhus became patriarch of Constantinople after Sergius, but then was replaced by Paul, because of political concerns.  He journeyed to Northwest Africa, where he held a debate with Maximos and became convinced that one must say Christ has two wills and not one.  Pope Martin I held a council, at which Maximos helped outline the reasons for dyothelitism (the belief in two wills).

Maximos’ position can be summarized as follows:

Just as “energy” or “activity” is connected, so is “will.”  It is divine nature and human nature to “will.”  Willing is part of what it means to be human.  Just as with Apollinarius’ problem when he said there was no human “mind” in Jesus, if there is no human will, then humanity’s will has not been healed.  It is not saved.

Does this mean Christ is schizophrenic?  No.  To help us understand why not, Maximos distinguishes between what he calls natural will and gnomic will.  Natural will refers to the natural capacity to will.  We all have a “natural will” because the act of willing is natural to humanity.  It is part of being human.  Gnomic will is how the natural will is employed—how the natural will is used.  It is the personal use of one’s natural will.  So, we all have a natural, human will, but each one of us uses it in a personal way.

Jesus Christ as two wills—the divine and human, but it is personally employed by the hypostasis, the person, of the Son/Word of God.

So, we can now put our earlier chart as follows:

Divine Essence                                                            Human essence

Divine Nature                                                             Human nature

(With Will and Energy)                                              (With Will and Energy)

One Hypostasis (Personal Subject): the Son/Word of God

(With the personal employment of will and energy)

One Prosopon (outward manifestation): Jesus Christ

Maximos and Pope Martin 1 were arrested and taken to Constantinople, where they were held as prisoners.  Pope Martin died and Maximos was exiled, only to be brought back and then have his right hand and tongue removed.  He later died from these wounds.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 681, affirmed the position of Maximos and Martin I.  It also anathematized Pope Honorius 1 several times over for being a monothelite.  For the next several centuries, the popes would restate these anathematizations upon being sworn in.  In fact, Pope Leo II (682-3) even spoke of Honorius as the one who “instead of giving glory to this apostolic church [Rome] by teaching apostolic tradition, has tried to subvert the immaculate faith by impious treason.”

Christological dogma was set.  The Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian divide was permanent, but the Rule of Faith was consistently upheld.  To be Christian meant to believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ, who was both fully God and fully human even while being the Incarnation of the Person known as the Son of God.

St. Maximos the Confessor and the Monothelite Heresy

Unfortunately, the Fifth Ecumenical Council did not reconcile very many to the Church.  The great majority of non-Chalcedonians (or “monophysites”) remained non-Chalcedonians.

Later in the sixth century, Emperor Heraclius decided to try yet again to attain unity between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians.  Their compromise was monoenergism, which teaches that there is only one “energy” or “activity” in Jesus.  This was perfectly acceptable to non-Chalcedonians because philosophically, “energy” represented the concrete manifestation of a “nature.”  So, to them, one “energy” implied one “nature.”  The patriarch of Constantinople at the time actively sought reunion with non-Chalcedonians based on this position.

In 633, a monk named Sophronios objected.  Taking his objections seriously, Sergius reneged on monoenergism and instead published a psephos, or authoritative opinion, in which he ordered all to cease from discussing “one energy” versus “two energies” and instead to simply teach that at no time were their “two wills” present in Christ, as that would imply conflict, or opposition.  In 634, Sophronios became patriarch of Jerusalem.

Sergius was not completely satisfied with his own position.  He wrote to Rome and asked Pope Honorius I what the pope thought.  The pope replied not only in the affirmative, but by expressly stating what Sergius was implying, “We confess the one will of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  That is to say, Honorius proclaimed monothelitism, or the belief that Christ has only one will.

In response to this, a monk named Maximos rose to the occasion.  Maximos had fled the Muslim Invasion that conquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and then North Africa.

Pyrrhus became patriarch of Constantinople after Sergius, but then was replaced by Paul, because of political concerns.  He journeyed to Northwest Africa, where he held a debate with Maximos and became convinced that one must say Christ has two wills and not one.  Pope Martin I held a council, at which Maximos helped outline the reasons for dyothelitism (the belief in two wills).

Maximos’ position can be summarized as follows:

Just as “energy” or “activity” is connected, so is “will.”  It is divine nature and human nature to “will.”  Willing is part of what it means to be human.  Just as with Apollinarius’ problem when he said there was no human “mind” in Jesus, if there is no human will, then humanity’s will has not been healed.  It is not saved.

Does this mean Christ is schizophrenic?  No.  To help us understand why not, Maximos distinguishes between what he calls natural will and gnomic will.  Natural will refers to the natural capacity to will.  We all have a “natural will” because the act of willing is natural to humanity.  It is part of being human.  Gnomic will is how the natural will is employed—how the natural will is used.  It is the personal use of one’s natural will.  So, we all have a natural, human will, but each one of us uses it in a personal way.

Jesus Christ as two wills—the divine and human, but it is personally employed by the hypostasis, the person, of the Son/Word of God.

So, we can now put our earlier chart as follows:

Divine Essence                                                            Human essence

Divine Nature                                                             Human nature

(With Will and Energy)                                              (With Will and Energy)

One Hypostasis (Personal Subject): the Son/Word of God

(With the personal employment of will and energy)

One Prosopon (outward manifestation): Jesus Christ

Maximos and Pope Martin 1 were arrested and taken to Constantinople, where they were held as prisoners.  Pope Martin died and Maximos was exiled, only to be brought back and then have his right hand and tongue removed.  He later died from these wounds.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 681, affirmed the position of Maximos and Martin I.  It also anathematized Pope Honorius 1 several times over for being a monothelite.  For the next several centuries, the popes would restate these anathematizations upon being sworn in.  In fact, Pope Leo II (682-3) even spoke of Honorius as the one who “instead of giving glory to this apostolic church [Rome] by teaching apostolic tradition, has tried to subvert the immaculate faith by impious treason.”

Christological dogma was set.  The Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian divide was permanent, but the Rule of Faith was consistently upheld.  To be Christian meant to believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ, who was both fully God and fully human even while being the Incarnation of the Person known as the Son of God.

Church History Series 1, Post 15: The Fifth Ecumenical Council and Origenism

Posted on by
Reply

The Origenist Controversy

The Origenist controversy is often traced to when (St.) Sabbas, an elderly monk, came to Constantinople, seeking help both for a local Samaritan rebellion and a group of monks following a specific interpretation of Origen.  It is debatable as to how faithfully these monks actually followed Origen’s own thought.  They had been inspired by Evangrius of Pontus, who had been a desert monastic from 383-399 and was himself inspired by Origen.  Regardless, the fifth century Origenists believed and taught the following:

1)      pre-existence of souls, an existence that was probably co-eternal with God

2)      a “pre-fall” fall of these souls—the souls fell into bodies prior to the fall of humanity described in Genesis

3)      All souls will eventually return to their original position of contemplating God (described by the word apokatastasis, or “restoration”)

4)      One soul, the soul of Christ, does not fall;  this makes the Incarnation, not the assumption, or taking on, of fallen humanity, but a manifestation of a pre-existing, unfallen humanity

The “Three Chapters” and Pope Vigilius

Initially, Justinian believed that the “monophysite” controversy after Chalcedon and the Origenist crisis could be handled by a local synod and the support of the patriarchs and senior bishops.

In 543, Justinian asked Patriarch Menas of Constantinople to hold a synod for the purpose of condemning the Origenists.  That council condemned Origenism broadly, condemning both the specifics of Origenism and a broader perspective.  For example, the council condemned not only the idea of all the souls eventually returning to their original state of contemplation, but also the idea of a universal salvation more generally.

The real difficulty occurred with what became known as the “three chapters,” a name given to statements made by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa, which were condemned in a decree by Justinian.  This is because Theodore had been the teacher of Nestorius (and so was blamed for Nestorianism) and Theodoret and Ibas had initially sided with Nestorius but later retracted and were re-instated by the council at Chalcedon (therefore, the non-Chalcedonians or “monophysites” viewed Chalcedon, with suspicion).

One of the main opponents to the “three chapters” was Pope Vigilius of Rome and the deacon Facundas, bishop of Hermiana (who was in the pope’s entourage).  Vigilius traveled to Constantinople where, after debating the matter, proclaimed a judicatum, or papal adjudication, to Patriarch Menas in which Vigilius condemned the three chapters.  However, during the debates themselves, Facundas began drafting a work against Vigilius’ Judicatum.  Upon learning of the Western objections, Vigilius asked to retract his judicatum, at which point Justinian realized an ecumenical council would be needed.

Pope Vigilius refused to attend and produced a document that did condemn some statements made by Theodore of Mopsuestia, but did not condemn Theodore personally.  Additionally, the pope condemned those condemning the “three chapters.”  The Council rejected this, citing Vigilius’ prior condemnation of the three chapters, and claiming it was “serving unity with the apostolic see of Old Rome” by removing its errant bishop (Pope Vigilius)!

Council’s Rulings:

Used the “theopaschite” formula

Condemned Theodore of Mopsuestia himself

Condemned certain writings of Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa’s Letter to Maris the Persian.

Condemned Origen, Didymus the Blind, and Evagrius of Pontus, those who taught and developed what became “Origenism” in the fifth century.  The points of condemnation, however, were more specific than at the earlier local council.  For instance, rather than condemning the salvation of all in Christ, the Ecumenical Council condemned only the belief in the return of all souls to a state of disembodied contemplation.

Six months later, Pope Vigilius changed his mind again and accepted the Council’s rulings.  He was recognized as the legitmate pope by the Eastern bishops once again and returned to Rome, but died on the way.

Church History Series1, Post 14: A Word on the Aftermath of Chalcedon

Posted on by
Reply

Following Chalcedon’s council, many Christians in Egypt, Syria, and Armenia broke away, claiming that it was the rest of the church that had become unfaithful.  Although matters of faith were certainly at stake, and the sides did disagree, one also has to keep in mind that the removal of Dioscoros (patriarch of Alexandria) and the reinstatement of Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa (two former critics of Cyril of Alexandria) played an important role in the division.  Today, for instance, the non-Chalcedonians have come to agree with what is the Chalcedonian faith in Christ (at least according to dialogue from the 1960s and 1970s, furthered by the WCC).  At the time, though, the different emphases in understanding Christ, combined with the treatment of Dioscoros and Theodoret and Ibas, created hostilities.

Emperor Zeno published his Henotikon, a document that emphasized the faith of Nicea and Constantinople and Ephesus, but did not mention Chalcedon.  It did mention Eutyches’ condemnation, but did not mention that Chalcedon made that condemnation final.  It also omitted any reference to physis, hypostasis, or prosopon.  Initially, it received a warm welcome from some important non-Chalcedonian bishops, but many bishops and monks continued to hold to “monophysite” positions.  A monophysite believes there is only one nature in Christ (mono-physis).  As noted above, contemporary non-Chalcedonian Churches accept Chalcedon’s language of “two natures in Christ,” even realizing that this phrase is perfectly consistent with Cyril’s writings and the apostolic understanding of who Christ is.

Emperor Justinian

In the midst of this fighting that was tearing the empire in two, Justinian became emperor and provided stability with a long reign (527-65).  Justinian was a committed Chalcedonian, but thought that perhaps a “theopaschite” formula, recently introduced by some monks from what is today southern Romania, would help bring unity.  The formula went, “One of the Holy Trinity suffered in the flesh.”  The point is to emphasize that although there are two natures in Christ, there is only one personal subject, the Son of God, which means it is the Son of God, one of the Trinity, who suffers in his own humanity.

This theopaschite approach is perfectly consistent with both Ephesus and Chalcedon.  The Christology thus portrayed (by the Councils at Ephesus and Chalcedon and this theopaschite formula) is in accordance with the heart of the Rule of Faith:

Divine Essence                                                               Human essence

Divine Nature                                                                 Human nature

One Hypostasis (Personal Subject): the Son/Word of God

One Prosopon (outward manifestation): Jesus Christ

Church History Series 1, Post 13: The Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon

Posted on by
Reply

The Council at Chalcedon is important for both Christological and Ecclesiological reasons.  Although there is much that could be said about the time leading up to the council and the council itself, I hope to have provided some of the main points here.

The Christological Dimension

Ephesus did not finally settle matters.  Although St. Cyril had won that day and all but a small minority came to accept the council and the term “Theotokos,” some still harbored some suspicions.  All of this broke out again in a case involving Eutyches, who had been deposed for claiming that “after” the Incarnation, there were not two natures in Christ and that Christ was not even “consubstantial” or “co-essential” with the rest of humanity.

Dioscoros, patriarch of Alexandria, reinstated Eutyches and condemned and deposed Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople.  Dioscoros had earlier denounced Pope Leo I, as well.  The council that reinstated Eutyches was held in Ephesus in 449.

With the new emperor, Marcian, however, things changed.  Marcian, who thought Flavian and Leo were right, called for an ecumenical council.  The council gathered at Chalcedon, just outside of Constantinople, with an attendance of over 500 bishops.

At this council, Dioscorus was removed from office and Leo’s Tome on Christ was read and debated.  After papal legates convinced some hesitant bishops that Leo’s position was the same as Cyril’s, just couched in different language, the Tome was accepted.

The heart of the matter was how to understand “from two natures” and “in two natures.”  Eutyches did not want to say “in two natures.”  He feared being Nestorian.  Bishops at the council, despite ruling against this, were concerned that Leo might also be Nestorian in his emphasis on the two natures.  Were these natures not joined in one person?

The bishops were seeking to articulate and defend the heart of the Rule of Faith—One Lord Jesus Christ, both God and man.

Some bishops continued to be concerned that the council was reverting to Nestorianism, and a schism ensued that exists to this day.  Today, the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt, the Armenian Orthodox Church, and the Syrian Orthodox Church are “non-Chalcedonian.”  Recent dialogues, however, have shown great promise.

Canon 28 of Chalcedon:

Canon 3 from the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople said, “The bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.”

Canon 28 of Chalcedon clarifies this, “Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers and acknowledging the canon, which has just been read, of the one hundred and fifty bishops beloved of God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of blessed memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome because it was the royal city.”

Some Background for Understanding the Significance of these Canons

The Quartodeciman controversy, which was solved after Irenaeus wrote to Pope Victor I, had been a schism within Rome itself.  Rome did not have a single bishop to which all Romans had to submit on all issues until about 60 years later, in 250.

Eastern bishops did not appeal only to Rome’s bishop, when they would appeal for help.  For example, after being exiled from Constantinople in 404, John Chrysostom appealed to Pope Innocent as well as Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia.

Even in the West, things were not so straightforward.  In the third century, Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, understood Peter the apostle to be the source of episcopal ministry in general.  He claimed all bishops are successors of Peter.  Although the East did not know of Cyprian’s Latin writings, they held to a similar viewpoint—the power of the keys, is ultimately given to all bishops (as it was given to all disciples).

Another North African example occurred in 418, when the bishops rejected the idea that one man (the pope) could decide to reinstate a priest that a synod had deposed.

Many early writings hold Rome and Rome’s bishop in high esteem, but we need to be careful not to think that the papacy as it exists today is what it was then.  Certainly, not even the Christians in communion with Rome would have accorded Rome the kind of powers she has today.

Christianity had aligned her governing structure parallel to that of the Roman/Byzantine Empire.  This resulted in five major centers, whose bishops came to be called “patriarchs”: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.  In addition to these five major sees, Cyprus had its own independent bishop, called a metropolitan (rather than patriarch).  Cyprus was a holdover from the pre-Constantinian Church structure.  In hindsight, the ecclesiological cracks might be seen already with the dispute over canon 28 of Chalcedon, but at the time, this was seen as a difference but not a fissure.  It will take much more than this to send Rome on her own trajectory apart from the other patriarchates, or depending on your perspective, the other patriarchates on a trajectory that would not see the pope as the bishop of all bishops but rather as the first among equals, the chairman of the board, if you will.

Church History Series 1, Post 12: The Third Ecumenical Council

Posted on by
Reply

Within early Christianity, there had been four general ways of understanding this.   The four main views that had been debated within the Orthodox-Catholic Church were:

1)      According to a proper use of the Rule of Faith, which understands the “One Lord Jesus Christ” to be both God and man.  Alexander and Athanasius (both patriarchs/bishops of Alexandria) are two prominent examples.  Athanasius used this approach to remind the Arians that because Christ is both God and man, a person must be aware of which nature a biblical passage is speaking about.  Two passages refer to the same Lord Jesus Christ, but one may refer to his divinity while the other refers to his humanity.

2)      A “chemical” approach, where Christ is a composite being—a single Christ, yes, with the Word/Son of God replacing the mind of Jesus (so that Jesus had a human body and soul but not a human mind).  Apollinarius seems to have gone this route in order to emphasize that Christ is one.

3)      The Word/Son of God is the highest created thing.  Arius and others held to a position along these lines.

4)      Adoptionism: Jesus is “adopted” as the Son of God and is only a man.  This is an extreme view, not held by many, which pushes Arius’ view to the breaking point.  One radical form of adoptionism would argue that there are “two sons,” the Son/Word of God and Jesus, adopted as a son.

By the time we get to Ephesus, approach #1 was the standard, normative approach for Christianity.  Many had held to point number three, but by Ephesus, it was no longer as popular.  Now, the debate was focusing on point number one.  How can Jesus be the “one Lord” and yet fully God and fully human?  Furthermore, how to uphold #1 while continuing to avoid problems 2 and 4.

The Controversy Unfolds

Cyril ecame bishop/patriarch of Alexandria on October 18th, 412.

He struggled with maintaining order and diocesan control in his early years.  Two prominent examples of this failure are:

1)      Prefect Orestes encountered a mob and tortured one mobster, the monk Ammonius, until Ammonius died

2)      The woman philosopher, Hypatia was murdered in the nave of the main church

Nestorius was consecrated as bishop/patriarch of Constantinople on April 10th, 428.  He ordered the destruction of the last Arian church building in Constantinople.

Nestorius struggled to comprehend the freedom that women had in Constantinople and became enemies with Pulcheria, the emperor’s sister, though she was not without her faults, either.  This struggled led to the theological confrontation, when monks went to Nestorius asking whether “Theotokos” was an appropriate term for Mary.  He said either Theotokos or anthropotokos could be Ok, but they could also lead to problems, so he suggested Christotokos.  He did not uphold “theotokos” because, he believed, “strictly speaking, Mary was not the mother of God” but the mother of a man whom Christians recognize as divine and call God.”  This did not satisfy the monks, who later said, “If Mary is not, ‘strictly speaking,’ the Mother of God [Theotokos], then her son is not, ‘strictly speaking,’ God!”

The Terms of the Debate

Ousia:  Commonly meaning essence, substance, being, genus, or nature.  Ousia in the sense of “essence” had already become a standard term (recall homoousios).

Physis: nature, or the “make-up” of a thing (such as “human nature”)

Hypostasis: the concrete existence of a thing (though in earlier usages, it could also mean something’s underlying essence

Prosopon: the observable character, defining properties, or manifestation of reality.

The final outcome of the Nestorian debate, was an understanding that said Christ is the hypostasis (concrete existence/person) of the Son of God, divine in nature, who has taken on human nature in its entirety (having a body, soul, and mind) as seen in one prosopon (one single manifestation of reality, or person).  In this way, both hypostasis and prosopon mean “person” in the sense of meaning a single subject.

The point is not to perform a “compositional analysis,” or some form of “chemistry” but to properly express the belief that there is one Lord Jesus Christ who is both fully God and fully man.

Ephesus did not end the debates, however, and the important Council of Chalcedon in 451, is right around the corner.

Mary in the Orthodox Church

Considered an image of the Church.  She has feast days dedicated to her, such as the Nativity of the Virgin Mary on September 8, the Annunciation on March 25, and the Falling Asleep (Dormition) of the Theotokos on August 15.  Although St. John Chrysostom (347-407) taught that Mary had committed a minor sin at the wedding of Cana in Galilee, the other fathers of the Church have taught that she never committed any personal sins.  Some famous sermons on Mary have been delivered by St. John of Damascus (676-749) and St. Gregory Palamas (1296-1359).