Preface: I just want to say that I wrote this in five and one half hours today, from 11:00 am to 4:30 pm. This is a record-shattering event. Someone should erect a monument. I should also note that it is due at 6:30 pm today, this same day.
------------
In the first decades of the fourth century, the Emperor Constantine would alter history forever. Not only did he found the “New Rome” of Constantinople, soon to be the heart of the Byzantine Empire, but he also was the first Christian emperor of Rome. Christianity and Byzantium, then, were linked from the very origins of Byzantine prominence, and it is certainly a fruitful venture to observe the concurrent development of Christian orthodoxy after its acquisition of state support and the devleompent of this new city, founded for a Christian empire. Chronologically, this search for orthodoxy can first be seen in the circumstances surrounding the Council of Nicaea in 325. The developments of the fourth century, however, led to the Council of Constantinople in 381. The First Council of Ephesus in 431 came next, and the Second “Robber” Council of Ephesus took place in 449. At last, the monumental Council of Chalcedon would leave its long-standing mark on orthodoxy in 451. It is through the ecumenical councils that the development of orthodoxy can be most definitively seen.
Before the Council of Nicaea, Constantine saw it fit to find a settlement between his theologically discordant subjects. This meant dealing with the Donatists and the Arians. First of all, the Donatists were products of the Great Persecution of Diocletian. Donatus was a Carthaginian priest who would not tolerate the reinstatement of those who lapsed under persecution, and so he and his followers responded to the latter practice when it arose under Archbishop Caecilian of Carthage, by declaring Donatus archbishop (Gregory 53). This left Carthage with a schism between two archbishops, so when Constantine tried in 313 to restore the property of the Church in North Africa, each was a claimant. Initially Constantine encouraged the parties to come to a peaceful solution between themselves, but when this failed he was persuaded against the Donatists by the councils he called for guidance on the matter, and he used the army to persecute them, which itself was an utter failure (53). It was the case, then, that though the North African church remained split, the beginnings of a state-linked orthodoxy had appeared with Constantine’s councils, and this orthodoxy was opposed to Donatism. So much for Constantine’s first attempt at unifying the Christians of his domain.
A decade later in 325, Arianism was highly controversial in Alexandria, which had fallen into Constantine’s hands with the defeat of Licinius, a victory that had unified the empire once again. Arianism can be simply defined by the belief that Christ, as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, was created by the Father, and that He is less fully God than God the Father (Gregory 54). In fact, it was the furor of this controversy that compelled Licinius to resume persecution of the Church in 320, which was itself the impetus for Constantine’s conquest of the Eastern Empire. Still desiring unity among his Christian subjects, Constantine reacted to this issue much the same way as he did to the Donatists: he implored the parties to get along. Failing to see this realized, Constantine decided it would be best to seek unity with an ecumenical council, calling bishops from across the empire (54).
The Council of Nicaea met at the aforesaid location in 324 in order to deal with the Arian controversy. Though it had been Constantine’s intention in calling the council to find unity in the universal church of his empire, the bishops themselves immediately set about excluding their Arian colleagues from the orthodoxy they were to establish (Frend 140). Constantine, however, was not to be stopped by this resolve, seeking then to find as inclusive a doctrine as he could. Thus Constantine proposed the use of the term homoousios, denoting that the Father and the Son are “of the same substance,” and this was accepted (140). The Nicene Creed was formulated on this basis, and Arianism was condemned as a heresy, but this did not stop Constantine from showing plenty of favor to the Arians, eventually allowing for the reinstatement of Arius (who suddenly and mysteriously died immediately beforehand) and being clinically baptized by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia (Treadgold 23-24). The conflict between imperial designs of unity and ecclesiastical politics is plainly evident even from the beginnings of the Christian empire, which might be emphasized by the fact that the questioning of homoousios was largely delayed until Constantine’s passing (Frend 140).
Almost sixty years would pass before the next great council, that at Constantinople in 381, would be called. In that time, the empire would see its final pagan emperor, Julian “the Apostate,” who ruled from 361 until 363. It was he who undid many of the policies set down by Constantine, severing the link betwixt church and state which, for better or for worse, would not return with the strength it had heretofore known. His successor, the Christian Jovian, would merely eliminate Julian’s anti-Christian legislation (Gregory 76). This indeed turned out to be the last hurrah of Roman paganism, for as the remainder of the fourth century progressed, Christianity would unquestionably become the prevailing view of the empire (90). Now in the West, Nicene Christianity was generally stable, but in the East, the Arians still opposed the pronouncements at Nicaea, and Theodosius I, a Spaniard by birth, was very much a Westerner when he was proclaimed emperor in 379 (Frend 175). Coming to Constantinople, then, the Arian controversy was seen as something that needed attention, hence an edict that delivered its “death blow” in early 381, successfully demanding and enforcing Nicene Christianity, except among the Germans, where the missionary bishop Ulfilas was converting Goths in droves to Arian Christianity (175-76). Just a few months later, Theodosius saw the need to call an ecumenical council at Constantinople, which would denounce Arianism among other heresies.
The Council of Constantinople was called in 381 mostly to deal with Arianism, but it highlights above all else the growing conflict between Eastern and Western Christianity, an unfortunate side effect of Christianity’s rise to prominence in the empire. Whether the opposed attitudes of East and West are attributed to administrative divide, linguistic divide, or some other set of causes, there is no denying this friction after 381. The conflict at Constantinople pertained largely to the respective authorities of the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria. In the end, though, it was the Alexandrians who were disaffected, thanks to two canons in particular, one preventing meddling in other ecclesiastical provinces, the other granting the Bishop of Constantinople “primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome” (Frend 176). Such became the relationship among the cities for decades to come. Of course, this no to neglect the denunciation of heresies like Arianism, which was definitively achieved with the backing of the emperor (Treadgold 29), something Constantine had not provided at Nicaea. The Council of Constantinople enjoyed widespread acceptance for its specific pronouncements, in a sense confirming the Council of Nicaea as being orthodox, and this was its success, but it provided no permanent peace for the church, especially not with the Alexandrians left as they were.
How appropriate, then, that Bishop Cyril of Alexandria would be the instigator of the next round of councils, from the two at Ephesus to their resolution at Chalcedon in 451. Arianism, having been effectively purged from the empire, was no longer the arch-heresy, but the questions of Christology were far from resolved. Monophysitism was on the rise in the east, thanks to its opposite extreme, Nestorianism. Because the first Council of Ephesus in 431 was rooted in the Nestorian controversy, a summary of Nestorianism is warranted. Nestorius was appointed Bishop of Constantinople by Theodosius II in 428, and it did not take him long to raise the ire of Cyril of Alexandria. The controversy arose when Nestorius objected to the use of the term Theotokos, or “God-bearer,” to refer to the Virgin Mary. Instead, he argued for the use of Christotokos, or “Christ-bearer,” on the grounds that Mary could only have borne Christ the man, not God Himself (Gregory 103). At least, this is the description we have from mostly hostile sources. Now, being that Nestorius had been selected for his position by the Emperor Theodosius II, he had the emperor’s support, but that was not enough to stop Cyril from getting a council at Ephesus in 431. With papal backing, Cyril was able to seize control of the council (Frend 217) so that Nestorius was condemned as a heretic and exiled, being accused of presenting a Christology of two persons, which was unacceptable. Cyril had his way, but the emperor was disappointed (Treadgold 34). More importantly, though, the stage was set for the controversy to continue.
The 431 Council of Ephesus precipitated an entirely new Christological debate, raising the question of whether or not Christ had two natures, and if so, is the human nature fully human, for to deny full divinity is to reverse the orthodoxy established at Nicaea (Treadgold 34). Some, like the Theodosius’ Grand Chamberlain Chrysaphius, adopted the Monophysite position to which Theodosius tended as he grew older (34). Monophysitism is the belief that Christ possesses only the divine nature at the expense of his humanity, and it gained prominence in the 440’s under the monk Eutyches in fear of a revival of Nestorianism (Gregory 104). The new Bishop of Alexandria, Dioskoros, favored this view, but Flavian, the Bishop of Constantinople, was opposed to it (104). Flavian, investigating Eutyches, found cause to excommunicate him, but Theodosius, being friendly to the views of Eutyches and the Alexandrians, sought a council to tend to the matter (Frend 228). As the first Council of Ephesus had to contend with an extreme separation of the natures of Christ, the second had to contend with the diminishment of the human nature.
In 449 the Second Council of Ephesus, the “Robber Council,” was called by Theodosius II to deal (favorably) with Eutyches and the issues he raised. Dioskoros of Alexandria presided, and he did so in such a way as to ensure the victory of Eutyches, his “Alexandrian fathers,” and Monophysite Christology (Frend 229). To further the matter, Theodosius II was firmly allied to the Alexandrian and Monophysite cause, and as such was able to condone and encourage the dishonest proceedings carried out by Dioskoros. Indeed, the pronouncements of the Imperial court received attention first as it was decided that Eutyches should be reinstated, Flavian deposed, and Monophysitism considered the most compatible position given Nicaea (Frend 230). It was Flavian of Constantinople and Pope Leo I against the Imperial court of Constantinople and the Alexandrians, and the latter two were in control. Leo had even composed his famous Tome, which advanced a Diophysite Christology without sinking into Nestorianism, the orthodox position in the West, and as far as Leo was concerned, what was intended by Nicaea (Frend 231). The Tome was not read at Ephesus. It was Leo, then, who denounced this council as the “Robber Council,” and when Theodosius II died in a hunting accident in 450, he and his fellow Diophysites saw their chance to reverse the shenanigans of 449.
The Council of Chalcedon, the largest ecumenical council to date, was called by Pulcheria (the sister of Theodosius) and Marcian, the Byzantine rulers after Theodosius, in 451, and it would be the single most influential doctrinal pronouncement for the proceeding centuries of Byzantine history. Under the direction of the emperor and the empress, Flavian’s condemnation of Eutyches was declared orthodox, and Eutyches was once again condemned. Only Dioskoros and several others refused to go with the council on this matter, and they themselves were excommunicated (Frend 231). The Tome of Leo was also given attention at last, and it was reviewed for orthodoxy. Minor issues arose relating to latent Monophysite tendencies in some of the bishops, but at last the Chalcedonian Christology of Christ in two natures, both fully human and fully divine, was established (231). Interestingly, Nestorians and perhaps even Nestorius himself (who was still alive) felt a touch of absolution by this compromise of Christ being “a single person in two natures” (Frend 233). All the same, though, Chalcedon did effectively isolate the Egyptian Church, where the Monophysitism of Dioskoros was dominant, and by no means did it establish unity of belief in the empire, hearkening back to the dreams of Constantine. Chalcedon may have clarified the orthodoxy on Christology, but Monophysitism did not go away, remaining a significant influence even during the reign of Justinian and Theodora, the latter being a Monophysite herself. If anything, the establishment of this orthodoxy merely defined the terms for the long lasting conflict between the orthodox Chalcedonians and the unorthodox Monophysites for the centuries to come.
What, then, did orthodoxy mean in the Byzantine world? In the West, under such popes as Leo I, Chalcedon might rightly be considered the common belief, but in the East, such conflicts as that between the Antiochene and Alexandrian schools of exegesis and theology made for a much more complex situation. Indeed, this made vague compromises a frequent necessity in any statements on orthodoxy, lest trouble ensue. It certainly did not help that the more theologically consistent West frequently preferred greater specificity of belief from Constantinople, so, at the risk of tautology, variety is not conducive to unity. That said, the Byzantine Empire was still a unit, and unity was necessary, and even from Constantine, it seems that the establishment of orthodoxy was always an attempt to find a unified stance for the Christian world. The trouble was that the Christian world would not be unified for the convenience of the emperor, or scarcely even for its own good.
Bibliography
Frend, W.H.C. The Early Church. Fortress Press, Minneapolis: 1982.
Gregory, Timothy. A History of Byzantium. Blackwell, Malden, MA: 2005.
Treadgold, Warren. A Concise History of Byzantium. Palgrave, New York: 2001.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment