Pope Vigilius's Constitution on the Three Chapters
Translations of Church Documents #5: Inter Innumeras Sollicitudines
As longtime readers know, I have a rule: when you translate a document into English that is otherwise unavailable online in English, you should post it on the Internet so everyone has access to it. This rule has led De Civitate to occasionally post new English translations of Latin documents from the Catholic Church, including:
Translation #1: Two decrees regarding “The Onanistic Act in Marriage”
Document #2: The Vatican’s ruling in a 1975 nullity case for a “transsexual”1
Translation #3: Bishop Francis Kenrick’s remarkably explicit 1843 sex manual
Translation #4: A short condemnation of a gnostic cult that may or may not have been entirely real
I link to these old translations because every single one of them is more interesting than today’s translation. They all have some enticing, explosive bits—and several of them are reasonably short. Not so today! By technical word count, this is the longest De Civitate post in history, and the bulk of it is not worth your time!
(This is your fair warning to bail out of this post before it gets dull.)
The Most Boringest Yet Somehow Devastating Century-Long Controversy in Church History
Before I post the document, I need to set the stage with a messy, opinionated history of a messy, stupid time.
In 451, the all-important Council of Chalcedon met in modern-day Turkey to finally settle the most important question of early Catholicism: was Jesus Christ both true God and true Man, one person in two natures? Or was He a kind of “duad,” with separate divine and human personalities? The largest ecumenical gathering of bishops in the first millennium concluded that Christ’s two natures are “unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably… united in one Person.” The other view, known as Nestorianism, was really just Arianism wearing new pants, so the council condemned it as heresy.
This finally settled the problem and no one ever fought about Christology again!
Ha ha. Just kidding. The Council immediately caused a schism which survives to this day.
On the one hand were the Nestorians, who were understandably miffed at being condemned as heretics. Their branch of Christianity is today known as the Church of the East, which has about, eh, 500,000 members today, if we trust Wikipedia’s membership numbers. They basically all live in Syria and Iraq, which is why you’ve never met them.2 Also, 99.98% of Christians in the world today are not Nestorians, which is the other reason.
On the other hand were the Miaphysites, who insisted that Christ did not have two natures at all, but rather a single nature which is fully divine and fully human simultaneously.3 They were mad because Chalcedon hadn’t gone far enough in condemning the Nestorians. They said that Chalcedon, while pretending to condemn Nestorianism, had really endorsed it, by endorsing “one person in two natures”! (Plus, Chalcedon had condemned several of their leaders, including their founder, Euthyches.) Their branch of Christianity is today known as Oriental Orthodoxy. There’s about 50 million of them, but the reason you’ve never heard of them is because the vast majority live in the vicinity of Ethiopia and/or Armenia,4 and they only add up to 2% of the global Christian population anyway.
The Nestorians were both small and politically unimportant, so Chalcedon was pretty much the end of the road for them in mainstream Christianity. Chalcedon was also pretty much immediately fully accepted by the Latin-speaking Western Catholic Church, centered around Rome. However, in the Greek-speaking Eastern Church,5 centered around Constantinople, the Miaphysite view had many adherents. The schism did not emerge instantly, but controversies between Miaphysites and Dyophysites worsened in the Greek world for decades, and, ultimately, communion was broken. Riots were held. The usual.
A hundred years passed.
The Three Chapters
A century after Chalcedon, Emperor Justinian the Great, a good Catholic and amateur theologian himself, was trying to patch up the Greek-speaking Church. He spent a good deal of time persecuting the Origenists, who had come up with a completely bonkers cosmology,6 but, eventually, some Origenists had a bright idea to get the Emperor off their backs: why not get him focused on the Miaphysites instead? So they pitched the Emperor on a plan to fix the Miaphysite schism, and Justinian loved it.7
The plan was for Justinian to condemn three sets of writings:
The writings of Nestorius’s mentor, Theodore of Mopsuestia.
They also advised Justinian to posthumously excommunicate Theodore.8
Some writings of Theodoret of Cyrus.
The (at the time) notorious letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris
All these writings absolutely reeked of Nestorianism, but they had not been condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. In fact, Chalcedon had spent two entire days explicitly examining charges of heresy against Ibas of Edessa, looked over many of his writings, heard his defense… and they acquitted him! They reinstated him as a bishop! Likewise, the Council had spent a day forcing Theodoret to condemn his friend Nestorius, and then he, too, was reinstated as a bishop.
This leniency infuriated the Miaphysites,9 who took it as proof that the Council of Chalcedon wasn’t really opposed to Nestorianism, because they’d let all these Nestorians and their heretical writings off the hook!
So, in 543, Justinian issued a decree anathematizing Theodore and condemning all three sets of writings, which quickly became known as “the Three Chapters.”10 The Three Chapters are always capitalized, because Justinian’s olive branch to the Miaphysites kicked off a decade of chaos called “The Three Chapters Controversy.” Don’t worry: there will be a schism at the end!
Many bishops objected, because they saw Justinian’s condemnation of the Three Chapters as a condemnation of Chalcedon as a whole. If Chalcedon examined Ibas face-to-face and found him innocent of heresy, and Chalcedon was a valid great council of the Church, then not even the emperor could turn around and suddenly label Ibas a heretic! The Three Chapters controversy thus became, not a debate over Nestorianism, but a conflict over the limits of conciliar infallibility.
Conciliar infallibility is the belief among the vast majority of Christians (all Catholics, all Orthodox, some Protestants) that certain gatherings of bishops are capable of defining doctrine on faith and morals in a way that is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot contain falsehood.11 Such teachings are true for all time. The Christian Church has always held this belief, all the way back to the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15, but its exact contours were not clear in the sixth century. Which synods12 are infallible? What makes them infallible? Which specific conciliar actions are infallible, and how can you tell?13 Pretty much everyone agreed that Chalcedon had been one of the infallible councils (except the Nestorians, but no one cared about them at this point), but did that mean they couldn’t make any mistakes?
Justinian thought they could. His critics thought he was trying to heal a schism by cutting off the very branch of divine authority he was sitting on.
It didn’t help that, this being the middle of the sixth century, the profession of “historian” was not yet fully developed. The Three Chapters controversy ended up being, partly, a pitched battle about tiny details embedded in the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon—a meeting that had happened over a century before, whose minutes were available only in a few hand-written copies, almost all of them in Greek (not the Pope’s Latin), which (like all meeting minutes) were not an exact transcript of what had actually been said, in a time when translation was iffy and most people couldn’t read at all (but nevertheless developed strong opinions on them). Without complete agreement on what Chalcedon had exactly done to Ibas and Theodoret in the first place, it was difficult to argue whether condemning the Three Chapters was actually contrary to Chalcedon.
In the end, Justinian held the cards in the East. As the Emperor, he could just tell his Byzantine bishops, “Sign my condemnation or you won’t be a bishop anymore… if you’re lucky.” They knuckled under.
Pope Vigilius, Welcome to the #Resistance
The Latin-speakers, however, were far from the Imperial capitol, and remained firm. Pope Vigilius was in a tricky spot: the Latin bishops (especially the Africans)14 were four-square against Justinian’s edict. However, six years before all this, Vigilius had intrigued himself onto the papal throne with the aid of the Emperor’s wife Theodora,15 reportedly in exchange for Vigilius’s support for the Miaphysites. (The Empress was quietly a Miaphysite herself, which may have played some role in the Emperor’s desire for reconciliation between the Miaphysites and the Chalcedonians!)
Once elected, however, Vigilius showed little loyalty to his benefactrix, the Empress. Sure enough, when Justinian condemned the Three Chapters in 543, Vigilius sided with the other Latin bishops. He refused to join the Emperor’s condemnation. As a result, in November 545, the Emperor summoned Pope Vigilius to Constantinople to resolve the matter. Some sources say “kidnapped.” Certainly the Pope, in the middle of celebrating Mass, was escorted from Rome under armed guard by Imperial edict. (I guess “honor guard” or “perp walk” is probably a little bit in the eye of the beholder.) After a long stay in Sicily due to the ongoing Gothic wars, the Pope finally arrived in Constantinople in late 546 or early 547.
Once there, Vigilius found himself under intense Imperial pressure to condemn the Three Chapters. After many discussions,16 he agreed to condemn the Three Chapters, which he did straight down the line: he condemned all three writings and anathematized the long-dead Theodore,17 although he went to great lengths to simultaneously affirm Chalcedon and everything it had taught. This condemnation, known as the Judicatum of 548, was addressed to the Patriarch of Constantinople and was apparently not intended as a global teaching document, but Vigilius’s own clerics whom he had brought with him started making copies and singing its praises. Soon enough, everyone was reading it.
Nearly the entire text of the Judicatum is lost to history…18 but we know its effect: the Latin-speaking Church freaked out. There was a schism in Italy. Africa excommunicated the Pope. A bishop named Facundus of Hermania frantically wrote and published a twelve-book Defense of the Three Chapters. The Pope’s own clergy (even his nephew!) hypocritically turned against the Judicatum they had previously praised and now denounced it.
Pope Vigilius asked and received the Emperor’s permission to formally withdraw the Judicatum. Instead, Vigilius announced, the problem of the Three Chapters would be resolved by an ecumenical council (the first since Chalcedon), to be held in Constantinople. Vigilius had wanted it held further west, so that the membership would be evenly divided between Eastern and Western bishops—and low-key so Justinian wouldn’t have quite so much control over the council—but Justinian refused to cooperate, Vigilius finally consented to Constantinople. In the meantime, Vigilius and the Emperor agreed, the policy of the Church and the State would be neutrality on the matter. Everyone was to leave the Three Chapters alone until the upcoming council issued its findings.
Psych! Justinian soon published a new edict condemning the Three Chapters again. A furious Vigilius excommunicated some of the Emperor’s allies and withdrew his assent to the council. However, the Emperor, in an act unprecedented in Christian history, refused to withdraw the universal call to convene, and the council finally opened on 5 May 553.
You will notice that, by May 553, Vigilius has been in Constantinople for six years. (I’ve skipped so much random drama along the way.) It has not been an easy time for him. The Emperor has grown tired of this troublesome pope, the fly in his fancy ointment, and has now at least twice tried to physically arrest the Pope. Vigilius escaped both by fleeing to churches and demanding sanctuary.19 The Emperor is content to have him bottled up in a church, effectively under house arrest. The Pope has ended up on the outskirts of Constantinople in the suburb of Chalcedon in the Church of Saint Euphemia—the very same church where the Council of Chalcedon had been held all those years before. He will be an effective prisoner in that church for several years.
The Origins of the Constitution
The Second Council of Constantinople (as it would come to be known) nevertheless invited Vigilius to participate in their deliberations. They recognized that, according to the traditions of the Christian Church at that time, an ecumenical council had no authority unless it was accepted by the Pope of Rome,20 so Vigilius’s recognition was important to them. (My sense is that the Emperor himself did not give much of a crap at this point, but the Council, despite being almost entirely under Justinian’s thumb, still did.) Vigilius refused and continued to boycott the Council he had tried to cancel.
It seems this was partly due to another ancient tradition of the Church: at this time, the Pope never attended councils in person. He would sometimes send legates to preside, or written decisions for the council to affirm as orthodox. Vigilius duly answered the Council that, while he would not attend, he would write an Apostolic Constitution stating his judgment on the Three Chapters.
Except, of course, Vigilius couldn’t actually read the Three Chapters. They were in Greek. Chalcedon had been in Greek. Vigilius read and wrote only Latin. He requested, and was supplied with, excerpts from Theodore’s work translated from Greek into Latin. Naturally, the excerpts the Emperor presented to the Pope were the most damning passages Theodore had ever written.
This shifted Vigilius’s position from difficult to nearly impossible. He is surrounded by enemies. They demand that he repudiate the Three Chapters, but, in doing so, Vigilius not only fears undermining the infallibility of the Council of Chalcedon, but also excommunication, schism, and rebellion from the entire Church west of the Bosphorus. The copy of the Three Chapters he’s been given is incomplete and transcribed by hostile translators. Vigilius cannot possibly affirm the extracts he’s been given (which absolutely drip with Nestorianism), because doing so would plausibly open him to charges of heresy against the Council of Chalcedon. Nor does he feel he can reject the extracts (since they had not been condemned by Chalcedon), because doing so would plausibly open him to charges of heresy against the Council of Chalcedon! Remaining silent is completely untenable; he is, by hook and by crook, the Pope, and an ecumenical council has requested his judgment on a matter tearing apart the Church.21
Nor is it only conciliar infallibility at stake now. By forcing the Pope into this position, the Emperor has also brought the doctrine of papal infallibility into the arena. This doctrine was not well-defined until the 19th Century, but, even in the 6th, popes were keenly aware that the authority of their office depended on the graces of the Holy Spirit. They knew this authority was confirmed only by the popes’ rigid doctrinal continuity with one another, extending all the way back to Pope St. Peter the Apostle. A misstep here could call into question both of the supreme Christian teaching authorities: the bishops gathered in ecumenical council and the Pope. The contents of Scripture itself—and with it the entire inheritance of Christian revelation—depended upon that authority,22 and could hang in the balance.
I have no idea how much of this the Pope considered consciously. He strikes me as an intelligent man, but not a brave one. I can tell you what he did, though.
He dodged.
Breaking Down the Constitution
Pope Vigilius’s Constitution on the Three Chapters (aka Inter Innumeras Solictiudines) was written in the Church of St. Euphemia and completed on 14 May 553. It’s boring as a room full of ostriches. However, once you know all this context, you can at least recognize what the Pope is trying to do here.
The Constitution opens with a letter to the emperor affirming the basics of the Pope’s fidelity to the Church and its councils, while recapping recent events/ squabbles. I can’t help reading it as half sucking-up, half dripping-with-sarcasm, especially whenever he has to call the emperor holding him prisoner “your blessedness.”
The second part is the meat of the document. Dry, gristly meat. Vigilius first quotes a chapter of Theodore’s work (as Theodore’s enemies have translated it into Latin for him). Then Vigilius says something like, “In the above-written chapter, it seems that it is argued that Jesus was just a nice bloke who gained all his powers when he was possessed by the Holy Spirit. But that is Nestorianism, which is bullcrap. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or preaches this, let him be anathema.”
Sometimes you will read one of Theodore’s chapters and say to yourself, “Huh. It doesn’t seem like Theodore was saying [blatant heresy Vigilius attributes to him in the next paragraph].” Yeah, no kidding. Vigilius is running an old-school if-by-whiskey argument.23 He condemns an interpretation of Theodore’s writing without committing to the view that Theodore himself held those interpretations. In fact, in this entire second part of the Constitution, Vigilius never once writes the name of Theodore. All he does is present Theodore’s text, then say, “It seems like this text means X. X is an obvious heresy and I anathematize all who hold it.”
This is a clever way to play it extremely safe doctrinally, while appearing to take a bold position politically. This document is an Apostolic Constitution issued by the pope to an ecumenical council (with bishops representing the entire Universal Church) regarding the defining issue of the council. With apologies to some Catholic apologists, there can be no doubt that, wherever Pope Vigilius clearly defines a matter of faith and morals in this document, that definition bears all the hallmarks of papal infallibility. If he got just one of those definitions wrong, it would—without exaggeration—bring down the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church teaches that a pope in this position is protected by the Holy Spirit and cannot define a falsehood. The Eastern Orthodox would be vindicated, and all Catholics would have to embarrassedly convert.24
However, for sixty long and incredibly sedate chapters, all Pope Vigilius actually defines (over and over again, in different words) is, “No, Jesus was not just a bloke. Nestorianism is still a heresy. Let the Nestorians be anathema.” There are minor deviations where Vigilius anathematizes some other obvious heresy that isn’t clearly connected to Nestorianism. For example, in Chapter 59, Vigilius defines that angelic souls are not as easily changed as human souls.25 But, once you get the gist of this section of the document, it is filled with exactly zero surprises.
A secular (or Orthodox) observer might say, “This isn’t the protection of the Holy Spirit preserving the Holy See from error! This is just a canny politician trying to squirm his way out of a vise of his own making through theological double-talk!” To which this Catholic would reply, “How’d’you think the Holy Spirit works, bub? Vibes? Papers? Essays? Dude is literally a ghost.”
The third part of the Constitution on the Three Chapters is, in fact, an essay. Here, Vigilius examines the records of the Council of Chalcedon—or, at least, a translation of those records, because, again, muh boy the Holy Father can’t read Greek26—in order to survey and defend its decisions to refrain from condemning the three authors of the Three Chapters: Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas.
On Theodore, Vigilius agrees that many of his doctrines were false, and indeed had been condemned by the Council of Ephesus, a few years after Theodore’s death. However, Vigilius observes that Theodore was never condemned by name by any council, and by no one prior to his death. He notes that Chalcedon never even mentioned Theodore. Finally, the Pope argues (citing two other popes, Scripture, and several other persuasive authorities) that no one, not a pope, not a council, can excommunicate the dead. Christ said “What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven,” but the dead are no longer on Earth, so consigned to divine authority.
On Theodoret, the Pope shows that the Council of Chalcedon absolved him personally. He acknowledges that Theodoret apparently wrote against the orthodox writings of Cyril, but argues that, since Chalcedon acquitted him, either they concluded that the writings weren’t really Theodoret’s, or they decided to let bygones be bygones. Either way, Vigilius insists it would be inappropriate to condemn him now, and issues a disciplinary decree forbidding it. Of course, Justinian wasn’t asking him to condemn Theodoret, but just the heresies, which Vigilius then does. He issues five (infallible) anathemas against Nestorian heresies, again without necessarily ascribing them to Theodoret.
On Ibas, Vigilius does similarly.
The Letter of Ibas to Maris is a nightmarishly complicated controversy that deserves a book in itself, including allegations of misunderstanding, misattribution, and outright forgery, both of the letter itself and of the minutes of the two ecumenical councils, two lesser councils, and one “Robber Council” that considered it.27 I think Craig Truglia’s final conclusion on the letter is likely wrong,28 but he nicely lays out the most important primary sources—and the hellacious confusedness of them. Vigilius largely steers clear of the Letter to Maris, for which I fervently thank God as I reach the 6,000-word mark on what was supposed to be a quick 500-word introduction to the translation.
Vigilius instead argues (convincingly) that Chalcedon acquitted Ibas and welcomed him back into orthodoxy, which is true, but misses the point, I suspect deliberately. Justinian did not want to condemn Ibas the person as a heretic. He only wanted to condemn Ibas’s letter as heretical, leaving open the possibility that Ibas himself had later been reconciled to the Church.
Vigilius is still very nervous about this. Part of his nervousness is sureky due to a (very reasonable) fear that, if he allows the condemnation of Ibas’s letter, the Miaphysites will take the inch plus an extra mile and condemn Ibas’s person. Part of it is no doubt because the Pope had just got himself excommunicated by an entire continent by daring to condemn even just the letter of Ibas. Part of it, too, is because the Church had not yet fully worked out the contours of conciliar infallibility.
We know today, looking back, that councils are infallible only when they teach definitively on matters of faith and morals. A council’s merely disciplinary decisions—excommunicating that specific guy, or deposing this specific bishop, or declaring that every priest must be bald and any priest who isn’t bald by Tuesday will be excommunicated—are inherently fallible, and thus inherently reformable. There was (and is) actually nothing wrong with a council amending or even reversing the disciplinary decrees of a previous council, so this aspect of the Three Chapters never threatened conciliar infallibility at all. Alas, in 543, Pope Vigilius and the Second Council of Constantinople had no way of clearly seeing this. That made him (and the Latin West unnecessarily paranoid about calling into question, not only the results of Ibas’s trial at Chalcedon, but any element of Ibas’s trial at Chalcedon.
Finally, Vigilius’s Constitution on the Three Chapters ends with some broad re-affirmations of Chalcedon and the other councils. This section is principally interesting because it contains the only known fragments of Vigilus’s Judicatum of 548, other than the main anathema.29
The Aftermath
Briefly now:
The Second Council of Constantinople refused to receive Vigilius’s Constitution on the Three Chapters without the Emperor’s permission. Vigilius sent it to the Emperor, who refused it entirely, saying:
…you say that you alone have written by yourself somewhat on the Three Chapters; if you have condemned them, in accordance with those things which you did before, we have already many such statements and need no more; but if you have written now something contrary to these things which were done by you before, you have condemned yourself by your own writing, since you have departed from orthodox doctrine and have defended impiety. And how can you expect us to receive such a document from you?
The Emperor then instructed the Council to “strike Vigilius’s name from the diptychs,” meaning Vigilius’s name would no longer be read aloud with the names of other bishops during the celebration of Divine Liturgy. This is generally accepted as a sign of excommunication. Although it is not clear to me whether the striking, in itself, constituted a formal excommunication, it is obviously a very big deal when an ecumenical council does anything even close to excommunicating the Pope. The Council went on to ferociously condemn the Three Chapters, including by posthumously excommunicating Theodore, exactly as Justinian wanted.
Indeed, the Second Council of Constantinople had set itself up perfectly to be rejected as a second “Robber Council.” The bishops gathered there had refused (like the Robber Council of Ephesus) to read out the judgment of the bishop of Rome, much less accept it; operated under significant Imperial duress (which they did accept); tolerated Imperial oppression of the Pope; rashly set the embers of a century-old conflict on fire; bizarrely (and ineffectively) attempted excommunication of a man who’d been dead for a century; and generally made asses of themselves.30 Given all this, one might have very reasonably expected Pope Vigilius (who, to be fair, had also made an ass of himself) to refuse his assent to the council’s decisions, which would—according to Christian law both then and now—render the council null and void, just like the Robber Council.31
However, the Emperor refused to allow the Pope to leave Constantinople and return to Rome until Vigilius had condemned the Three Chapters, in full, including the desired excommunication of Theodore. Vigilius, aging, ill, and worn out by eight years of house arrest and pressure, finally thought of a way that allowed him to agree while saving face.
In February 554, Vigilius published Pro Damnatione Trium Capitulorum (sometimes known as the Second Constitution). In this final document (which perhaps I will translate someday), the Pope ratified Constantinople II, elevating it to the status of an ecumenical council for all time.32 Furthermore, he (infallibly) condemned the heretical writings of Theodore and Theodoret,33 as well as Ibas’s Letter to Maris. Recognizing the West’s concern that condemning the Letter to Maris contradicted Chalcedon, Vigilius infallibly (and correctly) taught that Ibas’s letter had never been formally ratified34 at Chalcedon, so it was okay to condemn the letter (but not Ibas himself).
Finally, Vigilius anathematized Theodore—which is, of course (just as Vigilius had already argued in his First Constitution), impossible. Vigilius got around the impossibility by arguing that it is not actually he, Vigilius, who was anathematizing Theodore. Rather, Vigilius insisted, Theodore had already been anathematized… by Pope Damasus’s Synod of Rome in 382, almost two centuries earlier, through its decree, “We condemn those who affirm two sons, one who is before the ages, the other after the assumption of the flesh from the Virgin.” According to Vigilius, then, he was not excommunicating a dead man, but merely confirming a judgment of the Synod of Rome.35 In the end, the pope’s consistency, not to mention papal and conciliar infallibility, were preserved.
This strained argument contradicted the council’s reasoning, but the Pope’s conclusion was the same, which was good enough for the Emperor. Justinian finally allowed Vigilius to return to his seat in Rome, the seat he had schemed and dreamed after so many years ago.
Vigilius died in transit. He never saw Rome again.
Vigilius’s acceptance of Constaninople II and his condemnation of the Three Chapters caused a schism in the West, which Vigilius’s successors had to clean up. They did a good job. They put out a lot of the biggest fires. However the Schism of the Three Chapters persisted in some form for over 150 years.
Meanwhile, the Miaphysite schism continued unabated. Emperor Justinian had started all this to end a schism. All he had accomplished was creating a new one.
Loose Notes on the (Machine-Led) Translation
When I did my first translation, just over ten years ago, I did it by hand. I pulled ol’ Allen & Greenough’s New Latin Grammar off the shelf, fired up Whitaker’s Words,36 and spent a bunch of hours going word-by-word through the 500-word translation.
For my next translation, in 2022, I was still working by hand, but with considerable assistance from Google Translate. At that time, Google Translate output was messy and error-riddled, but it was pretty okay at vocabulary and made an often-plausible first pass at the grammar. Every paragraph still took many minutes, but it took a small fraction of the time my first translation had. As a result, I was able to handle about 2,500 words of De Usu Conjugii without investing much more time than I had in the original translation.
It was at about this time that I first encountered Vigilius’s Constitution on the Three Chapters. I wanted to translate it. I recognized full well that, at the time, I could not. It is 22,000 words long. It would have taken months using Google Translate and setting aside all my other work, my hobbies, this blog. It was out of the question.
For Saepe Sanctam Ecclesiam, I used ChatGPT 3.5, which was a big leap forward from Google Translate. I put the Latin into GPT and it consistently gave me something almost correct in seconds. I was still babysitting every line (emphasis on “almost” correct), but I mark this as the inflection point: before this, I was doing the bulk of the translation work, with tools assisting me. Starting here, the tool was doing the bulk of the translation, and I was only baby-sitting and polishing. Even when I saw GPT make a mistake, I could often correct it by simply pointing out the error and instructing it to retranslate, rather than digging into the Latin myself.
This felt… strange. Strange and exciting. Something was lost. My deep human engagement with the untranslated text, without the “screen” of translation in front of it, was a good thing. Tolkien reveled in such engagement. Yet imagine a world where we can all, the world over, just talk to one another, with no more language barriers because reliable real-time machine translation has solved it. This would unlock, among other things, a vast treasure trove of documents that have never been translated into English. It would be the scholarly equivalent of the medieval rediscovery of the classical writers. It would render my series of De Civitate translations obsolete, but only by making every document in every language available to everyone, all the time. Did you know Suarez’s most important metaphysical works have no English translation? I tried my hand at it a few years ago and immediately recognized the precision of the text was far beyond my feeble Latin. We’re getting so close to none of that mattering anymore.
My success with Saepe Sanctam and other short translations eventually led me back to the Constitution on the Three Chapters. It had been totally insurmountable in 2022. In 2024, though, would it be, dare I say it… easy?
It was not.
ChatGPT-4o is very good at machine translation. (Heck, even the LLMs you can run locally, like Mistral and Hermes, are getting pretty decent at translation!) If you input Latin, the English that comes out the other side is pretty much a professional-quality translation, at least in the eyes of this feeble hobbyist. There’s rarely any errors to polish at all! However, ChatGPT is still not smart enough that you can just feed it a document and walk away. It is still prone to the Achilles’ heels of LLMs: hallucination and interpolation. If you don’t watch it like a hawk, sometimes GPT-4o just skips some words, even after you instruct it to get every word. (This usually happens when GPT-4o considers the words superfluous. Unfortunately, Vigilius, like many old-timey bishops, does not write like Hemingway. There’s a lot of superfluities, and they are all important.) Alternatively, it occasionally makes up a word, or—my personal favorite—it “corrects” a Bible quotation, changing what’s actually on the page to match what the Bible actually says. (More often, it adds verse numbers where it shouldn’t. The verse numbers are always accurate, but stop editing the text, GPT!) This still requires line-by-line babysitting, although all that really means these days is spot checks.
The biggest problem, which dragged this translation project out for months and months, was the hallucinating. If you let GPT run on a particular document for long enough, it eventually loses context and just starts making things up. If you aren’t closely following the original document, this is undetectable at first, because what GPT generates almost always sounds extremely plausible. (GPT has a lot more neurons about Christology than you do! It knows how to imitate Vigilius.) By the time you realize you’ve gone off the rails, you’re pages into an elaborate hallucination, and it’s a surprisingly long process to find your way back to where GPT abandoned the original document (since you have to find your way back in Latin, rather than English). In the end, I just had to babysit it, with a lot of spot-checking, putting only a few hundred words into the translator at a time. I would ask it to explain its translation choices each time, too, which both kept the bot on task and made it easier to diagnose when it went wrong. In the end, this 25,000-word translation still took many hours, spread out over six months… but at least it was possible. Three years ago, it wasn’t.
We are getting close to the era of automated, universal, real-time translation… but we certainly aren’t there yet. Thus may still be a couple more installments of Some Translations here on De Civ before the Translation Singularity arrives!
Finally, the Translation!
(Original Latin text follows after the English translation. In the third section of the Constitution, I have marked probable infallible teachings on faith or moral in bold, and clearly disciplinary decisions in bold italic. See an error? Let me know!)
Pope Vigilius' Constitution on the Three Chapters
To the most glorious and merciful son, Justinian Augustus, from Vigilius, Bishop.
Among the countless concerns with which the imperial office is burdened, we have recognized that the most praiseworthy purpose of your clemency is to eliminate all seeds of discord, which the enemy of humankind had sown in the field of the Lord, and to restore all the priests of the Lord to unity and concord by leading them to the confessions of faith they had previously made. Through these confessions, they demonstrated their adherence to the definitions and judgments of the holy fathers, the venerable four synods, and the prelates of the apostolic see.
In order to ensure that this example of ecclesiastical peace is passed down to posterity, we declare, through the following inserted document[, the form of the first confession that was made at the temple of Saint Euphemia].
Example of the first profession made at the Temple of Saint Euphemia
Indeed, all the faithful, but especially the priests of God, must pursue peace and sanctification with all, without which, according to the Apostle (1 Thess. 4:3), no one shall see the Lord. Therefore, following apostolic teaching and hastening to preserve ecclesiastical concord, we make the present profession.
First and foremost, we accept the four holy synods: the Nicene Synod of 318 bishops, the Constantinopolitan Synod of 150 bishops, the first Ephesian Synod of 200 bishops, in which, through its legates and vicars, the most blessed Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, along with Arcadius and Projectus, bishops, and Philip, the presbyter, the most blessed Celestine, Pope of Old Rome, is known to have presided, and the Chalcedonian Synod of 630 holy fathers. In all things, whatever was determined, judged, or decreed in these synods—whether regarding the faith, other matters, or judicial decisions—together with the legates and vicars of the apostolic see, we promise to follow these decisions without change, without addition or subtraction, irreproachably and irrevocably.
We vow not to accept anything contrary that would bring discredit or invalidate their decisions under any pretext or innovation, nor shall we agree with those who presume to do so. But whatever was said in accordance with the common consensus, with the legates and vicars of the apostolic see, we venerate and receive as orthodox.
Whatever they anathematized or condemned, we also anathematize and condemn. We uphold everything they judged, defined, or decreed without question, irrevocably and without alteration. We also promise to follow and observe the epistles of the blessed memory of Pope Leo and the decrees of the apostolic see concerning both the faith and the firmness of the above-mentioned four synods.
We anathematize anyone from the ranks of the clergy who dares to oppose what we have vowed, whether under the pretext of any dispute or innovation. As for the document concerning the Three Chapters, from which the question arose contrary to the decree of the most pious emperor and your blessedness, I have written none, nor do I wish to; I consent, however, that all documents written on this matter be handed over to your blessedness.
Regarding any offenses committed against your blessedness or your see, I confess that I have done none, but for the sake of ecclesiastical peace, I ask pardon as though I had done so. Since I received into communion those excommunicated by your blessedness during the time of discord, I also ask pardon.
In this same form, Mennas, Bishop of Constantinople, Theodore, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Andrew, Bishop of Ephesus, Theodore, Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, Peter, Bishop of Tarsus, and many other bishops have made their professions.
Example of the profession made by the rest of the bishops on the day of the Epiphany
Knowing how beneficial is the peace of God, which guards the hearts and minds of the faithful, unites them to be of one mind in the confession of the right faith, and enables them to fulfill divine commandments, making God propitious to those in harmony, we hasten to preserve unity. We declare before the apostolic see of your blessedness that we have always preserved and continue to preserve the faith transmitted from the beginning by our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, to the holy apostles, preached throughout the world by them, and explained by the holy fathers, especially by those who assembled in the four holy synods.
We follow and receive in all respects the 318 holy fathers who gathered at Nicaea and expounded the holy creed or faith and anathematized Arian impiety, along with those who held or still hold similar views. We also receive the 150 holy fathers who gathered in Constantinople, who also expounded the same holy faith and clarified the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. They condemned the Macedonian heresy, which opposed the Holy Spirit, and the impious Apollinaris, along with those who held or still hold similar views.
Likewise, we receive the 200 holy fathers who assembled in the first Ephesian Synod, who followed in all things the same holy creed and condemned the impious Nestorius and his wicked doctrines, as well as those who held or still hold similar views.
Furthermore, we receive and embrace the 630 holy fathers who gathered at Chalcedon, who in all respects agreed with the aforementioned three synods, adhered to the same creed, and anathematized anyone who presumes to teach or explain doctrines other than that which was expounded by the 318 and clarified by the 150 fathers. They also anathematized both Eutyches and Nestorius, along with their impious doctrines and those who held or still hold similar views.
Thus, acknowledging that all things judged and decreed by the above-mentioned four synods have been preserved without alteration, we maintain that although these synods were held at different times, they all preserved and proclaimed the same confession of faith.
We also receive and embrace the epistles of the prelates of the Roman Apostolic See, whether from others or from Leo of blessed memory, concerning the true faith and the four holy councils, or one of them. Since we have always preserved these things and continue to do so, and we are in mutual agreement on them, it is necessary to address the Three Chapters from which a question has arisen for some.
Therefore, we ask that, in the presence of your blessedness, with the holy Gospels placed before us, a common discussion be held in peace and priestly gentleness to examine and deliberate on these Three Chapters. Let us come to a conclusion pleasing to God and consistent with the decrees of the holy four councils since it pertains to the increase of peace and the concord of the churches. With all dissension removed, we shall keep inviolate the decisions made by the holy synods, maintaining reverence for their decrees. To these also we and our fellow bishops have subscribed in this manner, namely:
[listing the fellow-bishops:] Eutychius, Bishop of Constantinople, Apollinaris, Bishop of Alexandria, Domninus [Domnus], Bishop of Antioch in Syria, Elias, Bishop of Thessalonica, and others who did not make the first profession but signed or made the same profession separately in this second profession. (12)
[Translator's Note:the following paragraphs, through #15, are bitter and full of reproach for the emperor's abuse of the Catholic Church, of the papacy, and of Pope Vigilius specifically. Vigilius's occasional kind words for the emperor here are a reluctant courtesy at best, sarcasm at worst.]
These matters having been settled, most revered Emperor (as we have frequently requested with humble prayer), we desired to go to any place in Italy or certainly to Sicily and, after gathering with us the priests of Africa and other provinces who speak Latin, as well as the sacred ranks of our church, to discuss the questions regarding the Three Chapters according to custom, and to return to your piety a fully considered response. But because your Serenity did not agree to this, it was again decided that the names of the bishops from the aforementioned provinces, who would be gathered with us for the discussion, should be presented to your Serenity, and your clemency should ensure their arrival. We agreed to this arrangement out of love for ecclesiastical peace.
However, recently, just before the day of Holy Easter, your piety, with the consent of our brothers and the bishops of our party, decided that an equal number of bishops from the city of Constantinople should meet with us to discuss the Three Chapters in question, according to the profession previously made by our brothers, the bishops.
But when we hastened to carry out what had been agreed upon with our brothers in order to preserve the peace of the churches, so that with the guidance of sound deliberation and written records of all our proceedings, a collective judgment regarding the Three Chapters might be reached, your Serenity immediately sent us a document, long before the days of Easter, through the illustrious Theodorus, a decurion of the palace, in which you explained what you thought of the Three Chapters and asked for our response to the matter.
Therefore, as our brothers were neither willing to sit with us in equal numbers nor to put into writing what we would discuss or deliberate (as though, God forbid, we were saying things contrary to righteousness and feared to write them down), and as your clemency, having sent the most glorious nobles to us, insisted that we should quickly deliver a response regarding the matter of the Three Chapters, we nonetheless did not refuse to comply with your clemency. We asked only that, on account of our bodily infirmity (which is well known to all), we be granted a respite of twenty days so that, after conducting a careful deliberation, we could set a specific day for giving our written judgment. We sent our deacon Pelagius to our brothers and fellow bishops with a mandate saying that, since the agreed method of discussion had not been followed, they should at least wait for our response on the Three Chapters for twenty days on account of our physical weakness, as they well know, and observe the ancient and regular order that nothing should be proclaimed before the pronouncement of our judgment from the apostolic see, which we preside over by the grace of God, lest an occasion for renewed scandal should arise where peace had already been restored.
Upon careful examination of the records
Therefore, after thoroughly considering and carefully reviewing the synodal records and other writings related to each of the Three Chapters in question, as was necessary, and after examining the letters of the synods and the decrees of the predecessors of the Roman apostolic see, as well as other important writings of the fathers, we ensured that everything raised in question had been fully and properly examined by our fathers and disposed of. Being mindful of the previous professions of faith, we have taken care to investigate the matter closely.
Upon examining the doctrines in the first part of the document presented by our brother, Bishop Benignus of Heraclea in Paphlagonia, who was sent to us by your side, we found them filled with heinous blasphemies. These doctrines are exceedingly hostile to the orthodox faith, which, according to the gospel and apostolic teaching, was properly and irreproachably defined by the holy four synods of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, and must be repulsed by Christian understanding. Therefore, for this reason, as things detestable and without doubt condemned long ago by the holy Fathers, we also anathematize and condemn them in our judgment, whose first chapter is as follows:
Theodore’s Chapter I
How, then, do you, who are most fit above all others to guide souls, say that He, the very same one who was born of a virgin, is God, and is considered consubstantial with the Father, unless perhaps you do not attribute His creation to the Holy Spirit? But who is this God from God and consubstantial with the Father? Is it the same one who was born of a virgin (oh, wonder!), and who was formed by the Holy Spirit according to the divine Scriptures, and received formation in a woman’s womb? Perhaps it was because, as soon as He was formed, He was made to be the temple of God: nevertheless, we should not think that God was born from the virgin, unless perhaps we are to think that what was born, the temple that is in the one born, and the Word of God who is in the temple, are the same. However, not even according to your own words should it be declared that God was born from the virgin and is consubstantial with the Father. For if, as you say, it was not a man assumed, who was born of the virgin, but God incarnate; then how can He who was born be said to be God from God and consubstantial with the Father, when flesh is incapable of receiving such a designation? For it is truly madness to say that God was born of a virgin; for this is nothing other than saying that He was begotten from the seed of David from the substance of the virgin and formed in her, because what is from the seed of David and from the substance of the virgin remains in the maternal womb, and we say that He was born of the virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit. But for someone to allow them to say from this that God from God and consubstantial with the Father was born of the virgin, on the grounds that He is in the one born as the temple, but not born in Himself as God the Word; indeed incarnate, as this wise man says. Therefore, if they say that He was born with flesh; and that what was born is God from God and consubstantial with the Father, it is necessary to also say this of the flesh, which, however, is not therefore the flesh, since it is neither God from God nor consubstantial with the Father, but from the seed of David, and consubstantial with the one whose seed it is, and not what was born of the virgin is God and from God, and consubstantial with the Father; unless perhaps a part of the Born One, as he himself in the lower parts names part of Christ as divinity; but the divine nature was not born of the virgin; rather, He who is from the substance of the virgin was born, but not God the Word born of Mary; rather, He who is from the seed of David was born of Mary, not God the Word born of a woman, but the one born of a woman is He who was formed in her by the power of the Holy Spirit; He who was born is not consubstantial with the Father from the mother (for He is without a mother, according to the words of the blessed Paul), but He who was formed in the womb by the power of the Holy Spirit in the latter times is said to be so, since He is without a Father for this reason.
Vigilius' Response
In the above-written first chapter, it seems that the argument is being made in a roundabout way that a mere human was born from the holy virgin Mary, by saying: "If we confess that the Word of God, who is consubstantial with the Father, was born in the flesh from that same virgin, it is necessary that we consequently say the flesh is consubstantial with the Father."
Therefore, whoever thinks, teaches, believes, or preaches this kind of understanding, and does not believe that the same Word and Son of God was incarnate and born through a second birth from the holy Mary, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter II
"Immediately, as soon as He was formed, the Word of God became present in Him. For He was not only present in Him when He ascended into heaven, but also when He rose from the dead, as He raised Him according to His promise. Nor was He only present when He rose, but also when He was crucified and baptized, and when He carried out the evangelical conversion after baptism. Likewise, He was present when fulfilling the legal requirement of baptism, when He was presented according to the law, when He was circumcised, and when He was wrapped in swaddling clothes as a newborn. It is possible that He was also present in Him when He was being born, and even while He was in the womb from the very moment of His initial formation; for He imposed an order on the dispensation that pertained to Him, gradually bringing Him to perfection."
Theodore’s Chapter III
"Through time, He led Him to baptism, and after that to death, then raised Him according to His own declaration, led Him to heaven, and placed Him at the right hand of God through His union, from which He sits and is worshiped by all, and He will judge all. The Word of God had the end of all these things within Himself, as He was in Him and completed everything in order; He Himself judged the order to be good, with a goal and will that He had established beforehand for what was to come. With the good will He had towards Him from the beginning, He was present in Him, and through that order He led Him to perfection as was pleasing."
Vigilius' Response
In the above-mentioned second and third chapters, it seems to be asserted that the Word of God was present in the man who was formed as though one person were in another. For by saying that He appeared to impose a gradual ordering of the dispensation [the Incarnation], which was around Him, and that, because of the good will He had toward Him, He prepared the one assumed for advancement towards perfection, such words seem to introduce a duality of persons in the one Lord and our God, Jesus Christ, and as if the Word of God had progressed over time like any other man by grace. Therefore, whoever thinks, teaches, believes, or preaches such an understanding, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter IV
He who was assumed (Christ's human nature) provided his own cooperation for the works undertaken; where, in this context, the perception (understanding) was distinct for the one who was assumed. For he (God) did not grant his cooperation to just anyone; it was the understanding of the one assuming the position. But if even now he granted some special cooperation to the one who was assumed, this did not make the place of understanding the same as the divinity. However, if the divinity was substituted for the understanding in him who was assumed, according to your words, how could he experience fear in his suffering? Why would he need fervent prayers in the face of impending necessity, which he offered with a loud and clamorous voice, and even with many tears, as the blessed Paul reports (Hebrews 5), as the evangelist openly states (Luke 22), that his sweat fell like drops of blood? Why would he need the arrival and visitation of an angel to refresh his soul amid trials, to strengthen his eagerness, to prepare him for the necessity of the imminent suffering, to encourage him to endure the pains bravely, to urge him towards patience and endurance of afflictions, and to show him the benefit of the present sufferings, which would lead to a transformation into a glorious state after the suffering? For, according to the evangelist’s voice (ibid.), the angel, who strengthened him, encouraged him with these words, urging him to rise above the weakness of his nature, and by strengthening his thoughts, made him resolute.
Vigilius' Response
In the above-written fourth chapter, it is understood that just as God granted his cooperation to other human beings, so too he did to the one who was assumed, although in a special way. Nevertheless, it is said to have been granted in the same way as to other human beings. And thus, it is asserted that the pure and weak man (Christ) needed the assistance of an angel in his suffering so that future glory might be promised to him as a reward for enduring the Passion. If anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or preaches this way, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter V
"Get behind me, Satan, you are a stumbling block to me, because you do not have in mind the things of God, but those of men" (Matthew 16; Mark 8). Death is not a shame to me; I do not flee from it as if it were unworthy while looking to human glory. Rather, I will endure the experience of death with a better spirit for the sake of the many good things to come, among which I will also be included, and for all, so that you do not injure or disturb my mind, as if urging me to flee from the experience of death because it is worthy of shame.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned fifth chapter, it is said that Jesus Christ rejected the words of the Apostle Peter when he said to him, "Get behind me, Satan, you are a stumbling block to me, because you do not have in mind the things of God" (Matthew 16; Mark 8), to avoid having his spirit disturbed by Peter’s discouragement, which would have led him to flee from the passion, and because through his passion, he would gain profit and acquire many future benefits. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or preaches these things in this way, and does not rather believe that his death, which he endured in his own flesh, brought us the rewards of eternal life, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter VI
For it is said, "He was led by the Spirit" (Matthew 4), which clearly signifies that he (Christ’s human nature) was guided by the Spirit, strengthened by it for the pursuit of virtue, led by it to what was necessary, taught by it what was fitting, and fortified in his thoughts by it so that he could endure the struggle. As the blessed Paul also says, "Those who are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" (Romans 8), meaning that those led by the Spirit are governed by it, taught by it, established by it for the better, and receive suitable teaching from it. When the evangelist said that he returned full of the Holy Spirit from the Jordan, it clearly demonstrated that for this reason, he received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at his baptism, so that he might thereby receive the strength needed for his mission. Thus, he was led by the Spirit to face that struggle against the devil, which he would undertake on our behalf.
Vigilius' Response
In the sixth chapter, above, it is again asserted that, as a pure man, he (Christ’s human nature) was led by the Spirit, whose presence he is said to have received after baptism, being guided, strengthened, and taught by it, just as other men are, about whom, as it seems to be said here, the Apostle says, "Those who are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" (Romans 8). If anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or preaches these things in this way, and does not believe, confess, and preach that the Word of God incarnate is one and the same as Christ, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter VII
Let them tell us, then, the most wise of all, if, as they say, the divinity became the intellect (understanding) for the Lord Christ, who is according to the flesh, why did Christ need the operation of the Holy Spirit for these things? For the divinity of the Only Begotten did not need the Spirit for justification, did not need the Spirit to conquer the devil, did not need the Spirit to perform miracles, did not need the Spirit to be taught what was fitting to accomplish, and did not need the Spirit to appear immaculate. For if indeed the divinity sufficed as the intellect and its power was sufficient for all, then it was necessary for all things to be done from that (the divinity), making the indwelling of the Holy Spirit superfluous. But now, he says that he (Christ) was anointed with the Spirit, that the Spirit dwelt in him, assisted him in all his endeavors, that he received his teaching and power from it, that he obtained justification from it, and that he was made immaculate from it.
Vigilius' Response
In this seventh chapter, it is implied that, like other men, he (Christ) needed the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for his own justification, to conquer the devil, to perform miracles, to be taught what was fitting for him to do, and to appear immaculate, and that he was aided by this Spirit in all his endeavors. Whoever thinks, teaches, believes, or preaches these things in this way, and does not believe that Christ, as the true God, worked all things he willed through his own divinity, and that he will work whatever he wishes, but instead believes that he needed the assistance of the Holy Spirit as a mere man, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter VIII
What existed before all ages is said to have come into being in the last times, according to the confession of some; however, no one who genuinely cares about piety would suffer such madness to claim that he who existed before the ages only came into being in the last times. From this, it is inferred that what exists in the last times must also have existed before the ages. He criticizes those who do not express everything in the same manner with this inversion, as if those who confess one Son must necessarily state everything in a reversed manner. Who would not commend such madness of yours? And who would not desire to have such teachers, who introduce so much confusion into the rational understanding of piety that they would claim, ‘What existed before the ages came into being in the last times,’ and then estrange it from its true nature, leading it into error, and then invert it again to say, ‘What is in the last times existed before the ages,’ when perhaps it should rather be said that ‘He who was before all ages took on what existed in the last times,’ according to the words of the blessed Paul (1 Timothy 4). Therefore, following your principles, and accepting the inversion — or rather, subversion — established by your wisdom, let us mix everything together, erasing all distinctions: neither the form of God nor the form of a servant, neither the temple taken nor the one who dwelt in it, neither the one freed nor the one who raised him, neither the one perfected through suffering nor the one who perfected, neither the one remembered nor the one who gave remembrance, neither the one visited nor the one who visited, neither the one made a little lower than the angels nor the one who did the lowering, neither the one crowned with glory and honor nor the one who crowned, neither the one placed over the works of God’s hands nor the one who did the placing, neither the one who received these things for exaltation nor the one who granted the exaltation.
Vigilius' Response
In the above eighth chapter, it seems that a duality of persons is introduced in various ways by stating: ‘It is not he who existed before all ages who came in the last times,’ as if there were two distinct persons: one of the one assuming humanity and another of the one being assumed. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or preaches this, and does not confess that the same Word of God, who was begotten from the Father before all ages, was incarnated and born in the last times from the blessed Virgin Mary, making Christ one and the same in both natures, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter IX
This man, in whom God has established judgment over all things to affirm belief in future events, after raising him from the dead and showing him to be the judge of all, as the blessed Paul says (Acts 17), was deemed worthy by God of being united with him through merit. By this union with himself, God made him a participant in divine privileges, granting him a share in the worship received by the divine nature; for while all offer the worship due to the divine nature, they also include in their adoration the one whom they know to be inseparably united with it. From this, it is evident that God elevated him to even greater things.
Vigilius' Response
In the above ninth chapter, by using terms such as ‘union’ and ‘participation,’ as if some divine quality had been joined to the human Christ, it is asserted that Christ is adorned with divine works; through this, the duality of persons is introduced once again. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or preaches this, and does not acknowledge and believe that Christ is one and the same—our God and Lord—while the distinct properties of the natures remain intact, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter X
"I indeed, whom you see, can do nothing of my own accord since I am a man, but I act because the Father, who dwells in me, does all things; for I am in the Father, and the Father is in me (John 14); and since the Word of God, the Only Begotten, is in me, it is certain that the Father also remains in me along with Him and performs works. It is not surprising that these things are thought of Christ, as he himself clearly says of other men: ‘If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him’ (John 14). For if the Father and the Son dwell in each of these kinds of people, what should we think but that, in the Lord Christ according to the flesh, both dwell together, perhaps receiving the fellowship of their substance as a shared dwelling?"
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned tenth chapter, it is stated that in the man Christ, the Word of God is present, just as the Father is, so that either the Father should be seen as incarnate, like the Son, or neither the Son is incarnate, just as the Father is not, or both should be thought to inhabit the third person, the man. Whoever holds, teaches, believes, or proclaims such things, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XI
Thus, he took the soul, established as human and immortal and partaking of sense, and through the resurrection placed it in a state of immutability. In doing so, he granted us, through the resurrection, a share in these same things. Therefore, before the resurrection from the dead, he rebuked Peter for causing offense with his words; and during the time of his passion, when he was in great distress, he needed the appearance of an angel to strengthen him with patience and endurance for the impending sufferings. But after the resurrection from the dead and his ascension into heaven, he became entirely impassible, completely immutable, and now sits at the right hand of God, the judge of the entire world, as the divine nature carries out judgment in him.
Vigilius' Response
In the above eleventh chapter, the same things appear to be repeated as those already mentioned in the fourth chapter—namely, that before his passion, Christ was so weak that, in his great distress during the time of his suffering, he seemed to need the comfort of an angel. Since this seems to present Christ as a mere man who required such assistance, if anyone holds, teaches, believes, or proclaims such things, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XII
So, you teach us to have the most enlightened understanding of Christ, demonstrating that he possessed the Holy Spirit, which filled Christ’s mind, granting him a certain power, supplying wisdom for everything he needed to accomplish. As we have previously shown, he was led by the Spirit into the desert for the trials against the devil; he received the anointing, knowledge, and strength for the tasks he needed to perform from that Spirit. And having become a participant of the Spirit, he not only performed miracles but also knew precisely how to use those miracles, making the divine will known to the nations while also sharing in the weaknesses of those who suffered, and thereby fulfilling his will, being justified and shown to be immaculate, either through correcting what was wrong or by preserving what was right, or even through gradual progress toward better things.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned twelfth chapter, the same ideas as those in the seventh chapter seem to be expressed, claiming that our Lord Jesus Christ was instructed in all things through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that he reached perfection over time with the help of that anointing. Therefore, if anyone believes, teaches, or proclaims that he was perfected not by his own divinity but as a mere man who required the assistance of the Holy Spirit’s anointing, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XIII
The thirteenth chapter states:
How then does it follow that God, having become man, should be called a just man and the Word of God? If, as you say, a man is the Word of God, we will say everything about the man that the evangelist says about the Word of God. What does he say? 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; this one was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that was made' (John 1). Therefore, if a man is the Word of God, we would say about him: 'In the beginning was a man, and the man was with God, and the man was God; the man was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that was made.' For if, as you claim, a man is the Word of God, then everything the evangelist says about the Word must also apply to him.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned thirteenth chapter, it seems to deny that the Word of God became man and likewise denies that a man is the Word of God, so as to introduce, as previously stated, a duality of persons. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this and does not rather confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is the same God and Word who was born of the Father before the ages, who was incarnated and born in the last times from the blessed Virgin Mary, so that Christ is one and the same in both natures, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XIV
The fourteenth chapter reads:
What does it mean when it is said: 'To my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God' (John 20)? No one is so irrational as to claim this pertains to anyone other than the man who was assumed as the temple of the Word of God for our salvation—he who died, rose again, and was about to ascend into heaven, calling God his Father and the Father of His disciples and acknowledging God as his own, having earned adoption through grace; and he calls God his God because he, like other men, received that status. Thus, because of the shared nature, he says 'My Father and your Father, and my God and your God.' However, he distinguishes his own person, indicating the grace by which he is joined to the Word of God and is honored by all as the true Son.
Vigilius' Response
In this fourteenth chapter, the phrase from the Gospel, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, my God and your God' (John 20), is understood as saying that Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, received the grace of adoption as the Son of God, like other men, and is worshipped by all through his union with the Word of God as if he were the true Son. If anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this and does not rather understand and believe that Jesus Christ is one and the same, the Son of God and our Lord, in two distinct yet inseparable natures, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XV
What was said, ‘Receive [the Holy Spirit],’ was actually meant as ‘You will receive.’ For if, when He breathed on them, He had given the Spirit to the disciples (a notion that some have very foolishly believed), it would have been unnecessary for Him afterward—especially at the time of His ascension into heaven—to tell them not to depart from Jerusalem but to wait for the promise of the Spirit; and further: ‘But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you’ (Acts 1:8). Moreover, Luke states that the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples occurred on the fiftieth day after the resurrection, after the ascension. It must also be noted that if they had received the Spirit from His breath, He would not have said, ‘Receive,’ but rather, ‘Since you have received.’ For the phrase ‘Receive’ is fitting only for those who have not yet received.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned fifteenth chapter, it is stated that when our Lord Jesus Christ breathed upon the faces of His disciples after His resurrection, He did not give them the Holy Spirit, but rather signified that it would be given later. But by this reasoning, one must conclude either (God forbid!) that truth itself has been found to have lied, or that, as though He were a mere man, Christ did not possess in that breath what He claimed to give, or was incapable of giving it. If anyone holds, teaches, or proclaims these things, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XVI
He says to Thomas: 'Put your finger here and see my hands; and reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not be unbelieving but believing' (John 20:27). Because, he says, you do not believe and think that touching alone is enough for you to believe (for by saying these things, you did not hide your doubts from me), touch with your hand, take proof, and learn to believe rather than doubt. Thomas, when he had believed in this way, said, 'My Lord and my God!' (John 20:28), but he did not refer to him as the Lord and God. For the knowledge of the resurrection did not teach him that he who was raised was also God; rather, he praises God in awe of the miracle performed.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned sixteenth chapter, it is asserted that when the Apostle Thomas touched the marks of the nails and said, 'My Lord and my God' (John 20:28), he did not confess Jesus Christ himself as Lord and God, and that the knowledge of the resurrection did not teach that he who was resurrected was God. Instead, it claims that Thomas praised God merely for the miracle that occurred. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this and does not rather believe that through Thomas's confession it was declared that Jesus Christ is the true God and that he rose in true flesh, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XVII
He stated that people must repent for their wrongdoing regarding the cross and, upon recognizing Jesus Christ as the Savior and the source of all good things, that they should believe in him, who came for these purposes and was assumed from the divine nature, and become his disciples, beginning with baptism. This baptism, he taught, holds the hope of things to come and is to be celebrated in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For, when it is said, ‘Let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ’ (Acts 2:38), it does not mean abandoning the invocation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and instead calling only upon Jesus Christ in baptism. Rather, it is like how people were baptized into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea, as it is said; they were separated from the Egyptians under the cloud and the sea, being liberated from their bondage so they might adhere to the laws of Moses. Similarly, when they came to him as the Savior, the author of all good things, and the teacher of truth, they were called by his name, just as people following any sect are named after the founder of the doctrine, such as Platonists, Epicureans, Manicheans, and Marcionites. In the same manner, the apostles decided that we should be called Christians, thus establishing clearly that his doctrine must be observed; and so the baptism he established is received, having been instituted first by him who was also the first to be baptized and given to the rest by him, so that it is celebrated according to the anticipation of future events.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned seventeenth chapter, based on the words of the blessed Peter, where he says in the Acts of the Apostles, 'Let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,' it is asserted that the invocation of the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit does not include Christ. Furthermore, it claims that Peter the Apostle instructed them to be baptized in the name of Christ alone, introducing a quaternity rather than a trinity. It is also added in this chapter that Christians are named after Christ in the same way followers of various sects are named after their founders, like Platonists, Marcionites, and Manicheans. If anyone believes, teaches, or proclaims such things and does not instead affirm that we are Christians because, in baptism, we receive and put on our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the head, and that through him, we all become one body, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XVIII
And according to two reasons, he holds the place of an image: for those who love others, after their death, often set up images of them, thinking this is a sufficient solace for their grief, as they gaze upon the image as if seeing the one who is no longer present. In this way, they calm the flames of their longing and soothe their emotions. Likewise, those who have images of emperors in their cities seem to honor them as if they were present, showing reverence and worship through their images, even though the emperors themselves are absent. Both of these actions are fulfilled through him (Christ). For all those who are with him and follow his virtue, and who are prepared to offer what is due to God, love and honor him greatly, and indeed express their devotion to the divine nature, which they do not see, through him, who is seen by all. Thus, everyone perceives him as if seeing the divine presence itself through him. And they attribute all honor to him, just as they do to an imperial image, for they believe the divine nature dwells within him and is revealed through him. For if he is the Son, who is said to dwell within him, then the Father is also inseparably united to the Son and believed to be with him in all creation. And the Spirit is also not absent, for, as it is said, he has become anointed and is always with him who was assumed. And this is no surprise, for even in those men who follow virtue, the Father and the Son are said to dwell: 'We will come to him and make our home with him' (John 14). And it is certain to all that the Spirit also is inseparably present with such men.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned eighteenth chapter, it is asserted that Christ is the invisible image of God, as if he were worshiped as the image of an absent ruler. If anyone believes, teaches, or proclaims such things, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XIX
The statement, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased' (Luke 3), when spoken at his baptism, demonstrates adoption—not, however, in the same manner as the adoption of the Jewish people; for it was also said to them, 'I said, you are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High' and 'I have nourished and brought up children' (Psalm 82; Isaiah 1). The distinctive nature of this adoption is shown by what was said: 'Beloved' and 'in whom I am well pleased,' indicating this particular status (Isaiah 42). For this reason, the voice of the Father confirmed the adoption, and through the designation as the Son, it declared him as the true Son by adoption through grace. The union to the true and firm Son constituted this adoption. And the Holy Spirit, descending in the form of a dove, rested upon him, so that through his union with the true Son, he might remain focused on his cooperation, maintaining the dignity of a firm adoption. And in all things where the baptism of adoption was first performed—meaning, the baptism of the Lord Christ—this was completed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned nineteenth chapter, where the Gospel according to Luke explains the baptism of Christ, two errors are evident [in Theodore's interpretation, not in the Gospel of Luke!]: one, the introduction of a duality of sons when it is suggested that Christ was called the Son of God through adoption; and the other, the assertion that Christ himself was baptized in the name of the Trinity, which would undoubtedly introduce a quaternity. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims such things, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XX
The psalm, therefore, shows the distinction between the Word of God and the man who was assumed. These differences are found in the New Testament as well, where the Lord himself, taking the beginning of the psalm upon himself, describes himself as the Creator of creation and as having exalted magnificence above the heavens, and as one who is glorified throughout all the earth. But the Apostle attributes the things said of the man—who was worthy of such benefits—as something different. How is it not clear that the divine Scripture evidently teaches us that the Word of God is one, and the man another, showing us their great difference? For the one speaks, while the other is spoken of; the one remembers, while the other receives remembrance; the one visits, while the other, being visited, is called blessed. And the one bestows favor, reducing himself to a little less than the angels, while the other, through this reduction, receives the benefit. And the one crowns with glory and honor, while the other is crowned and called blessed for these things. The one appoints him over all the works of his hands and places everything under his feet, while the other is granted dominion over those things over which he previously had no power.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned twentieth chapter, where the eighth psalm seems to be explained, Christ is presented as a mere man, separated from the Word, and a duality of persons is introduced. If anyone believes, teaches, or proclaims such things and does not instead understand that in Christ the Lord, two natures are invisibly and inseparably united, maintaining the difference of those natures while affirming that he is one and the same, true Son of God and true Son of man, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXI
But those who are unwilling to consider these things attempt to apply all the words to the Lord Christ, trying to interpret what was said of the people in a similar way, making the Jews a laughingstock when the subsequent passages of Scripture show that the words do not pertain to the Lord Christ at all.
Theodore’s Chapter XXII
Such is also the case with the phrase: 'He did not leave his soul in hell, nor did his flesh see corruption' (Psalm 16). For the prophet is indeed speaking, above all, about God's providence over the people, intending to say that he kept them safe from all harm while they were exposed to trials. And because this is true, the blessed Peter, speaking often about Christ in reference to these things, uses this phrase to show that what was said about the people was applied to the Lord Christ in the fulfillment of these events.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned twenty-first and twenty-second chapters, it is claimed that the prophecy spoken in the person of Christ, saying: 'You will not abandon my soul to hell, nor allow your Holy One to see corruption' (Psalm 16), was not actually foretold about Christ himself but about the people of Israel. It is suggested that the blessed Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, applied this prophecy to Christ based on the event's outcome (Acts 2). Therefore, if anyone believes, teaches, or proclaims such things, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXIII
The same interpretation applies to the phrase: 'They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothing, they cast lots' (Psalm 22). For it is certain that the psalm in no way pertains to the Lord. After all, it was not fitting for the Lord Christ, who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth (1 Peter 2), to say: 'Far from my salvation are the words of my sins' (Psalm 22). And even when the Lord, oppressed according to the common law of humanity during his passion, cried out, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Matthew 27), the evangelists explicitly apply to him the phrase: 'They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothing, they cast lots.' This is because what was said in the psalm, though spoken in an elevated sense by David concerning his own suffering, was now fulfilled in the works surrounding the Lord Christ, whose garments they divided and whose tunic they cast lots for.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned twenty-third chapter, the words of the twenty-first psalm where it says: 'They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothing, they cast lots,' are claimed not to pertain to Jesus Christ the Lord but rather to David, who, due to certain afflictions he endured, spoke these things about himself. It is further suggested that the evangelist applied these words to Christ based on events. It is also added that Jesus, who committed no sin, could not have said: 'Far from my salvation are the words of my sins.' Therefore, if anyone believes, teaches, or proclaims these things and does not instead interpret the passages that mention sins as referring to the Church, which is his body, that cannot be without sin in this world, or if he does not believe that the specific prophecy about the division of garments was predicted concerning the Lord himself and fulfilled in him, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXIV
"They pierced my hands and my feet (Psalm 22), and they scrutinized everything I did and attempted." The phrase 'they pierced' is used in the sense of those who dig, searching for things hidden in the depths. "They counted all my bones" (Psalm 22): they took hold of all my strength and my entire substance so that they even subjected it to examination. This, however, he said following the custom of enemies, who, when they conquer, take a detailed inventory of what they seize. Therefore, when he says, 'They looked and stared at me,' he adds: 'They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothing, they cast lots.' He says, 'Seeing that everything they desired came to pass in me,' they, as my enemies, treated me as utterly given over to evil, dividing my belongings after my defeat and captivity by casting lots. The evangelist, indeed, took the words directly from the events concerning the Lord, just as we have previously stated. For it is clear that the psalm does not pertain to the Lord. Blessed David, rather, spoke these things in an elevated sense about the events involving Absalom, for when David had retreated, Absalom, having entered the capital city as a conqueror, seized all royal possessions, even defiling his father’s bed.
[Translator's Note: The Latin reads "Psal. XXI", which is translated here as "Psalm 22," ChatGPT4 provides the following explanation:
"[T]he numbering of the Psalms can differ depending on whether one follows the Septuagint (Greek) or the Masoretic (Hebrew) tradition. Septuagint numbering: This numbering is typically used in early Christian texts and is one number behind the Hebrew (Masoretic) numbering. In the Septuagint, Psalm 21 corresponds to Psalm 22 in the Masoretic text. Masoretic numbering: This is the numbering most commonly found in modern Bibles, particularly in Protestant and Jewish traditions. Here, Psalm 22 is the one that contains the phrases, "They pierced my hands and my feet" and "They divided my garments among themselves." Since most contemporary readers, especially those referencing modern Bibles, would be familiar with the Masoretic numbering, I translated "Psal. XXI" as "Psalm 22" to ensure clarity and accessibility."]
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned twenty-fourth chapter, regarding the same twenty-first psalm where it says: 'They pierced my hands and my feet; they counted all my bones; they looked and stared at me,' it is asserted that these words were not foretold about Christ but were said by David about himself, concerning Absalom’s tyranny, who invaded the royal city and seized his father’s wealth, taking account of everything. The evangelist is claimed to have applied these words from the event to the person of Christ. Therefore, whoever thus believes, thinks, teaches, or preaches these things, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXV
The twenty-fifth chapter states:
Food and drink are enjoyable in times of joy, yet bitter and unpleasant in sorrow; in this way, he said, what they did was as if food became like gall for me in sorrow and drink became as bitter as vinegar. This particularly occurs in anger intertwined with tribulation, as though they were experiencing such treatment from their own. The Evangelist applied this testimony to the Lord, and even the Lord himself, saying, 'Zeal for your house has consumed me' (John 2), spoke of himself. The blessed Paul, speaking of the Jews, says, 'Let their table become a snare' (Romans 15), and the blessed Peter, speaking of Judas, says, 'May his dwelling be deserted' (Acts 1). These statements were not said in the psalm solely about these people at one time, then about another, and yet another. Rather, because many things are said about the Jews, who separated themselves from God and the Law, it is necessary to use testimonies that align with the events. Thus, the line, 'They gave me gall for food, and for my thirst, they gave me vinegar to drink' (Psalm 68).
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned twenty-fifth chapter, on the section of the psalm that says, 'They gave me gall for food, and for my thirst, they gave me vinegar to drink,' the interpretation contradicts the clear truth of the Gospel. It is said there that the Lord was not actually given vinegar, but rather that the drink offered to him represented the anger and malice of those offering it, taking the place of vinegar and food as gall. Furthermore, it is said that this was not foretold of him, but that the Evangelist applied the passage to the Lord based on the event. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims such things, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXVI
The twenty-sixth chapter states:
Therefore, it is clear that Nathanael’s confession does not reveal knowledge of divinity (for the Jews and Samaritans, who were expecting such a figure, were far removed from true knowledge of the Word of God); likewise, Martha, by her confession, shows no knowledge of divinity at that time. This also clearly applies to the blessed Peter: for at that time, it was enough for those receiving the revelation to accept some distinctive greatness in him beyond the understanding of other men. After the resurrection, however, having been led to true knowledge by the Spirit, they then received the perfect knowledge of revelation, understanding that the honor accorded to him was not a simple human honor given by God, as it is with other men, but rather the honor was due to his union with the Word of God. Through this union, he is granted all honor after his ascension into the heavens.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned twenty-sixth chapter, it is denied that Peter possessed knowledge of Christ’s divinity before his resurrection, and it is claimed that he merely had an understanding beyond that of other men. Again, this introduces a duality of sons, asserting that the man assumed by the Word participated in the Word after his ascension into heaven. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this, and does not understand that Christ our Lord is one and the same, both Son of God and Son of man, while maintaining the unity of the natures, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXVII
The twenty-seventh chapter states:
Matthew the evangelist states that after the temptations, angels came and ministered to him (Matthew 4), remaining with him, assisting in all things around him and rendering service to God. This shows that through the trials with the devil, he became all the more radiant. Furthermore, we learn from the Gospels that angels were present to support him in his suffering, and when he rose, they were seen at the tomb (Matthew 28; Luke 22). Through all of these events, the dignity of Christ is demonstrated, with angels inseparably accompanying him and ministering around him. Just as they distance themselves from sinners, they also aid those whom they honor by merit. For this reason, the Lord rightly says: 'You will see greater things, and the heavens opened for all through me, and all the angels will always be with me, now ascending, now descending, as with the friend and companion of God' (John 1).
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned twenty-seventh chapter, where the evangelist Matthew is interpreted as saying that after the temptations, the angels came to minister to Christ, it is said that angels, as they do for others who are honored by merit, assisted Christ. It is also stated that angels thus ascend and descend to Christ in heaven, as if to a friend and companion of God. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims such things, and does not rather profess that the angels served and continue to serve Christ as the true God, the true Son of God, one and the same with perfect humanity assumed from the womb of the Virgin, as to the Creator and Lord, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXVIII
The twenty-eighth chapter states:
The Lord was more troubled, and his struggle was with the passions of the soul rather than those of the body; with a superior disposition, he overcame desires, with divinity assisting him toward perfection. Thus, the Lord appears to establish his struggle particularly in these matters: for he was not deceived by the greed for wealth, nor tempted by the desire for glory, nor did he yield to the flesh, for such things had no power over him. But if he had not assumed a soul and instead divinity alone overcame these things, none of what was accomplished would benefit us. For how could there be a resemblance to our way of life between divinity and the human soul? In this way, it seems that the Lord’s struggles do not truly benefit us but are simply displays. Yet, it is not possible to say this (since it is certain that these things were done for our sake, and he faced a greater struggle with the passions of the soul than with those of the flesh). Indeed, as these struggles involved greater effort and required greater remedy, the fact that he assumed both flesh and soul means he fought on behalf of both, subduing sin in the flesh and taming its desires, making it easier for the soul to master them. And he educated the soul, training it to conquer its passions and restrain the desires of the flesh. All these things the indwelling divinity accomplished and healed in both flesh and soul.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned twenty-eighth chapter, Christ is once again presented as a mere man, who is said to have tamed bodily desires through reason and to have trained his soul, instructing it to overcome its passions and restrain the desires of the flesh. Both aspects, however, are said to have been accomplished with the aid of divinity, such that, according to these statements, we no longer have Jesus Christ himself as the one mediator between God and humankind, but rather a divinity that merely mediated between his flesh and soul. Therefore, if anyone believes, teaches, preaches, or holds such views, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXIX
The twenty-ninth chapter states:
If, then, it was merely the flesh that was crucified, why did the sun hide its rays, why did darkness cover the entire land, why did the earth quake, rocks split apart, and the dead rise? What, then, will they say about the darkness in Egypt during Moses’s time, which lasted not three hours but three days? And what about the other miracles performed through Moses, or through Joshua son of Nun, who stopped the sun’s course? And the sun, again, in the time of King Hezekiah, even reversed its course against nature. And as for the relics of Elisha, which brought a dead man back to life—if the events at the crucifixion demonstrate the suffering of the Word of God and deny that they were done for humanity’s sake, then what about those that took place during Moses’s time, for the benefit of the children of Abraham, or in the time of Joshua, or under King Hezekiah? If these earlier miracles were done on behalf of the people of Israel, how much more should we understand that those which took place at the crucifixion were for the temple of the Word of God?
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned twenty-ninth chapter, while ostensibly arguing against Apollinaris, who wrongly attributed suffering to the divine nature, the writer deviates from the true path and exceeds proper bounds, suggesting that a mere man was the one who hung upon the cross. Therefore, if anyone holds, teaches, believes, or proclaims this view, and does not instead confess that Christ, the true God, suffered in his own flesh, while his divinity remained impassible, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXX
The thirtieth chapter states:
It is manifest that unity is appropriate: for through it, the united natures created one person according to unity. Just as it is said about a man and a woman that they are no longer two, but one flesh (Matthew 19), let us likewise, in the proper understanding of unity, say that they are not two persons but one, though the natures are distinct. Just as the unity of the flesh does not erase the number of the two, so here, the unity of person does not obliterate the differences in nature. And when we distinguish the natures, we affirm the complete nature of the Word of God and a complete person, for it is impossible to declare any complete subsistence without personhood. Similarly, the human nature and person are likewise complete. Yet when we consider their union, we say that there is one person.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned thirtieth chapter, an unfortunate comparison is used to explain the single person of Christ—as though, just as a man and a woman are joined, so too Christ’s distinct natures are somehow a single person. It continues, declaring the nature of the Word of God to be complete and a complete person, as well as a complete nature and person in the human nature likewise. Thus, it appears that, in both the comparison of man and woman (where there are two persons) and in what follows, although the term 'number' is omitted, two persons in the one person of Christ are introduced. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims such things, and does not instead confess that in one Christ, the natures are united such that the singularity of person or subsistence is recognized, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXXI
The thirty-first chapter states:
But Christ, in accordance with the flesh and the form of a servant which he assumed, is nonetheless the one whom Scripture exalts as God above all, though this is only in relation to the union. Thus, through the meaning of these names, he makes clear the distinct division of the natures. Therefore, let no one call him who is from the Jews according to the flesh, God; nor again call the one who is God over all things, in relation to the flesh, from the Jews.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned thirty-first chapter, in the interpretation which seems to be derived from the Creed of the 318 Fathers (the Council of Nicaea), not only is there an assertion of the division of the natures, but it is also said absolutely: neither should he who is from the Jews according to the flesh be considered merely human without divinity, nor should God be considered purely divine without flesh. Thus, they appear to be pronounced as two separate and distinct persons. Therefore, if anyone believes, teaches, proclaims, or holds such views, and does not instead confess that in Christ the unity of natures exists in a singularity of person or subsistence, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXXII
The thirty-second chapter states:
He refers to Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power (Acts 10). Since he was anointed by the Spirit of God, he must have taken something from it. Yet, who would be so deranged as to claim that the divine nature itself received anything from the Spirit? He even calls ‘participants’ those who themselves were also anointed; and those who were anointed and, as such, became his participants, are rightly said to share in the anointing, but only with the one who was assumed. This, therefore, proves that he received a just reward: ‘For this reason,’ it is said, ‘because you loved justice and hated iniquity, you earned this extraordinary anointing.’
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned thirty-second chapter, in commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is a reference to Peter’s words, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power.’ It is asserted that the one anointed by the Spirit of God necessarily received something from it, and further it adds, ‘Who would be so deranged as to say that the divine nature received anything from the Spirit?’ Through these words, Christ is introduced as a mere human being who became a participant in the divine nature through anointing by the Holy Spirit, just as others do. Additionally, it is claimed that by his righteous conduct—loving justice and hating iniquity—he merited an extraordinary anointing as a just reward. Therefore, if anyone believes, teaches, or proclaims such things, and does not rather confess Christ as the true God, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXXIII
The thirty-third chapter states:
Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel: that is, you are the one who was foretold long ago to be the Christ. For these were the things hoped for regarding Christ, as the one placed before all as God’s intimate.
Theodore’s Chapter XXXIV
The thirty-fourth chapter states:
He was indeed certainly the Son of God, though not claiming this as a birth from divinity, but rather as one dear to God, as those men close to God were in their time called sons of God due to their virtue.
Vigilius' Response
In the thirty-third and thirty-fourth chapters above, concerning the interpretation of the Gospel according to John, the words of Nathanael speaking to the Lord are employed: “You are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel.” And it is inferred that this was said to Christ as though to one of God’s household, so that Christ is not Himself God, but, more than other men, is God’s familiar; and it is said that, just as other holy men are called sons of God, so also Christ, by reason of the intimacy He has with God, was called God by Nathanael, with whom He was speaking. Whoever thinks thus, teaches thus, believes thus, or proclaims thus, and does not confess that the same Christ is true God and true man, one and perfect in each nature, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXXV
The thirty-fifth chapter states:
For when he says, 'Of his Son, who was made from the seed of David according to the flesh' (Romans 1:3), it is clear that here he is not calling him the Word of God who was made from the seed of David according to the flesh, but rather the assumed form of a servant. For neither is God made according to the flesh, nor is God made from the seed of David. Instead, this refers to the man taken on for our sake, whom the blessed Apostle openly calls Son.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned thirty-fifth chapter, when interpreting the Apostle’s words in the Epistle to the Romans, where it says, 'Of his Son, who was made from the seed of David according to the flesh,' the form of a servant is plainly expressed. It is said here that 'his Son, who was made from the seed of David according to the flesh,' does not refer to God the Word, but rather to a man assumed for our sake, whom the blessed Apostle explicitly calls Son. Such statements indicate that he is proclaimed as merely human, as previously stated. Therefore, if anyone believes, teaches, holds, or proclaims such things, and does not believe instead that the same one who was born according to the flesh from the seed of David, according to the words of David and the Apostle Paul, is also God over all things, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXXVI
The thirty-sixth chapter states:
He has been reborn, becoming another in place of the former: no longer a part of Adam, mutable and encircled by sins, but of Christ, who through the resurrection has become entirely blameless.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned thirty-sixth chapter, it is said to those baptized, 'Since you have been reborn, you have become another in place of the former; no longer a part of Adam, mutable and encircled by sin, but of Christ, who has become entirely blameless through the resurrection.' By these words, it is implied that Christ himself was somehow blameworthy before the resurrection, which is utterly unthinkable. Therefore, if anyone believes, teaches, holds, or proclaims such things, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXXVII
The thirty-seventh chapter states:
In order to show great care for him, he made all things belonging to him his own and endured them, leading him through all the pathways of suffering, through which he made him perfect according to his own power. He did not abandon him among the dead, according to the law of his nature, but by his presence, action, and grace, he freed him from death and the evils that follow from it, raising him from the dead and leading him to a better end.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned thirty-seventh chapter, it is said that God the Word was present to Christ in his sufferings and death by his presence, action, and grace. If this is so, it would appear as though one being were present to another, imparting grace and action as if to someone distinct. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this, and does not instead confess that God the Word himself, while preserving the impassibility of his divinity, in the flesh animated by a rational and intellectual soul, which he united to himself from conception in the Virgin, willingly endured everything written about his passion, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXXVIII
The thirty-eighth chapter states:
Then, in showing for whose sake he suffered, he introduces a distinction: 'So that he might taste death for everyone apart from God' (Hebrews 2:9). Since, according to the divine will, the divine nature was separated, he tasted death, by himself, for the benefit of all. This demonstrates that the divinity was indeed separate from the one who experienced suffering in the event of death, for it was impossible for the divine nature to undergo death. Nevertheless, the divinity did not fail to show care for the one who suffered.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned thirty-eighth chapter, we recognize a corruption of the testimony of the Apostle. Where it is written: 'By the grace of God, he tasted death for everyone,' here it has been altered to: 'So that he might taste death for everyone apart from God.' This is asserted to mean that, with the divine nature separated, he tasted death by himself, or as a mere human, for the benefit of all.
Therefore, if anyone believes, teaches, holds, or proclaims such things, and does not confess that God the Word united to the flesh, which he took from the moment of conception according to the substance, never deserted it, either in suffering or in death, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XXXIX
Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Spirit and power (Acts 10), earned this anointing and was made entirely pure, deserving to be united with the divine nature. For he would not have received this union if he had not first been made blameless, making him worthy of such a union.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned thirty-ninth chapter, there is an explanation of what the blessed Peter said: 'Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and power.' It is stated that through the anointing of the Spirit, he merited and became wholly pure, deserving union with the divine nature. These words openly present Christ as a mere human. Therefore, if anyone holds, teaches, believes, or proclaims such things, let him be anathema.
Theodore’s Chapter XL
Indeed, regarding the statement: 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased' (Matthew 3), it is madness to think that this was spoken by God the Word about himself. The one who said, 'This is my beloved Son,' and then added, 'in whom I am well pleased,' clearly expressed this in comparison to other sons, who were neither made beloved nor could greatly please him.
Vigilius' Response
In the aforementioned fortieth chapter, in the interpretation of the Gospel according to Matthew, where it says: 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,' it is also added and stated: 'It is madness to say this about God.' The one who said, 'This is my beloved Son,' and added, 'in whom I am well pleased,' indicated that this was clearly said in comparison to other sons, who were neither made beloved nor could greatly please him. These words plainly show Christ Jesus as a mere human and an adopted son. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this, let him be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER XLI
He, remaining until the moment when, according to his nature and power, he dissolved the pains of death, freed him from its ineffable bonds, and, raising him from the dead, transferred him into immortal life. He made him incorruptible, immortal, and immutable, and led him into heaven.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned forty-first chapter, it is stated that by dissolving the pains of death, he freed Christ from those ineffable bonds and, raising him from the dead, transferred him to immortal life, making him incorruptible, immortal, and immutable, and led him into heaven. These words describe Jesus Christ as a mere human. Therefore, if anyone believes, teaches, proclaims, or holds such views, let him be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER XLII
Christ was justified and made immaculate according to the power of the Holy Spirit, as the blessed Apostle declares: 'He was justified in the Spirit' (cited, apparently erroneously, as 2 Timothy 3, but actually 1 Timothy 3:16), and in another place, 'Through the eternal Spirit, he offered himself without blemish to God' (Hebrews 9:14). He caused him to die in accordance with human law, yet raised him, made immaculate by the power of the Holy Spirit, from the dead, establishing him in a better life. He rendered him unchangeable in the thoughts of his soul and incorruptible and indissoluble in his flesh.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned forty-second chapter, it is claimed that Christ was justified and made immaculate through the power of the Holy Spirit. It then adds: 'He caused him to die according to the law of men, but raised him, made immaculate by the power of the Holy Spirit, from the dead.' These words suggest a separation from God the Word, as the man is portrayed as having been rendered immaculate and sinless through the virtue of the Holy Spirit, as if he were some righteous human being. Therefore, if anyone holds, teaches, believes, or preaches such things, let him be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER XLIII
Thanks be to God, who has given us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15). He declares that God is the cause of these victories over all our adversaries, whether death, sin, or any other evil that springs forth from them. He states that God, having assumed our Lord Jesus Christ as a man for our sake, through the resurrection from the dead, transferred him to a better end, making him sit at his right hand and granting us communion with him.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned forty-third chapter, where the Apostle Paul’s words are explained—'Thanks be to God, who has given us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ'—it is further added: 'Our Lord Jesus Christ, having been assumed as a man for our sake, was transferred by God, through the resurrection from the dead, to a better end.' This implies that the human being was assumed by God the Word and that two distinct entities are thereby suggested: one who receives and the other who grants. If anyone believes, teaches, proclaims, or holds such things, let him be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER XLIV
When they ask: Is Mary to be called the mother of a man or the mother of God by us? We answer: Both, one in nature and the other in relation. By nature, she is the mother of a man, since he who was in Mary’s womb and emerged from there was a man. By relation, she is the mother of God, for God was in the man who was born. He was not confined in him according to nature, but rather by a movement of will.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned forty-fourth chapter, the question is posed: Is Mary to be called the mother of a man or the mother of God? It is presented as if spoken from the perspective of the respondent, who says that both terms apply, and adds: One in nature and the other in relation. It continues: By nature, she is the mother of a man, since the one who was in Mary’s womb and came forth was a man. By relation, she is the mother of God, for God was in the man who was born. Furthermore, it is said: He was not confined in him according to nature, but rather by a movement of will. These words, yet again, indicate both one human Christ and two sons of the blessed Mary. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this, and does not confess that God the Word, ineffably born of the Father before all ages, is the same one born of the Holy Virgin Mary (as we said in the first chapter) through a second birth, incarnate and born in two natures, without confusion or division, let him be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER XLV
He is a son by grace, who was born from Mary as a man, but by nature, God the Word. Therefore, what is according to grace is not according to nature, and what is according to nature is not by grace, nor by two sons. It suffices for the body, which is from us, to have the sonship by grace, along with glory and immortality, because it was made the temple of God the Word. It should not be exalted beyond nature. And God the Word should not be dishonored due to our obligation to give thanks. What greater dishonor is there than equating him with the body and thinking that he needs the body to achieve perfect sonship? God the Word does not wish to be called the son of David but the Lord. However, he did not resent this body being called the son of David, but rather, he came for this purpose.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned forty-fifth chapter, it is said that the one who was born from Mary as a man is a son by grace, while by nature he is God the Word. There is an argument made, saying: 'What is by grace is not by nature, and what is by nature is not by grace.' It continues: 'It suffices for the body, which is from us, to have sonship by grace and not be exalted beyond nature, and God the Word should not be dishonored for our obligation to give thanks.' These words suggest that the man born from the Virgin Mary is merely a human who is called the Son of God by grace. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this, let him be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER XLVI
When there is a question about the births according to nature, it is not considered that the Son of Mary is the Word of God. For mortals give birth to mortals according to nature, and the body is similar to itself. The Word of God did not experience two births: one before the ages and another in later times.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned forty-sixth chapter, it is stated that "it is not considered the Son of Mary is the Word of God." It adds: "For a mortal gives birth to a mortal according to nature, and the body is similar to itself." These words signify that Christ born from the Holy Virgin Mary is a mere human and suggest two sons. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this, let him be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER XLVII
Thus, they will now cease from shameless fighting and desist from futile contention, ashamed by the clarity of what has been said. For they say that he leads many sons to glory. Behold, therefore, the Apostle’s reasoning concerning sonship (1 Timothy 3), where he includes the assumed man among others—not according to the manner in which he is a participant in that [their] sonship, but as one who likewise assumed sonship through grace, while natural sonship belongs to divinity alone.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned forty-seventh chapter, the statement of the Apostle is explained: 'He led many sons to glory' (Hebrews 2:10). It is said here that the Apostle counts the assumed man among others, as one who likewise received the grace of sonship, while natural sonship belongs to divinity alone. These words, as previously stated, introduce two sons: one by grace, the other by nature. Therefore, if anyone believes, teaches, proclaims, or holds such things, let him be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER XLVIII
But they argue that the name 'Jesus' signifies 'Savior.' However, if 'Savior' is said, how can that man be called such? They have forgotten that 'Jesus' was also the name of the son of Nun [Editor's Note: a reference to Joshua, of Torah fame], and what is remarkable is that he was not named fortuitously at birth but was renamed by Moses. Clearly, such a name would not have been imposed upon a man if it entirely signified the divine nature.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned forty-eighth chapter, it is argued that the name 'Jesus,' which signifies 'Savior,' does not necessarily indicate divinity. It is stated: 'If "Savior" signified divine nature, such a name would never have been given to a man.' These words clearly suggest that Christ was a mere human and introduce the idea of two persons. Therefore, if anyone believes, teaches, proclaims, or holds such things, let him be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER XLIX
Thus, he not only calls him the Son, separating him from God the Word, but also sharing his sonship with others [lit. "but he is also shown to be sharing the reason for filiation to others sharing filiation"]. For he, too, was a participant in sonship through grace and not by being naturally begotten from the Father, although he held superiority over others by possessing a unity in sonship with him, which granted him a more firm participation in this very reality.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned forty-ninth chapter, it is stated that Christ partook of sonship through grace, yet had a superiority over others due to the stronger participation granted to him. Therefore, if anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this, and does not instead understand and believe that the Word of God, united with assumed flesh, is one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, true Son of God, and the same true Son of Man, let him be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER L
Jesus, as a man, was like all other humans, differing in no way from the nature of his fellow humans except in the grace that was given to him. However, grace granted does not alter nature. Yet after the destruction of death, God bestowed upon him a name that is above every name.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned fiftieth chapter, it is stated that the man Jesus is no different from all other humans of the same nature, except that grace was given to him. These words lead one to regard our Lord Jesus Christ as merely one of the righteous humans, who is not understood to be exalted by his own divinity but is claimed to have attained something greater than other humans through grace. If anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this, let them be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER LI
But my brothers, who are sons of the same mother as I, say to me: 'Do not separate the man and God, but call him one and the same man,' saying: 'I call him connatural to me; I call him God.' If I say that he is connatural to God, I ask: How can man and God be one? Can the nature of man and God, master and servant, creator and creature, be one? Man is consubstantial with man, but God is consubstantial with God. How, then, can man and God be one through unity—he who is saved and he who saves, he who exists before the ages and he who appeared from Mary?
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned fifty-first chapter, it is denied that God and man can be called one and the same, with the claim: 'How can man and God be one through unity—he who saves and he who is saved, he who exists before the ages and he who appeared from Mary?' These words introduce two persons in Christ. If anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this, let them be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER LII
He aptly stated: 'For I, too, am a man' (Matt. 8), so as to say: It is not surprising if you can do this, since you are a man who receives from God; for I, being in the same condition, also receive those who obey me, having for this time [lit. "on one occasion"] the authority to command due to the giver's indulgence.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER LIII
Wherefore, it is not incongruous that you, having received this authority from God, drive away afflictions with a mere word; for the centurion did not approach him as the Son of God, existing before all creation, and the creator of all things.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned fifty-second and fifty-third chapters, it is said that the centurion addressed Christ, saying: 'It is not surprising if you can do this, since you are a man who receives from God; for I, being in the same condition, also receive those who obey me, having at one time the authority to command due to the giver’s indulgence.' And although from what follows, it seems to affirm that the centurion did not approach him as the Son of God, who created all creation, but instead confesses that he is the Son of God and the creator of all things, the text nevertheless does not form a correct opinion of the centurion’s understanding. For the Lord would not have praised his faith by saying, 'I have not found such great faith in Israel' (Matt. 8:10), unless he knew that the centurion understood him to be God. From these words, as well as the preceding chapters and other statements, it is now said that Christ is the Son of God not by unity of subsistence, but by grace. As a result, Christ is presented as a mere man, who received authority through the giver’s indulgence, according to his merit. If anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this, let them be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER LIV
Consonantly, the Apostle also says: 'And undeniably great is the mystery of piety, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit' (1 Tim. 3[:16]), affirming that he was justified in the Spirit, either because before his baptism he upheld the law with fitting meticulousness, or because after it he fulfilled the life of grace, through the cooperation of the Spirit, with great meticulousness.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned fifty-fourth chapter, where the Apostle says, 'Which was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,' it is asserted that Christ was justified, either because before his baptism he upheld the law with fitting meticulousness, or because after it he fulfilled the life of grace, through the cooperation of the Spirit, with great meticulousness. These words, however, represent that Christ, as a mere man, required justification. If anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this, and does not instead believe that he, as true God consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, justifies the impious through faith, let them be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER LV
We rightly say the same concerning the Lord: that God the Word, knowing his virtue and, according to his foreknowledge, immediately willed to dwell with him from the very beginning of his formation. Uniting him to himself through an act of will, he bestowed upon him a certain greater grace—indeed, a grace that resides in him and is to be distributed to all humanity. Hence, he preserved in him a complete will regarding good things. For we do not claim that this man had no will, but that he indeed willed good and that the desire for good and hatred of its opposite were abundantly present in him voluntarily. His will was preserved intact from the beginning by divine grace, which God, knowing precisely what it would be, also bestowed upon him great assistance through his indwelling, for the salvation of all of us. Therefore, let no one claim it unjust that something extraordinary was granted to this man, who was assumed by the Lord.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned fifty-fifth chapter, it is said that God the Word, according to his foreknowledge, knowing the virtue of the man Christ, willed to dwell in him immediately from the beginning of his formation. Uniting him to himself through an act of will, he bestowed upon him a certain greater grace. From these words, and from others that follow, it is evident that two persons are being introduced, and that the Son of God is seen as dwelling in the son of man through an act of will, grace, and relation. If anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this, and does not instead recognize and believe one and the same Christ in two perfect, indivisible, and unconfused natures, let them be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER LVI
For the proper function of the rational nature is the discernment of good and evil. However, when there are no contraries, it was not, at first, possible for it to discern anything. Therefore, within these created things, it [or He? God?] made a profound contraiety.
[Translator's note: this passage seems nonsensical enough to raise my suspicion that Vigilius is quoting it out of context, or that it was presented to Vigilius out of context. I don't think ChatGPT is the one getting it wrong here. However, I don't have ready access to Theodore's original text, so this is speculation.]
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned fifty-sixth chapter, it is said that the proper function of the rational nature is the discernment of good and evil; and shortly thereafter, it states: 'Therefore, within created things, it established a great opposition.' If these words are spoken with the intention of introducing the nature of evil as well as that of good, let them be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER LVII
Now, because Adam did not obey, he was then subjected to death. And this happened on account of disobedience, which was also done by the Creator apart from disobedience for our benefit, so that we all might be taught sin.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned fifty-seventh chapter, it is said that even if Adam had not been disobedient, this was nevertheless done by the Creator for the benefit of humanity, and that we were taught sin. God forbid the Catholic faith believe thus: that God could teach us sin so that we might be made sinners. If anyone thinks, teaches, or proclaims this, and does not instead confess that sin was introduced by the fault of the first man, despite God’s prohibition, and that by the just judgment of God, he and his progeny were subjected to the punishment of death on account of his disobedience, let them be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER LVIII
Therefore, death was not inflicted upon humanity unwillingly or apart from his own judgment, nor was access given to sin without any benefit. For it was not impossible for this to occur without his will. Rather, because he knew it to be beneficial for us, and even more so for all rational beings, that there should first be access to evils and inferior things, and afterwards for these to be erased and better things introduced, God divided creation into two states: the present and the future. In the latter, he would lead all things to immortality and immutability, while in the present, he temporarily allowed creation to remain subject to death and mutability. For if he had made us immortal and immutable from the very beginning, we would have no distinction from irrational beings, not knowing our own good. For by not experiencing mutability, we would be ignorant of the good of immutability; by not knowing death, we would not know the benefit of immortality; by not knowing corruption, we would not praise incorruption; by not knowing the burden of suffering, we would not marvel at impassibility. (To summarize, lest I prolong this discussion): by not knowing the experience of evils, we could not deserve the knowledge of those goods.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned fifty-eighth chapter, it is said that God gave access to sin because he knew this to be beneficial for us, and even more so for all rational beings, that there might first, clearly, be access to evils and inferior things, and afterwards, with these removed, better things might be introduced. It is also added: 'For if he had made us immortal and immutable from the very beginning, we would have no distinction from irrational beings, not knowing our own good.' By these words, first, God is asserted, contrary to the rule of faith, to have introduced sin as something beneficial for us. Second, since all rational beings are encompassed [by this claim], this is made to be understood even of the angels and the entire heavenly host, who are endowed with reason. Third, what the devil persuaded the first humans to believe in order to deceive them—that by eating from the forbidden tree they would become like gods, knowing good and evil—is asserted here as having benefited them. If anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims these things, let him be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER LIX
It is necessary, however, for all rational beings—by which I mean the invisible ones, as well as ourselves, whose body is indeed mortal, but whose soul is of the same nature as the invisible [perhaps immortal with these same invisible beings] and rational substances—to endure the present mutability here, so that we may be instructed in the best doctrine of piety and be established in benevolence.
[Editor's note: the bracketed phrase is in the Latin text that I have. It might be a scribal editorial note, something like, "the word 'invisibilibus' next to 'eiusdem generis' might actually be 'immortalis.'" Or it might be something entirely different!]
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned fifty-ninth chapter, it is said: 'It is necessary for all rational beings—the invisible ones, as well as ourselves, whose body is indeed mortal, but whose soul is of the same nature as the invisible and rational substances—to endure the present mutability here, so that we may be instructed in the best doctrine of piety and be established in benevolence.' By these words, if it is asserted that the angels of light and all the celestial and invisible powers are subject to mutability to the same extent as human souls, let this be anathema.
THEODORE’S CHAPTER LX
For he knew indeed that they would sin in any case, yet he allowed this to happen, recognizing it to be advantageous for them. For it was impossible for him who had made them from nothing, had shown them to be masters of such great things, and had set forth so many goods for them to enjoy, not to permit access to sin if he recognized it to be advantageous for them. Yet it was not possible for us to learn about sin, the troubles of suffering, inferior things, and our weakness as demonstrated in these, to reveal the greatness of the immutability which he would later grant us, unless from the beginning these things had been arranged by God. Thus, by the comparison and experience of countless evils, we could come to know the greatness of the goods, and for this reason, since it would be beneficial for us, he allowed sin to enter and found in his battle great assistance for us.
VIGILIUS' RESPONSE
In the aforementioned sixtieth chapter, it is said that God, knowing that humanity would sin, therefore allowed sin because he knew this to be advantageous for them, and for this reason did not forbid access to sin. It is further claimed that from the beginning these things were arranged by God so that, by the comparison and experience of countless evils, we might come to know the greatness of goods, and that for this reason, since it was deemed beneficial for us, God allowed sin to enter, and humanity found great assistance in its struggle against sin. These words are contrary to the sense of divine Scripture, which does not say that sin was introduced by God for our benefit. If anyone thinks, teaches, believes, or proclaims this, let them be anathema. For the holy Catholic Church holds and believes this with certainty: that God both forbade sin to the first human and, for [our] disobedience, punished sin with just retribution. Yet by making good use of even our evils, he redeemed us through a singular remedy—the incarnation, passion, death, and resurrection of his only-begotten Son, that is, our Lord Jesus Christ—and freed us from the bonds of all sins.
***
Therefore, after these matters have been rightly condemned through the uprightness of orthodox faith and by the authority of the apostolic sentence, we decree that no opportunity should be given for injuring the preceding Fathers or doctors of the Church (which, without doubt, causes scandal to the holy Church) by means of anything we have condemned with apostolic authority, adhering to the decrees and traditions of the Fathers, anathematizing anyone belonging to ecclesiastical orders who wishes in any way to attribute or impute insult to the Fathers and doctors of the Church based on the aforementioned impieties.
And since the aforementioned doctrines—which we have subjected to anathema and condemnation according to the understanding set forth regarding them—are contained in the volume recently sent to us by your piety through our brother Benignus the bishop, under the title bearing the name of Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, we have been prompted by our pastoral concern to thoroughly examine whether anything about the person or name of the aforementioned Theodore was discussed by the Fathers, or if any determinations or rulings concerning his name were made by them in accordance with the canons. Upon diligent investigation, we found that Cyril of blessed memory, bishop of the city of Alexandria, wrote in reply to the letters of John, bishop of the city of Antioch of reverent memory, and to the Eastern synod, regarding the person of Theodore, who was already deceased. Among other things, he related thus:
‘The decree issued in the holy council of Ephesus concerning what was composed, as the petitioners said, by Theodore, contained nothing sound. The holy synod annulled it as being full of perverse ideas, condemning likewise those who hold such views. However, it made no mention of the man, nor did it subject him or others to anathema by name.’
Indeed, upon carefully reviewing the Acts of the First Council of Ephesus, we found no reference to the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Instead, it focused on the creed produced there by Charisius the priest, which was condemned because it was sent to the churches of the Philadelphians by Athanasius and Photius, who at that time adhered to the heretic Nestorius, through two individuals named Antony and Jacob, presbyters. From this it is clear that the blessed Cyril, as he affirms in his letters, understood that the name of Theodore, the bishop who was already deceased, had been reported by those who presented the creed. Acting with ecclesiastical moderation and sacerdotal wisdom, Cyril deliberately refrained from including Theodore’s name in the synodal records, in accordance with the canon concerning how the Church ought to treat the dead in the priesthood.
Furthermore, the blessed Cyril clarified his deliberate action—namely, that he did not wish to subject the man’s name to anathema—by extending this to ecclesiastical regulation in the same letter, adding: ‘But those who provide causes of this kind will rightly hear, even if they are unwilling: "You forget yourselves when you stretch your bows against ashes; for the one registered among them is no more." Let no one blame me for having spoken thus; rather, let them yield entirely, especially to my predecessor.’
For it is a grave matter to insult the dead, even if they were laypersons, and all the more so those who departed this life while holding the episcopal office. Indeed, it appears most just to prudent individuals to yield to God, who foreknows the will of each individual and knows what kind of person each one will become. Furthermore, it is evident that the blessed Proclus, bishop of this royal city, similarly responded to the letters of the aforementioned John, bishop of Antioch, saying among other things: ‘For when I wrote to your holiness, was it fitting that Theodore, or certain others who have long since passed away, should be subjected to anathema, or that I made mention of anyone by name?’ And shortly thereafter: ‘I rejected those chapters that were submitted, as they lacked the subtlety of piety. However, concerning Theodore or any others who have already died, I wrote nothing, dearest of God, either that they should be anathematized or renounced. Nor did our beloved Theodotus, who was sent by us as a deacon, receive any such mandate.’
The same blessed Proclus likewise says in a letter to Maximus the deacon, after other matters: ‘How then have I now learned through letters that the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia, along with the names of certain others, has been appended to chapters for anathema, when they have already departed to God? To insult those who have already left this life is futile, especially those whom we never criticized while they were alive.’ And shortly after: ‘After the subscription of the tome and the rejection of the chapters—whose authorship we do not know—immediately prepare the deacon Theodorus to come to the royal city.’
Let the singular wisdom of your piety, therefore, consider that Proclus, the most learned of bishops, who lived not long after the time of Theodore of Mopsuestia, declared that he did not know who was responsible for the evils he willingly condemned. Nor did we find anything decreed or stated against the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia, bishop, frequently referenced, in the holy and venerable Council of Chalcedon. Indeed, in the report that the same venerable synod sent to the emperor Marcian of pious memory, and which you yourselves have laudably cited in your laws as evidence of the orthodox profession that Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, is to be confessed as our God and Lord, the letters of John of Antioch and the Eastern synod, addressed to Theodosius, emperor of most pious memory, are reverently mentioned. In these, the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, bishop, is excused from being condemned after his death.
After this, we undertook a more careful examination to see if anything concerning those who had already passed away, and who were not condemned during their lifetime, had been decreed by our predecessors of holy memory. Upon this review, we recognized that the venerable decrees of the pontiffs of the apostolic see, our predecessors, clearly handed down to us a model of this caution and foresight. For the most blessed Pope Leo, in a letter to Theodore, bishop of Forojuli, says after other matters: 'It is not necessary for us to investigate the merits and actions of those who have died in such a way, since our Lord God, whose judgments cannot be comprehended, reserved to his justice what the priestly office could not accomplish.' Likewise, the blessed Pope Gelasius, in a letter written to the bishops of Dardania concerning the case of Acacius, says after other matters: 'He who, having fallen back into the fellowship of depravity, rightly deserved to be excluded from apostolic communion and persisted in this condemnation until his death, cannot now, having died, obtain absolution, which he neither sought nor deserved during his life. For indeed, the very apostles received from the voice of Christ the mandate: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). However, it is not permissible for us to decree anything else concerning one who is now placed in divine judgment, apart from the condition in which the final day found him.'
Likewise, the aforementioned Pope Gelasius of blessed memory clearly taught this in the synodal acts concerning the absolution of Cumanus, bishop of Misenum, saying: ‘Let us leave everything beyond the scope of our authority to divine judgment. Those still living may accuse us of remitting offenses of transgression while they are alive, which is possible for the Church, by God’s grace. However, let no one demand from us the granting of pardon to those who have already died, as it is manifestly impossible for us. For it is said: "Whatever you bind and loose on earth" applies only to those who are known to still be on earth. God reserves those who are no longer on earth to his own judgment, not human judgment. Nor does the Church presume to claim for itself what it sees was not granted even to the apostles, for the case of the living is one thing, and the case of the dead is another.’
This rule was also evidently observed in the case of Saint John, bishop of Constantinople, called Chrysostom, and Flavian, bishop of the same city, both of venerable memory. Although they were violently deposed, they were not regarded as condemned, because the Roman pontiffs always maintained communion with them inviolate, and they could not, nor ever can, be said to have been cut off from the Church, as the apostolic authority judged them to be steadfastly united to itself.
It is also recorded in the seventh book of Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus, in his Ecclesiastical History, that Dionysius, bishop of the city of Alexandria, who lived long before, acted in this manner regarding Nepos, a certain bishop of Egypt. For this bishop Nepos is said to have written about the thousand years during which, after the first resurrection, the saints would reign with Christ, as the blessed Apostle John says in the Apocalypse, and to have interpreted this in a Judaizing sense. After Nepos’s death, when the books he had left behind came into the possession of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, and all of Egypt was considering these books to contain some great and hidden mystery, Dionysius went to the place where the matter had been raised (it is said to have been in Arsinoite), and, through writing, refuted and overturned the books. Yet, out of respect for Nepos, who had already died, he made no attack against his person. If anyone wishes to learn more about this, they will find it in the aforementioned seventh book of Eusebius’s histories.
After carefully examining all these matters, it is evident that, although our Fathers expressed themselves in various ways, they maintained the same understanding, and in doing so preserved the integrity of the persons of bishops who had died in ecclesiastical peace. The decrees of the apostolic see, as outlined above, also uphold this principle: that no one is permitted to make new judgments regarding the persons of the dead, but they are to remain in the state in which the final day found them. Specifically regarding the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia, it has been clearly expressed above what our holy Fathers determined about him: we do not dare to condemn him with our judgment, nor do we permit anyone else to condemn him. However, let it not be thought for a moment that the aforementioned chapters of doctrines, which we have condemned according to the proper understanding of their meanings, or any other statements attributed without naming their author, which are nevertheless inconsistent with the teachings of the Gospels, the apostles, the four councils—Nicaea, Constantinople, the First Council of Ephesus, and Chalcedon—and the apostolic see, are to be tolerated by us in their content or even in their hearing.
As for the writings brought forth under the name of the venerable Theodoret, formerly a bishop, we marvel first at why it is necessary for the name of this priest to be dragged into reproach by any effort. More than one hundred years ago, at the judgment of the holy and venerable Council of Chalcedon, he subscribed without hesitation and gave his wholehearted assent to the letters of the most blessed Pope Leo. Furthermore, although at that time Dioscorus and the Egyptian bishops accused him of anathematizing Saint Cyril and claimed that he was himself a heretic, the holy Fathers, having heard these accusations, thoroughly examined Theodoret afterward. After questioning him in person, they are known to have required nothing more from him than that he immediately anathematize and condemn Nestorius and his impious doctrines. They judged this alone to be sufficient, and Theodoret, in the presence of the entire council, openly and clearly condemned Nestorius and his doctrines in the hearing of all the Fathers.
From this, it is evident that whatever has been brought forth under anyone’s name that appears to agree with the doctrines of the impious Nestorius was undoubtedly condemned by the venerable Theodoret himself at that holy council. It is therefore highly inconsistent and unquestionably contrary to the judgment of the Council of Chalcedon to condemn certain Nestorian doctrines now under the name of this priest, who, together with the holy Fathers, explicitly anathematized the impious Nestorius and his execrable doctrines, as we have said. For what else does it mean to suggest that the Fathers seated at the holy Council of Chalcedon were liars or pretenders to the profession of right faith, than to claim that some of them held opinions similar to those of Nestorius, when it was by their judgment that Nestorius and his doctrines were condemned?
Nor should it be thought that the holy memory of Cyril suffered injury from the reproach of his twelve chapters, allegedly made by the venerable Theodoret, and that the most blessed Fathers in the holy Council of Chalcedon ignored this. Rather, either (since the events had recently occurred and all matters were before their eyes) they proved that Theodoret had done no such thing, or they judged it appropriate to follow the example of Cyril himself. For, after enduring many severe accusations in writing from the Eastern bishops at Ephesus, when he later reconciled with them, he abandoned these acts in silence out of love for peace, as though they had never happened. In doing so, he fulfilled the apostolic saying written to the Corinthians: 'For indeed, if you have forgiven anything, so have I' (2 Cor. 2:10).
Furthermore, it is to be believed that the holy Council of Chalcedon took this into consideration, since, when the doctrine of Cyril was revealed and accepted through his letters in that council, the aforementioned bishop Theodoret received it with such a devoted mind that he even used Cyril’s doctrine to praise the epistle of the most blessed Pope Leo. Thus, even if it were established that he had offered reproaches against Cyril, he would have fully satisfied the matter by venerating Cyril’s faith, which he had previously mistakenly suspected of error. Therefore, it is neither appropriate nor permissible for us to inquire into or reexamine anything that our Fathers may have left unaddressed. We also completely reject the suggestion that our holy Fathers approved of those who now find fault with Cyril.
With this truth in mind, we decree and determine that nothing is to be said or done under the pretext of reproach or disparagement against the highly esteemed Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, whose integrity was affirmed at the Council of Chalcedon. While maintaining full respect for his person in all matters, we anathematize and condemn any writings or doctrines—regardless of whose name they are issued under—that are shown to align with the manifest errors of the heretics Nestorius and Eutyches. For it is sufficient and entirely adequate that, while condemning and anathematizing Paul of Samosata, Bonosus, Nestorius, and on the other hand, Valentinus, Apollinaris, Eutyches, and their errors along with all other heretics and their doctrines, we also equally condemn those who remained obstinately entangled in their errors and departed this present life unrepentant. Through this, we leave no room for any perverse doctrine to remain, as all such false teachings are excluded by the authority of the holy apostolic Church through this judgment we have issued.
I. We further declare specifically: if anyone, while preserving the unchangeability of the divine nature, does not confess that the Word became flesh and, from the very conception in the womb of the Virgin, united the principles of human nature to himself according to his subsistence, but instead asserts that God the Word joined with a man who already existed, so that the Virgin is not truly believed to be the Mother of God but is called so in name only, let him be anathema.
II. If anyone denies the unity of natures in Christ according to subsistence but claims that God the Word indwells a separate human being, as if one among the just, and does not confess the unity of natures according to subsistence in such a way that God the Word remained and remains one subsistence or person with the assumed flesh, let him be anathema.
III. If anyone divides the evangelical and apostolic words in the one Christ so as to introduce a division of the natures united in him, let him be anathema.
IV. If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ, the true Son of God and the same true Son of man, had ignorance of future events or of the day of the final judgment, and that he could only know such things as the divinity revealed to him as though indwelling another person, let him be anathema.
V. If anyone interprets the statement of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews—‘he learned obedience through what he suffered’ and ‘offered prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death’—as referring to Christ as bare deity, claiming that he was perfected through the struggles of virtue, and thereby seems to introduce two Christs or two Sons, and does not believe in one and the same Christ, the Son of God and the Son of man, to be confessed and worshiped as one in two inseparable and indivisible natures, let him be anathema.
Having thus rejected and condemned all these and similar blasphemies, we make every effort through the disposition of this present constitution to ensure that, as we have said above, no harm is done under the pretext of condemning the perverse doctrines anathematized by us to the persons who rested in peace and communion with the universal Church. Instead, with the detestable doctrines of the heresiarchs Nestorius and Eutyches and all their followers condemned, let no reproach fall upon those priests who departed in the peace of the Catholic Church, as stated, lest opportunities for insult arise where the reverence of the holy Fathers ought to be preserved.
We have likewise diligently investigated the letter of the venerable Ibas, formerly bishop of the city of Edessa, which you inquired about, to see if it was addressed or disputed or decided upon in earlier times by our Fathers. And since, as it is well known to all, especially to your piety, we are unfamiliar with the Greek language, we have carefully examined the acts of the holy and venerable Council of Chalcedon in its synodal records through those of our colleagues who are proficient in the same language. We clearly and openly found that the matter concerning the aforementioned venerable Ibas was examined in two sessions of the same synod. From the acts recorded under the bishops Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus, we discovered that this letter in question was brought forth by his accusers among other charges against him. Once the inquiry into the matter was completed and the venerable Fathers deliberated on what should be decided regarding the case of Ibas, these judgments followed accordingly.
Paschasinus and Lucentius, most reverend bishops, and Bonifacius, presbyter, representing the apostolic see (since apostolic delegates customarily speak and confirm matters first in synods), said through Paschasinus: ‘Upon reexamining the documents, we recognize from the judgment of the most reverend bishops that the most reverend Ibas is found to be innocent. For upon rereading his letter, we recognize him as orthodox. Therefore, we decree that the honor of the episcopate be restored to him and that the Church, from which he was unjustly expelled in his absence, be repaired. As for the most holy bishop Nonnus, who was recently appointed in his place, it will be up to the judgment of the venerable bishop of the Church of Antioch to determine what should be done concerning him and to establish the proper course of action.’
Anatolius, the most reverend archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, said: ‘The judgment of the God-loving bishops and judges, along with the reading of all the proceedings, demonstrates that the most reverend Ibas is innocent of the accusations brought against him. Therefore, I reject any suspicion in this matter, since he consents to and subscribes to the judgment now issued by the holy council regarding the faith, as well as to the letter of the most holy archbishop of Rome, Leo. I also judge him to be worthy of the episcopate and of resuming responsibility for the Church he previously served.’
Maximus, the most reverend bishop of Antioch, said: ‘From what has just been reread, it has been established and made clear that the most reverend Ibas has been found innocent of all charges brought against him. Furthermore, from the rereading of the letter, which was approved even by his adversary, his declaration has been shown to be orthodox.’
With these matters thus established in the judgment and decree of the holy Council of Chalcedon, and with the statements of the venerable bishops representing the apostolic see and the other Fathers made clear, we observe that those who are known to have represented our most blessed predecessor, Pope Leo, at the same holy Council of Chalcedon said: ‘Upon rereading his letter, we recognize him to be catholic.’ And Anatolius of Constantinople said: ‘The reading of all that has followed demonstrates that the most reverend Ibas is innocent of the accusations brought against him.’ Maximus of Antioch said: ‘From the rereading of the letter, which was brought forth by his adversary, his declaration has been shown to be catholic.’ The other bishops not only did not contradict these statements, but they are clearly known to have offered their unanimous consent.
Because of the proclamation of faith through which Cyril, bishop of Alexandria of venerable memory, and John, most reverend bishop of Antioch, along with all the Eastern bishops, were reconciled to concord through Paul, bishop of Emesa—a proclamation that Ibas also praises and willingly embraces in the same letter—the declaration of Ibas, bishop, was pronounced orthodox by the Fathers. However, those things which were spoken in error of understanding in that same letter by Ibas the priest, in reproach of Cyril of blessed memory, were in no way accepted by the Fathers who pronounced the letter orthodox at the holy Council of Chalcedon. For the venerable bishop himself later rejected them upon gaining a better understanding of Cyril’s chapters, as is most clearly shown in the statement of Eunomius, bishop of Nicomedia of venerable memory, who was present at the same holy Council of Chalcedon. This statement reads as follows:
‘Eunomius, bishop of Nicomedia, said: "Already, from what has been reread, it has been shown that the blessed Ibas is innocent. Even where he seemed to have spoken poorly by reproaching the most blessed Cyril, he later rightly confessed and refuted the things he had criticized. Therefore, I also judge him, as one who anathematizes Nestorius and Eutyches and their impious doctrines, who agrees with what has been written by the most holy Archbishop Leo, and who has confessed in this universal synod, to be worthy of the episcopate."’
For the statement of Juvenal of venerable memory signifies the same thing: that Ibas, bishop, having earlier criticized Saint Cyril’s chapters due to misunderstanding them, later professed that once these chapters were explained by Cyril and understood by him, he eagerly joined communion with Cyril and changed his mind regarding the matters he had previously misunderstood. Therefore, Juvenal decreed that Ibas be restored to the episcopate, as one who was orthodox in his profession of faith, saying: ‘The divine Scripture commands that those who convert be received; for this reason, we also receive those who return from heresies.’ From this, I foresee that the most reverend Ibas deserves clemency, for he is an elder and should retain his rank of bishop as one who is orthodox.
From these words, it is clear that if we receive those returning from heresies, how much more should we receive Ibas, who is orthodox and, though previously mistaken about Cyril’s chapters and seeming to oppose him, has now corrected his misunderstanding. For Juvenal, bishop, would not have called Ibas orthodox unless he confirmed the orthodox confession of faith in Ibas’s letter. To show that Juvenal’s statement agrees with that of Eunomius, the words of Eunomius’s statement themselves make this clear. Among other things, they say: ‘Even where he seemed to reproach the most blessed Cyril with his words, he later rightly confessed and refuted the things he had criticized.’ From these words, it is clearly shown that nothing in Ibas’s confession of faith has been found blameworthy, but rather that his confession has been praised. Furthermore, Ibas refuted his earlier mistaken judgment about the blessed Cyril, which had been due to misunderstanding.
This same venerable bishop Ibas, as is abundantly shown in the preceding acts and in the judgment of Photius and Eustathius, explicitly declared that he accepted and adhered to everything decreed at the First Council of Ephesus. He affirmed the fairness of the decrees established at Nicaea, regarding them as consistent with those of other councils. He also declared himself a fervent admirer of their sanctity and expressed great care to safeguard the reputation of their doctrines from any suspicion or harm. After the explanation of the twelve chapters of the blessed Cyril, and once he had been shown Cyril’s own understanding of them, Ibas professed that he had embraced them as orthodox, along with all the Eastern bishops, and had remained in communion with Cyril until his death.
From this, it is clear that even before Ibas understood the twelve chapters of the blessed Cyril, when he suspected that they proclaimed only one nature of Christ, he rejected what he mistakenly thought had been said with an orthodox judgment. Later, after the explanation of these chapters, he reverently accepted, with an orthodox understanding, what he now recognized as rightly stated.
For it is undoubtedly evident to the minds of all the faithful that it was, in fact, Dioscorus, together with Eutyches, who insulted the blessed Cyril and the First Council of Ephesus with their heretical understanding during the so-called Second Council of Ephesus. They believed that the blessed Cyril, through his twelve chapters, had proclaimed a single nature in our Lord God Jesus Christ. Because of this belief, Dioscorus condemned certain Eastern bishops who refused to accept the proclamation of a single nature. Among these was Ibas, bishop, whom Dioscorus condemned specifically for his profession of faith, in which he most clearly confessed two natures, one power, and one person—that is, one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, Dioscorus restored Eutyches, who proclaimed a single nature, as if he were orthodox, and condemned the person of Flavian of blessed memory because of his assertion of two natures.
Dioscorus was thus found to be attempting to destroy the First Council of Ephesus, while pretending to defend it under the guise of his false understanding. He insulted the blessed Cyril more by praising Eutyches and himself than Ibas did by mistakenly criticizing him due to a false understanding of Cyril’s teachings. For both praise and criticism, when directed by the same erroneous understanding, converge on the same result: Dioscorus and Eutyches, who praised Cyril, were found to have done so with a heretical spirit, and for this reason were condemned by the holy Council of Chalcedon. In contrast, Ibas, who initially criticized the chapters out of a mistaken belief that they taught a single nature, later corrected his error upon learning the true meaning of Cyril’s teachings. He professed himself to be in communion with Cyril and all the Eastern bishops and was judged by the same Council of Chalcedon to have remained steadfast in the rectitude of the Catholic faith.
Thus, the same council, recognizing that Dioscorus and Eutyches falsely attempted to cover themselves under the veil of the blessed Cyril, saw instead that they were truly opposed to Cyril’s teachings. By proclaiming a single nature after the union in Christ with blasphemous intent, they were condemned by a single and identical judgment. The council destroyed the Second Council of Ephesus while confirming the First.
Since we are charged with Ezekiel the prophet’s words regarding the priests of Jerusalem, who failed to discern good from evil, where it is said in the person of the Lord: "Her priests have despised my law and polluted my holy things; they did not distinguish between the holy and the profane, nor did they separate the clean from the unclean" (Ezek. 22:26), your piety, together with the hearts of all the faithful, should recognize from these words the importance of not daring to revisit the judgments of the Council of Chalcedon. For should we now attempt, under any pretext, to revisit causes already judged by that holy council with the consent of the apostolic see, it would place a stain (God forbid) upon those priests who sat there, as though they had been unable to discern between the holy and the profane, or between the clean and the unclean.
Therefore, maintaining in all things the discipline and judgment of the holy Fathers, and considering that the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon have been clearly illuminated by the truth, we decree by the authority of this present sentence that the faith of the venerable Ibas, bishop, has been rightly and piously declared orthodox, as demonstrated in his letter, through the acts conducted before Photius and Eustathius, and through his personal declaration in the presence of those assembled at Chalcedon. The Fathers recognized that his reproach of the blessed Cyril, which arose from human misunderstanding, had been duly rectified by proper satisfaction.
Furthermore, we decree and determine by the authority of this sentence that the judgment of the Fathers who sat at Chalcedon concerning the venerable Ibas and his letter remains inviolable. We forbid anyone within the ecclesiastical orders and dignities from presuming to tamper with this ruling, or with any other matters judged, decreed, determined, or decided with the consent of the apostolic see during the Council of Chalcedon, whether through additions, subtractions, alterations, or by introducing any form of reckless novelty.
In the same way, we decree that no one should presume to detract from the letter of the blessed Cyril, to which the twelve chapters are appended, nor from the chapters themselves, which were issued against the perfidy of Nestorius.37 It is evident that Ibas, along with all the Eastern bishops, remained in communion with the blessed Cyril for his entire life after the meaning of those chapters was explained to him. Ibas rejected and repudiated anything that deviated from the true understanding of orthodoxy. Nothing in the aforementioned letter of Ibas, or in all the judgments, decrees, definitions, and dispositions made by the holy Council of Chalcedon, can be construed to mean that the authority of that council was used to affirm any erroneous doctrine of Nestorius, nor that Nestorius himself was excused.
Furthermore, lest anyone perhaps believe that the apostolic see’s legates and vicars, under the direction of the most blessed Pope Leo, were entrusted only with matters of faith and not also with the revocation of bishops who had been unjustly deposed, or that the case of Ibas, bishop of the city of Edessa, was superfluously debated before the holy Fathers, let them know that the most blessed Pope Leo wrote the following, among other things, to the holy Council of Chalcedon: ‘Since we are not unaware that, due to wicked rivalries, the condition of many Churches has been disturbed, and that numerous bishops who did not accept heresy have been driven from their sees and sent into exile, while others have been substituted in their places, it is above all necessary to apply the medicine of justice to these wounds, so that no one is deprived of their rightful office or improperly uses what belongs to another.’
And lest anyone doubt whether the matters regarding the restitution of bishops dealt with at the Council of Chalcedon were brought to the attention of the most blessed Leo and confirmed by him, they should not neglect to read the report of the council sent to our predecessor, the most blessed Leo, with appropriate diligence. Among other statements, the following words appear at the conclusion: ‘We have taken care to inform Your Holiness of the entirety of what has been done, for your confirmation and disposition regarding these matters.’ After receiving this information, the same most blessed Pope Leo, in a letter of thanks to Pulcheria Augusta of pious memory regarding the reinstatement of bishops, wrote as follows: ‘Your clemency should know that the entire Roman Church greatly rejoices in all your works of faith, especially because you supported our legation with such devout affection in all respects, and because you restored the Catholic bishops who had been unjustly expelled from their churches.’
Thus, it is evident that all the proceedings were communicated to the most blessed Pope Leo, and the knowledge of these actions was conveyed to him. Furthermore, through the recurring expressions of thanksgiving, the confirmation of these acts is explicitly declared.
We do not doubt that it has been made clear to the minds of all the faithful what form of instruction was given to the vicars of the blessed Pope Leo, who were present in his place at the council, concerning the matters to be addressed, what actions they were to undertake to resist opposition, and what decrees were established by that general council, presided over and consented to by the bishop of the apostolic see through his vicars. These decrees neither can, nor may, nor should, under any pretext, be diminished, augmented, overturned, or reconsidered by anyone.
Indeed, the decrees of the venerable Council of Chalcedon cannot be revoked or reconsidered under any pretext or title, as is evident from the countless rulings of our predecessors, of which only a few are mentioned here. Among them are the letters of that same blessed Leo, our predecessor, who, through his vicars, presided over the holy Council of Chalcedon with supreme authority. In a letter to Leo Augustus of pious memory, he says: 'These gifts of God are divinely bestowed upon us only if we are not found ungrateful for what has been granted, as if we were to consider them as nothing and instead seek contrary outcomes. For to question what has been revealed, to reconsider what has been perfected, and to overturn what has been defined—what else is this but to show no gratitude for what has been received and to extend the deadly appetite of perverse desire to the forbidden fruit of the tree?'
And after some further remarks, he says: 'Therefore, let your piety, venerable emperor, know that those whom I promise to send are not being sent to contend with enemies of the faith or to fight against them, for we do not dare to enter into discussion about matters already defined, both at Nicaea and Chalcedon, as if those things, determined by such great authority through the Holy Spirit, were doubtful or weak.'
Similarly, the same blessed predecessor of ours, Pope Leo, writes to the aforementioned venerable emperor in another letter: 'Do not allow extinguished disputes to rise again through renewed agitation against the triumphs of the Almighty's right hand. Especially as it is not permissible to revive the condemned audacity of heretics, and the fruit of pious labors should ensure that the fullness of the Church remains secure in the solidity of its unity, with nothing at all from what has been well established being reconsidered. For to desire contention after lawful and divinely inspired constitutions have been made is not the spirit of peace but of rebellion, as the Apostle says: "Quarreling about words is of no use, but only ruins the hearers" (2 Tim. 2:14). For if it is always permitted to debate through human reasoning, there will never fail to be those who dare to resist the truth and rely on the loquacity of worldly wisdom.'
And further on: 'We must piously and steadfastly ensure that, while such disputes are admitted, the authority of what has been divinely defined is not undermined.'
Likewise, in a letter of Pope Leo to Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, he writes: 'Let your diligence ensure that this exhortation reaches the attention of all our brothers. For, as must often be said, the whole of the Christian religion is disturbed if anything established at Chalcedon is overturned, or if anything composed by divine disposition is permitted to be violated by any innovation.'
Furthermore, our most blessed predecessor, Pope Simplicius, said to Emperor Zeno, among other things: ‘Let no one, uncertain in reason or hesitant in mind, expect anything new to be reconsidered after the Council of Chalcedon, contrary to its definitions, for what was established by the assembly of priests is upheld throughout the whole world with unbreakable observance.’
Similarly, the aforementioned Pope Simplicius said to Emperor Zeno: ‘No access should be granted to the ears of your piety for those with pernicious minds, nor should any confidence be given to the idea of reconsidering matters long settled. For thus the schemes of heresies, which have been overthrown by the decrees of the Church, are never permitted to renew their struggles after being crushed by ecclesiastical rulings.’
Again, the aforementioned Pope Simplicius wrote to Emperor Zeno: ‘Ensure that the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, along with the teachings of my predecessor of blessed memory, Pope Leo, conveyed through apostolic tradition, remain inviolate. For what has been resolved by their definitions cannot in any way be reconsidered.’
It is clear from the aforementioned testimonies of the Fathers how carefully we must safeguard the rectitude of the apostolic see and the well-being of the universal Church. Mindful of this caution for some time, we recall the letter we previously sent to Mennas, bishop of Constantinople. This letter, presented to your clemency by Mennas of holy memory in the presence of several priests and the illustrious senate, was restored to us by your piety with his consent. In this letter, we annul, insofar as it pertains to the matter of the Three Chapters, what was previously written, never ceasing to maintain vigilance over the responsibilities of our office and purpose. We have ensured that due reverence for the Council of Chalcedon is observed in all matters, as is attested by the content of that same letter. To demonstrate our caution, we have included a few excerpts from many statements in that letter. Upon careful examination, these excerpts clearly show how the holy Council of Chalcedon has remained and continues to remain inviolate under our care. For in that letter, it is certain that we included the following, among other things:
‘Since it is abundantly clear to us (by reason) that anyone who attempts to act in defiance of the aforementioned council will bring harm upon themselves.’
And further on:
‘But if it were clearly shown to us that the acts themselves contained a more definite truth, no one would dare to assume the authority of such great presumption as to judge anything submitted to that most holy tribunal as though it were doubtful. For it must be believed that those who were present at that time, with the immediacy of the events before them, could inquire or decide on certain matters more precisely than we could now, after such a long lapse of time, when the cause might seem obscure to us. Deference should therefore be shown to the authority of the synods, even in matters that are less clearly understood.’
And further on:
‘With all that has been defined in the venerable councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, the First Council of Ephesus, and Chalcedon remaining intact and in perpetual firmness; with the authority of our predecessors supporting these definitions; and with all who were condemned in the aforementioned holy councils unquestionably remaining condemned; and likewise with those absolved by the decrees of those same councils remaining absolved.’
We subject to the sentence of anathema anyone who, for any reason, accepts as valid anything done or written, either by us or by anyone else, against the aforementioned Council of Chalcedon—whether it pertains to the present matter or any aspect of this case. The holy Council of Chalcedon, whose authority is great and unshakable, remains perpetual and venerable, just as the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and the First Council of Ephesus hold their enduring firmness.
And further on: ‘We anathematize anyone who does not faithfully follow and equally venerate the holy councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, the First Council of Ephesus, and Chalcedon—those most holy synods that, in their one and immaculate faith, are in harmony with the apostles and have been confirmed by the bishops of the apostolic see. We also anathematize anyone who seeks to correct, as if they were spoken incorrectly, the decisions of these councils, or who attempts to supplement them as if they were incomplete.’38
Behold, venerable emperor, it is demonstrated more clearly than light that we have always had this unwavering intention to show reverence for the four holy synods. Whatever was defined, decreed, or judged by the holy Fathers who sat in those synods remains inviolate. Therefore, with everything contained in the statements of the holy Fathers and the vicars of the apostolic see regarding the letter of Ibas and his person remaining in force, it suffices for us and for all Catholics, with equal willingness, to hold to what the holy synod itself declared was sufficient, saying: ‘Let him anathematize Nestorius and his doctrines.’ By this anathema, which the bishop Ibas has repeated so many times against the most wicked Nestorius and Eutyches, the will of the entire synod has been satisfied.
Thus, with everything arranged by us with the utmost caution and diligence to preserve the inviolable reverence for the aforementioned synods and their venerable decrees, we remain mindful of what is written: ‘Do not remove the ancient boundary markers set by your ancestors’ (Prov. 22:28). We decree and determine that it is not permissible for anyone within the ecclesiastical orders and dignities to write, propose, compose, teach, or raise any further question contrary to what we have asserted or established in this constitution regarding the frequently mentioned Three Chapters after this present definition. Furthermore, if anything concerning these Three Chapters has been done, spoken, or written contrary to what we have asserted or established here—whether by anyone within the ecclesiastical orders or dignities, in any place or time, and no matter where it may be found—we completely reject it by the authority of the apostolic see, which, by the grace of God, we govern.39
Subscription:
With God's help and by His grace, I, Vigilius, bishop of the holy Catholic Church of the city of Rome, have subscribed to this constitution.
Subscriptions of the Bishops:
I, John, bishop of the Church of the Marsi, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
I, Zacchaeus, bishop of the Church of Scyllacium, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
I, Pastor, by the mercy of God bishop of the metropolitan Church of Iconium, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
I, Vincentius, bishop of the metropolis of Claudiopolis, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
I, Zacchaeus, bishop, at the request of my brother Valentine, bishop of Silva Candida—who was present, consented, and dictated to me—have subscribed to this constitution on his behalf.
I, Julian, humble bishop of the Church of Cingulum, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
I, Paul, humble bishop of the Church of Ulpiana, by the grace of God, consenting in all things to what the most blessed Pope Vigilius has decreed concerning the matter of the Three Chapters, have subscribed to this constitution.
I, Projectus, bishop of the city of Nasai, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
I, Fabian, by the grace of God bishop of the city of Zappara, consenting in all things to what the most blessed Pope Vigilius has decreed concerning the matter of the Three Chapters, have subscribed to this constitution.
I, Primasius, by the grace of God bishop of the city of Hadrumetum, which is also called Justinianopolis, of the Council of Byzacena, consenting to what the blessed Pope Vigilius has decreed concerning the matter of the Three Chapters, have subscribed to this constitution.
I, Stephanus, bishop of the Church of Rimini, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
I, Alexander, bishop of the Church of Melitene, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
I, Julian, bishop of the Church of Melita, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
I, Redemptus, bishop of the Church of Nomentum, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
I, Venantius, bishop of the Church of Lipari, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
I, Quodvultdeus, bishop of the Church of Nuceria, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
I, Theophanius, archdeacon of the holy Roman Church, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
I, Pelagius, by God’s mercy deacon of the holy Roman Church, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
I, Peter, by God’s mercy deacon of the holy Roman Church, consenting to this constitution, have subscribed.
Given on the day before the Ides of May (May 14), in the 27th year of the reign of our lord, the perpetual Augustus Justinian, and in the 12th year after the consulship of the most illustrious Basil, in the city of Constantinople (Year of Christ 553).
The Untranslated Latin Constitution, in case you need it to prove I made a translation error
CONSTITUTUM VIGILII PAPAE DE TRIBUS CAPITULIS. Gloriosissimo et clementissimo filio Justiniano Augusto Vigilius episcopus.
Inter innumeras sollicitudines quibus oneratur imperiale fastigium, laudabile clementiae vestrae cognovimus esse propositum, per quod submotis omnibus discordiae seminibus, quae in agro Domini humani generis inimicus asperserat, universos Domini sacerdotes praemissis ad testimonium conscientiae suae professionibus, per quas sanctorum Patrum et venerabilium quatuor synodorum ac praesulum sedis apostolicae inhaerere definitionibus atque judiciis monstrarentur, ad unitatem atque concordiam restituere properastis: quarum professionum formam, ut ecclesiasticae pacis amplectendum posteris tradatur exemplum, praesenti, quemadmodum se habet, inserta pagina declaramus.
Exemplum primae professionis quam ad Sanctae Euphemiae templum fecerunt.
Omnes quidem fideles, maxime vero Dei sacerdotes, pacem et sanctificationem sequi cum omnibus oportet, sine quibus nemo, secundum Apostolum (I Thess. IV), videbit Dominum. Nos igitur apostolicam sequentes doctrinam, et festinantes concordiam ecclesiasticam servare, praesentem facimus libellum. Imprimis quatuor sanctas synodos, Nicaenam trecentorum decem et octo, Constantinopolitanam centum quinquaginta, Ephesinam primam ducentorum, in qua in legatis suis atque vicariis, id est beatissimo Cyrillo Alexandrinae urbis episcopo, Arcadio et Projecto episcopis, et Philippo presbytero, beatissimus Coelestinus papa senioris Romae noscitur praesedisse, et Chalcedonensem sexcentorum triginta sanctorum Patrum suscipimus. Et per omnia et in omnibus, quaecunque in omnibus gestis Chalcedonensis concilii aliarumque praedictarum synodorum, sicut in iisdem quatuor synodis scriptum invenitur, communi consensu cum legatis atque vicariis sedis apostolicae, in quibus juxta tempora sua praedecessores sanctitatis vestrae beatissimi papae senioris Romae ipsis synodis praesederunt, tam de fide quam de aliis omnibus causis, judiciis, constitutionibus, aut dispositionibus definita aut judicata, vel constituta, sive disposita sunt, inconcusse, inviolabiliter, irreprehensibiliter, atque irretractabiliter, sine adjectione vel imminutione aliqua nos promittimus secuturos, nec quidquam contrarium quod ad earum reprehensionem et retractationem vel permutationem sive injuriam sub qualibet occasione vel novitate pertineat admissuros, aut tale aliquid praesumentibus consensuros: sed quaecunque communi consensu cum legatis atque vicariis sedis apostolicae orthodoxae ibidem dicta sunt, ea orthodoxa veneramur atque suscipimus.
Quaecunque anathematizaverunt vel damnaverunt, anathematizamus et nos atque damnamus; et universa, sicut ab iisdem synodis communi consensu cum vicariis sedis apostolicae judicata, aut definita, vel constituta; sive disposita lecta inveniuntur, irretractabiliter atque impermutabiliter conservamus. Sed et beatae recordationis papae Leonis epistolas, et sedis apostolicae constituta, quae tam de fide quam de firmitate supradictarum quatuor synodorum, processerunt, nos in omnibus secuturos servaturosque promittimus. Anathematizantes omnem hominem ad ordines et dignitates ecclesiasticas pertinentem, quicunque contra ea quae superius promisimus sub qualibet occasione vel altercatione venire tentaverit. Libellum autem in causa trium capitulorum, de quibus quaestio nata est, contra constitutum piissimi principis et beatitudinis vestrae, ego quidem nullum feci, sed volo atque consentio, ut omnes libelli qui facti sunt sub hac forma beatitudini vestrae reddantur. De injuriis autem, quaecunque beatitudini vel sedi vestrae factae sunt, eas quidem non feci; sed quia pro pace Ecclesiae modis est omnibus festinandum, velut si eas fecissem, veniam postulo. Quia vero tempore discordiae excommunicatos vel non receptos a beatitudine vestra in communionem suscepi, pariter veniam postulo.
In hac forma fecerunt Mennas Constantinopolitanus episcopus, Theodorus Caesareae Cappadociae episcopus, Andreas Ephesinus episcopus, Theodorus Antiochiae Pisidiae episcopus, Petrus Tarsensis episcopus; sed multi alii episcopi idem fecerunt.
Exemplar professionis quam residui episcopi Theophaniorum die nobis fecerunt.
Scientes quantorum bonorum causa est pax Dei, custodiens corda et sensus fidelium, et colligens eos, ut unum idemque sapiant in recta fidei confessione, et ad perficienda divina mandata, et propitium Deum faciens in his quae recta sunt concordantibus, ideo festinantes unitatem conservare, ad apostolicam sedem vestrae beatitudinis manifestum facimus, quod nos semper conservavimus et conservamus fidem ab initio traditam a magno Deo et Salvatore nostro Jesu Christo, sanctis apostolis, et ab illis in omni mundo praedicatam, et a sanctis Patribus explanatam, et maxime ab his qui in sanctis quatuor synodis congregati sunt, quos per omnia et in omnibus sequimur et suscipimus, id est trecentos decem et octo sanctos Patres, qui Nicaeae congregati sunt, et sanctum symbolum sive mathema fidei exposuerunt, et Arianam impietatem anathematizaverunt, et eos qui eadem sapuerunt vel sapiunt. Suscipimus autem et centum quinquaginta sanctos patres Constantinopoli congregatos, qui idem sanctum mathema explanaverunt, et de deitate Spiritus sancti dilucidaverunt, et haeresim Macedonianam Spiritum sanctum impugnantem, et impium Apollinarium condemnaverunt, cum his qui eadem cum illis sapuerunt vel sapiunt. Suscipimus autem et sanctos ducentos Patres in Ephesina prima synodo collectos, qui per omnia secuti sunt idem sanctum symbolum sive mathema, et condemnaverunt Nestorium impium et scelerata ejus dogmata, et eos qui similia ei aliquando sapuerunt vel sapiunt.
Ad haec autem etiam suscipimus sexcentos triginta sanctos Patres Chalcedone congregatos; qui etiam ipsi per omnia consenserunt praedictis sanctis tribus synodis, et secuti sunt praedictum symbolum sive mathema a trecentis decem et octo sanctis Patribus expositum, et a centum quinquaginta sanctis Patribus explanatum, et anathematizaverunt eos qui aliud praeter praedictum symbolum praesumunt docere, aut exponere, et tradere sanctis Dei ecclesiis: condemnaverunt autem et anathematizaverunt et Eutychetem et Nestorium, et impia eorum dogmata, et eos qui similia eis sapuerunt vel sapiunt. His ita se habentibus, certum facimus quod omnia quae a praedictis sanctis quatuor synodis judicata et definita sunt servamus; quia etsi per diversa tempora praedictae sanctae quatuor synodi factae sunt, tamen unam eamdemque confessionem fidei servaverunt et praedicaverunt.
Suscipimus autem et amplectimur epistolas praesulum Romanae sedis apostolicae, tam aliorum, quam Leonis sanctae memoriae de recta fide scriptas, et de quatuor sanctis conciliis, vel de uno eorum. Cum igitur praedicta omnia et servavimus et servamus, et in iisdem nobis invicem consentimus, necessarium est conferri [confiteri] de tribus capitulis, unde quibusdam quaestio nata est. Et ideo petimus, praesidente nobis vestra beatitudine, sub tranquillitate et sacerdotali mansuetudine, sanctis propositis Evangeliis, communi tractatu eadem capitula in medio proponenda quaeri et conferri, et finem quaestioni imponi Deo placitum et convenientem his quae a sanctis quatuor conciliis definita sunt; quoniam ad augmentum pacis, et concordiam Ecclesiarum pertinet, ut, omni de medio dissensione sublata, quae a praedictis sanctis quatuor conciliis definita sunt inconcussa serventur, sanctarum synodorum reverentia in omnibus custodita. His autem et subscripsimus in hunc modum fratres et coepiscopi nostri.
Eutychius episcopus Constantinopolitanus, Apollinaris episcopus Alexandrinus, Domninus [Domnus] Antiochiae Syriae episcopus, Elias episcopus Thessalonicensis; sed et caeteri qui primam professionem non fecerunt, et in hac secunda professione aut subscripserunt, aut seorsum eamdem fecerunt.
His igitur dispositis, optavimus quidem, venerabilis imperator (sicut frequentissime supplici prece poposcimus) eundum ad quemlibet Italiae locum, aut certe ad Siciliam, et convocatis ad nos Africanae et aliarum provinciarum Latinae linguae sacerdotibus, vel Ecclesiae nostrae sacratis ordinibus, secundum consuetudinem tractaremus, et de quaestionibus trium capitulorum pietati vestrae reddoremus plena deliberatione responsum; quod quia fieri serenitas vestra non annuit, hoc iterum noscitur constitutum, ut oblatis a nobis mansuetudini vestrae nominibus de suprascriptis provinciis, qui nobiscum ad tractandum adhiberentur antistites, clementia vestra faceret advenire; cui dispositioni item praebuimus ecclesiasticae pacis amore consensum. Postea vero hoc magis cum consensu fratrum nostrorum, nostrarum partium episcoporum, nuper ante sanctum Paschae diem pietas vestra constituit, ut exaequato numero his pontificibus, qui in Constantinopolitana urbe praesentes sunt, de tribus capitulis, ex quibus quaestio vertitur, secundum superius designatam fratrum nostrorum episcoporum professionem deberemus inire tractatum.
Sed quia, dum ea quae pro conservanda Ecclesiarum pace cum fratribus nostris fieri, vestra dispositione convenerant, festinaremus implere, ut adhibita salubri deliberatione communiter, et propter informandam universalem Ecclesiam, cunctis quae inter nos geruntur in scriptis deductis atque jacentibus, nostrum ex his collectum de tribus capitulis in quaestionem deductis judicium proveniret: continuo pietas vestra post illud volumen, quod nobis ante multos Paschae dies per virum magnificum Theodorum decurionem palatii destinavit, in quo vos interim quid de tribus sentiretis capitulis exponentes, nostrum poscitis dari ex eadem causa responsum.
Ideoque cum fratres nostri, neque exaequato nobiscum numero residere, neque in scriptum quae ageremus vel tractaremus redigi paterentur, tanquam (quod absit) non convenientia rectitudini loqueremur, quae scribere timeremus; et insuper gloriosissimis ad nos proceribus destinatis insisteret vestra clementia, nostrum de trium capitulorum negotio quam celerrime proferre debere responsum, nec sic destitimus vestrae obedire velle clementiae: hoc solummodo postulantes, ut pro infirmitate corporis nostri, quae nulli habetur incognita, viginti dierum nobis daretis inducias, quatenus habito nobiscum, Deo auxiliante, tractatu, definitionis nostrae, constituto die scripto, sententiam diceremus: ad fratres et coepiscopos nostros, a quibus similiter de eadem causa responsum vos flagitare dixistis, filium nostrum diaconum Pelagium cum hujusmodi mandato direximus, dicentes. Ut quia constitutus collationis faciendae modus fuerat praetermissus, saltem viginti dies pro antedicta nostri corporis imbecillitate, quam norunt, nostrum deberent definitum de tribus capitulis sustinere responsum, antiquum et regularem custodientes ordinem, ne ante nostrae, hoc est sedis apostolicae, cui per Dei gratiam praesidemus, promulgationem sententiae, quidquam proferre tentarent, unde scandali rursus, quae sopita fuerat, oriri posset occasio.
Propositis itaque nobis et diligenter inspectis, inquantum uniuscujusque capituli in quaestionem deducti ratio postulabat, synodalibus codicibus atque gestis prolatis, quae aliis eorumdem Patrum vel in sanctis quatuor synodis, aut in una earum rescripsisse [resedisse] monstrantur, synodalibus epistolis inspectis, nihilominus praedecessorum nostrorum sedis apostolicae praesulum constitutis, aliisque probatorum Patrum necessariis instructionibus pertractatis: si qua de his quae in quaestionem deducta sunt, apud patres nostros examinata fuerint, finita atque disposita, memores superius designatarum professionum, investigare curavimus: inspicientes dogmata quaedam in prima chartacei voluminis parte per fratrem nostrum Benignum episcopum Heracleae Paphlagoniae a vestra parte transmissi jacentia, quorum tenor secundum intellectum subter expositum ad excludendum totius ambiguitatis errorem praesenti definitioni nostrae tenetur insertus, plena exsecrabilibus blasphemiis, et orthodoxae fidei (quae secundum evangelicam apostolicamque doctrinam a sanctis quatuor synodis, Nicaena, Constantinopolitana, Ephesina, atque Chalcedonensi probabiliter atque irreprehensibiliter, sancti Spiritus cooperante praesentia, legitur definita) valde inimica esse perspeximus, et procul a Christianis sensibus repellenda. Propterea ergo, ut pote exsecrabilia, atque a sanctis Patribus olim sine dubitatione damnata, nostra quoque sententia anathematizamus atque damnamus, quorum primum capitulum ita se habet:
THEODORI CAPITULUM I. Quomodo igitur tu, quem super omnes maxime decet animarum regimen, illum eumdem, qui ex virgine natus est, Deum esse, et ex Deo consubstantialem Patri existimari dicis, nisi forte sancto Spiritui imputari illius creationem non jubes? Sed quis est Deus ex Deo et consubstantialis Patri? Is idem qui ex virgine natus erat (o mirandum!), et qui per Spiritum sanctum secundum divinas Scripturas plasmatus est, et confictionem in muliebri accepit ventre? Inerat forsitan quia mox quam plasmatus est, et ut templum Dei esset, accepit: non tamen existimandum nobis est, Deum de virgine natum esse, nisi forte idem existimandum nobis est et quod natum est, et quod est in nato templo, et qui in templo est Deus Verbum: non tamen nec secundum tuam vocem pronuntiandum est omnino, ex virgine natum Deum esse et ex Deo consubstantialem Patri. Nam si non homo est (sicut dicis) assumptus, qui natus est ex virgine, Deus vero incarnatus; quomodo qui natus est, Deus ex Deo et consubstantialis dicetur Patri, carne non potente hanc vocem suscipere? Nam est quidem dementia Deum ex virgine natum esse dicere; hoc enim nihil aliud est quam ex semine eum dicere David de substantia virginis genitum et in ipsa plasmatum, quia quod ex semine David et de substantia virginis est, in materno ventre consistit, et sancti Spiritus plasmatum virtute, natum fuisse dicimus de virgine. Ut autem aliquis ex hoc concedat dicere ipsis, quod Deus ex Deo et consubstantialis Patri natus est ex virgine, eo quod est in templo nato, sed non per se natus est Deus Verbum; incarnatus vero, sicut dicit iste sapiens. Si igitur cum carne eum natum esse dicunt; quod autem natum est, Deus ex Deo, et consubstantialis Patri est: necesse est hoc et carnem dicere, quod si non idcirco caro est, quoniam nec Deus ex Deo, nec consubstantialis Patris, sed ex semine David, et consubstantialis ei cujus semen est, et non id quod natum est ex virgine Deus est, et ex Deo, et consubstantialis Patri; nisi forte pars Nati, prout ipse in inferioribus partem Christi nominat deitatem; sed non divina natura ex virgine nata est; natus autem est ex virgine, qui ex substantia virginis constat, non Deus verbum ex Maria natus est; natus est autem ex Maria, qui ex semine est David, non Deus verbum ex muliere natus est, sed natus ex muliere, qui virtute sancti Spiritus plasmatus est in ea; non ex matre natus est consubstantialis Patri (sine matre enim est, secundum beati Pauli vocem), sed qui in posterioribus temporibus in materno ventre sancti Spiritus virtute plasmatus est, ut pote sine Patre propter hoc dictus.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto primo capitulo quoniam per circuitus id videtur astrui, quia homo purus ex sancta virgine Maria natus sit, dicendo: Si fatemur Deum verbum, qui consubstantialis est Patri, carne ex eadem virgine natum, necesse est ut carnem consubstantialem Patri consequenter esse dicamus. Ideoque quicunque hujusmodi intellectus sapit, docet, credit, aut praedicat, et non eumdem Verbum ac Filium Dei per secundam nativitatem ex sancta Maria incarnatum et natum credit, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM II.
Mox autem in ipso plasmato Deus Verbum factus est; nec enim in coelum ascendenti solum inerat, sed etiam ex mortuis resurgenti, ut pote et resuscitans eum secundum suam promissionem; nec resurgenti solum inerat, sed etiam crucifixo et baptizato, et evangelicam post baptisma conversionem peragenti, nec non etiam de baptismo legalem adimplenti constitutionem, et praesentato secundum legem, et circumciso, et fetui pannis obvoluto; erat autem forte in ipso et nascente, et cum in utero esset a prima statim plasmatione; dispensationi enim quae circa eum erat ordinem imponebat, et particulatim ipsum ad perfectionem perducens.
THEODORI CAPITULUM III. Et per tempus ad baptisma ducens, post illud autem ad mortem, deinde secundum suam pronuntiationem resuscitans, ducens in coelum, collocans eum ad dexteram Dei per suam conjunctionem, ex qua sedet et adoratur ab omnibus, et omnes judicabit. Istorum autem omnium finem apud se habebat Deus Verbum, cum in eo erat, et omnia per ordinem complebat; quem ordinem ipse arbitrabatur bene habere per finitionem quidem et voluntatem, quam antea statuit pro his quae eventura erant, et bona voluntate, quam circa eum habebat, ab initio similiter inerat ei, per ordinem autem placitum ad perfectionem ducebat ipsum.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascriptis secundo et tertio capitulis hoc videtur astrui, quia Deus verbum homini plasmato inerat tanquam alter in altero. Dicendo enim, ut particulatim dispensationi, quae circa eum erat, ordinem videretur imponere, et eum propter bonam voluntatem, quam circa ipsum habebat, et parabat eum qui assumptus est ad provectum perfectionis adducere, talibus verbis dualitas personarum in Domino uno et Deo nostro Jesu Christo exsecrabiliter videtur induci, et tanquam quemlibet hominem Dei Verbi gratia per spatia temporum profecisse. Ideoque quicunque eo intellectu sapit, docet, credit, aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM IV. Suam autem cooperationem ad proposita opera praestabat ei qui assumptus; ubi hoc facit in loco sensus fuisse distantem illi qui assumptus est; nec enim eis quibuscunque donavit cooperationem; sensus locum ejus obtinebat; si autem et modo praecipuam quamdam cooperationem donavit illi qui assumptus est, non hoc faciebat locum sensus deitatem obtinere. Sed si deitas pro sensu fiebat illi qui assumptus est, secundum vestra verba, quomodo timorem in passione suscipiebat? Quid vehementioribus orationibus ad imminentem necessitatem indigebat, quas cum magna quidem et clamorosa voce, cum plurimis etiam lacrymis secundum beatum Paulum (Heb. V) referebat Deo, evangelista aperte dicente (Luc. XXII), quod globis sanguinis similis sudor descendebat? Quid autem angeli adventu et visitatione egebat, animam reficientis in experimento malorum, confortantis ejus alacritatem, exercitantis eum ad imminentem passionis necessitatem, tolerare fortiter mala suadentis, urgentis ad patientiam et tolerationem malorum, ostendentis praesentium malorum fructum ex passione, mutationem in gloriam bonam circa eum post passionem futuram? qui enim secundum evangelistae vocem (Ibidem) confortabat eum, angelus scilicet, verbis istis fortem eum faciebat, et infirmitati naturae superiorem fieri hortabatur, et corroborando cogitationes ejus fortem eum faciebat.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quarto capitulo, quia dici intelligitur, quod sicut aliis hominibus donavit suam cooperationem Deus, ita et ei qui assumptus est, licet praecipuam, tamen similiter ut aliis hominibus dicitur esse donatam, et ita purum atque infirmum hominem circa passionem angeli eguisse praesidio, ut ei pro corroborandis cogitationibus ejus futura gloria promitteretur de tolerantia passionis; quae si quis ita sapit, docet, credit, aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM V. Vade post me, Satana, scandalum mihi es, quod non sapis ea quae Dei sunt, sed ea quae hominum (Matth. XVI; Marc. VIII), non est confusio mihi mors, non fugio ipsam ut indecentem ad humanam gloriam respiciens. Sustinebo autem meliori animo experimentum mortis pro plurimis bonis futuris, in quibus et ipse fuero, et per omnes, ne mihi animum laedas atque turbes, tanquam confusione dignum fugere admones mortis experimentum.
Vigilii responsio.
In supradicto quinto capitulo dicitur, quod ideo Jesus Christus verba Petri apostoli fuerat aspernatus, quando ei dixit: Vade post me, Satana, scandalum mihi es, quia non sapis ea quae Dei sunt (Matth. XVI; Marc. VIII): ne dissuasione ejus animus ipsius perturbatus refugeret passionem, et quia passione sua proficeret, et pro pluribus bonis exinde adipiscendis. Qui igitur haec ita sapit, docet, credit, aut praedicat, et non magis nobis mortem ipsius, quam propria carne suscepit, aeternae credit vitae praemia contulisse, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM VI. Quod enim dictum est: Ducebatur a Spiritu (Matth. IV), aperte hoc significat, quod ab eo regebatur, ab eo ad virtutem propositorum confortabatur, ab eo ad haec quae oportebat ducebatur, ab eo quod decebat docebatur, ab eo cogitationibus corroborabatur, ut intantum certamen sufficeret, sicut et beatus dicit Paulus: Quicunque Spiritu Dei aguntur, hi sunt filii Dei (Rom. VIII); duci Spiritu dicens illos qui ab eo gubernantur, ab eo docentur, ab eo ad melius constituuntur, ab eo competentium doctrinam accipiunt. Cum dixisset autem evangelista, quod Spiritu sancto plenus regressus est ab Jordane, aperte demonstravit quod hujus causa sancti Spiritus habitationem in baptismate suscepit, ut inde propositam caperet virtutem; unde et ad certamen illud quod pro nobis erat ad diabolum effecturus, Spiritu ducebatur.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto sexto capitulo rursus tanquam purus homo a Spiritu, cujus praesentiam post baptisma suscepisse dicitur, ad omnia ductus perhibetur, confortatus et edoctus, sicut caeteri homines, de quibus, ut hic videtur dici, Apostolus ait: Quicunque Spiritu Dei aguntur hi sunt filii Dei (Rom. VIII). Si quis haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non Deum Verbum incarnatum unum esse credit, et confitetur, et praedicat Christum, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM VII.
Dicant igitur nobis omnium sapientissimi, si pro sensu Domino Christo, qui est secundum carnem, deitas facta esset, sicut dicunt, quid sancti Spiritus operatione ad haec Christus indigebat? Nec enim Unigeniti deitas Spiritu indigebat ad justificationem, Spiritu indigebat ad vincendum diabolum, Spiritu indigebat ad operanda miracula, Spiritu indigebat ut doceretur ea quae decebat peragere, Spiritu indigebat ut immaculatus appareret. Si enim pro sensu quidem deitas sufficiebat, ad omnia autem ejus virtus, necesse erat inde omnia fieri, ut superflua esset sancti Spiritus habitatio: sed nunc unctum esse dicit ipsum Spiritu, et habitasse in eo Spiritum, et ad omnia adjuvisse proposita, et doctrinam inde ipsum accepisse et virtutem, et inde impetrasse justificationem, et inde immaculatum factum esse.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto septimo capitulo hoc dici intelligitur, quia ut caeteri homines ad justificationem suam et ad vincendum diabolum, et ad operanda miracula, et ut doceretur ea quae decebat eum agere, et ut immaculatus appareret, habitatione sancti Spiritus eguisse, et ipso Spiritu eum ad omnia adjutum fuisse proposita. Quicunque haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non sua deitate Christum, ut pote verum Deum, omnia operatum fuisse quae voluit, et operari quae volet, sed tanquam purum hominem sancti Spiritus eguisse solatio, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM VIII.
Hoc quod ante saecula erat, dicit in ultimis factum esse temporibus, ut pote quibusdam hoc confitentibus; cum nemo ex his qui pietatis curam habent, istum patitur morbum habere dementiae, ut dicat eum qui ante saecula est, in ultimis factum esse. Et ex his infert quod necesse est, et hoc quod in ultimis est, ante saecula esse, et accusat eos qui non omnia similiter cum obversione dicunt; quasi hi qui unum esse Filium confitentur, necessitatem habeant cum obversione omnia dicere. Et quis non beatificet vestram dementiam? Quis autem non optet tales impetrare doctores, tantam confusionem rationi pietatis introducentes, ut dicerent, hoc quod ante saecula est, factum est in ultimis, et hoc alienarent sua natura, et ad deterius deducerent, deinde obverterent, quod et hoc quod est in ultimis, ante saecula est, cum oporteret forte dicere, quia quod ante saecula erat, assumpsit hunc qui in ultimis erat secundum beati Pauli vocem (I Tim. IV). Vestras igitur leges sequentes, et a tua sapientia constitutam obversionem, imo magis subversionem suscipientes age omnia simul confundamus, et nulla jam sit discretio, nec Dei formae, nec servi formae, nec templi sumpti, nec ejus qui in templo habitavit, nec ejus qui solutus est, nec ejus qui suscitavit, nec ejus qui perfectus est in passionibus, nec ejus qui perfecit, nec ejus qui memoriam meritus est, nec ejus qui memor factus est, nec ejus qui visitatus est, nec ejus qui visitavit, nec ejus qui paulo minus ab angelis minoratus est, nec ejus qui minoravit, nec ejus qui gloria et honore coronatus est, nec ejus qui coronavit, nec ejus qui constitutus est super opera manuum Dei, nec ejus qui constituit, nec ejus qui accepit ista ad sublevationem, nec ejus qui dedit sublevationem.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto octavo capitulo diversis modis videtur induci dualitas personarum per hoc quod dicitur: Non ipse qui ante saecula erat, in ultimis dicendus est venisse temporibus; sed quasi altera sit assumentis humanitatem, altera assumpti persona. Si quis igitur haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non eumdem Deum Verbum, qui ante saecula ex Patre natus est, in ultimis temporibus ex beata Virgine Maria incarnatum et natum esse fatetur, ut unus idemque sit Christus in utraque natura, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM IX. Istum igitur virum, in quo statuit omnium facere judicium ad fidem futurorum, cum resuscitasset eum ex mortuis, et judicem omnium demonstrasset, secundum beati Pauli vocem (Act. XVII), meriti unitate ad seipsum dignatus est: et per conjunctionem ad se factam, talium participem fecit, ut et adorationis communionem haberet; omnibus quidem divinae naturae debitam adorationem reddentibus, comprehendentibus autem adoratione et illum quem inseparabiliter scit esse conjunctum. Ex quo manifestum est, quod ad majora eum perduxerit.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto nono capitulo conjunctionis et participationis cujusdam vocabulo, quasi Dei ad hominem Christum factae, divinis Christus asseritur operibus decorari; per quae rursus dualitas inducitur personarum. Si quis igitur ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non unum eumdemque Christum Deum ac Dominum nostrum manentibus in suis proprietatibus differentiis naturarum, agnoscit et credit, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM X. Ego quidem, quem videtis, nihil quidem facere possum secundum meam naturam, cum homo sim, operor autem, quia in me manens Pater omnia facit; quoniam enim et ego in Patre, et Pater in me (Joan. XIV); Deus autem Verbum unigenitus in me est; certum est quod et Pater cum ipso in me manet, et opera facit. Et non est mirandum de Christo haec existimari, cum evidenter ipse de caeteris hominibus dicat: Qui diligit me verbum meum observabit, et Pater meus diliget eum, et ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus (Ibidem). Si enim apud unumquemque hujusmodi hominum et Pater et Filius mansionem faciunt, quid existimandum est, ut in Domino secundum carnem Christi ambo simul putarentur manere, communionem eorum secundum substantiam, communionem etiam mansionis forsitan suscipientem?
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto decimo capitulo ita in homine Christo Deus Verbum inesse dicitur, sicut Pater, ut per hoc aut et Pater incarnatus esse videatur, sicut et Filius; aut nec Filius sit incarnatus, sicut nec Pater, aut magis uterque in tertia persona hominis habitare. Qui igitur ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XI. Ita et animam, ut pote humanam et immortalem constitutam, et sensus participem prius accipiens, et per resurrectionem in immutabilitatem constituens, sic et nobis eorumdem istorum per resurrectionem praebuit communionem. Ideo autem ante resurrectionem ex mortuis increpat quidem Petrum, ut suis cum vocibus scandalizantem; et in magna trepidatione per tempus passionis constitutus, apparitione angeli indiget confortantis eum ad patientiam et tolerantiam imminentium malorum. Post resurrectionem autem ex mortuis, et in coelos ascensum, impassibilis factus et immutabilis omnino, et ad dexteram Dei sedens, judex universi est orbis terrarum, ut pote in eo divina natura faciente judicium.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto undecimo capitulo eadem repeti videntur quae superius in quarto jam dicta sunt, quod ante passionem ita infirmus fuerit Christus, ut in magna trepidatione passionis tempore constitutus angeli videretur eguisse solatio. Quod quia velut purum hominem, qui hujusmodi auxiliis egeat, significare videtur, si quis ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XII. Sic igitur et hic sapientissimum [sapientissime] omnium habere nos doces Christi sensum, ut sanctum Spiritum habentem illum qui sensui Christi [habentes illum qui sensus Christo], aliquam virtutem adimplebat, prudentiam ejus [ei] praestans ad omnia quae agenda erant, sicut et in praecedentibus demonstravimus, quod ab ipso quidem in eremum ad certamina quae contra diabolum erant ducebatur; unctionem autem illius et scientiam et vim eorum quae agenda erant accipiebat; et illius particeps factus, non solum miracula faciebat, sed etiam quomodo uti oportebat miraculis, sciebat subtiliter, ut notam quidem faceret gentibus pietatem, pateretur autem laborantium infirmitates, et sic ad effectum suam voluntatem duceret, et justificabatur inde, et immaculatus ostendebatur, sive reparatione pejorum, sive custodia meliorum, sive etiam paulatim ad meliora profectibus.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto duodecimo capitulo eadem quae in septimo capitulo videntur exponi, asserendo Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum per habitationem sancti Spiritus ad omnia informatum, et per tempora ad perfectionem unctionis ejus auxilio pervenisse. Si quis igitur eum non sua deitate perfectum esse credens, sed tanquam purum hominem unctione sancti Spiritus indigentem fuisse adjutum sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XIII. Quomodo igitur sequentiam habet, eo quod homo factus est Deus, justum hominem Deum Verbum esse dicere: si enim homo est Deus Verbum, ut ipse dicis, omnimode de homine dicemus ea quae de Deo Verbo evangelista dicit. Quid autem dicit? In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, iste erat in principio apud Deum: omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est (Joan. I). Ergo si homo est Deus Verbum, dicemus de ipso: In principio erat homo, et homo erat apud Deum, et Deus erat homo, erat homo in principio apud Deum; omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est. Si enim homo est Deus Verbum, sicut dicis, convenient omnia ipsi quae de Deo Verbo dicit evangelista.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto decimo tertio capitulo negari videtur Deum Verbum hominem factum, et rursus hominem Verbum Deum esse, ut per hoc inducatur, sicut superius dictum est, dualitas personarum. Si quis igitur ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non potius, manente in Domino Deo nostro Jesu Christo inconvertibiliter atque indivise differentia naturarum, sic una persona, sive subsistentia ejus esse creditur, ut et Deus Verbum sine ulla divinae naturae suae convertibilitate homo esse, et assumpta humanitas propter singularitatem personae inconvertibiliter Deus esse credatur, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XIV. Hoc quidem quid est, Ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum, et Deum meum et Deum vestrum (Joan. XX). Nemo sic demens est, ut alii cuidam convenire diceret, nisi templo Dei Verbi assumpto pro nostra salute homini, qui est mortuus, et resurrexit, et ascensurus esset in coelos, et patrem sibi ascribit cum discipulis suis Deum, et ipse gratia adoptionem meritus: et Deum suum appellat, quia cum caeteris hominibus similiter ut esset accepit. Unde propter communitatem quidem naturae, Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum dicit, et Deum meum et Deum vestrum. Divisit autem iterum suam personam ipsis, principium gratiae significans, propter quam ad Deum Verbum conjunctione in loco veri Filii ab omnibus honoratur hominibus.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quarto decimo capitulo per hoc quod legitur in Evangelio: Ascendo ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum, Deum meum et Deum vestrum (Joan. XX), ita intelligitur, quod Jesus Christus Dominus et Deus noster, sicut caeteri homines, gratiam adoptionis, ut Filius Dei diceretur, acceperit, et quasi per conjunctionem ad Deum Verbum in locum veri Filii ab omnibus adoretur. Quod si quis ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non magis unum Jesum Christum Filium Dei et Dominum nostrum in duabus inconfusis et inseparabilibus intelligit et credit esse naturis, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XV.
Hoc quod dictum est: Accipite, pro accipietis, dicit. Si enim cum insufflasset, Spiritum dedisset discipulis (quod valde quidem stulte existimaverunt), superfluum erat dicere postea his, et maxime tempore ascensus in coelos non separari ab Jerusalem, sed exspectarent (exspectare) promissionem Spiritus; et in sequentibus: Sed accipietis virtutem, superveniente Spiritu sancto in vos (Act. I). Adventum autem ipsum sancti Spiritus super discipulos Lucas factum esse dicit quinquagesimo die resurrectionis, post ascensum. Et illud tamen animadvertendum est, quod si ab insufflatu suscepissent Spiritum, non diceret: Accipite, sed, quoniam accepistis; hoc enim quod dictum est: Accipite, his convenit qui nondum acceperunt.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto decimo quinto capitulo dicitur, quia insufflans Dominus noster Jesus Christus post resurrectionem suam in facies discipulorum suorum non dederit eis Spiritum sanctum, sed dandum significaverit: ut per hoc aut veritas ipsa (quod absit) putetur esse mentita, aut tanquam purum hominem illo flatu non habuisse quod daret, aut dare minime potuisse. Si quis igitur haec ita sapit, docet aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XVI.
Dicit ad Thomam: Infer digitum tuum huc, et vide manus meas; et porrige manum tuam, et mitte in latus meum, et noli esse incredulus, sed fidelis (Joan. XXVIII). Quoniam, dicit, non credis, et tactum solum sufficere tibi ad credendum putas (haec enim dicens non me latuisti), tange manu, et cape experimentum, et disce credere, et non diffidere. Thomas quidem cum sic credidisset, Dominus meus et Deus meus, dicit: Non ipsum Dominum et Deum dicens. Non enim resurrectionis scientia docebat etiam Deum esse eum qui resurrexit, sed quasi pro miraculo facto Deum collaudat.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto decimo sexto capitulo de illo loco Evangelii ubi Thomas apostolus palpans figuras clavorum dixit: Dominus meus et Deus meus (Ibidem), asseritur quod Thomas apostolus non ipsum Jesum Christum Dominum Deumque confessus sit, et quia resurrectionis scientiam non doceret, vel quia Deus esset qui resurrexit, sed quia magis pro miraculo facto Thomas apostolus Deum laudaverit. Si quis igitur haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non potius Thomae confessione et verum Deum esse Jesum Christum et in vera carne eum resurrexisse declaratum credit, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XVII. Ille autem dixit oportere poenitentiam agere eos pro crucis iniquitate, et agnoscentes Salvatorem et auctorem bonorum omnium Jesum Christum, quoniam propter ista pervenit et assumptus est de divina natura, in ipsum fidem suscipere, et ejus discipulos fieri, ante omnia autem ad baptisma accedentes; quod ipse tradidit nobis, praeformationem quidem habens sperationis futurorum, in nomine autem celebrandum Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti: hoc enim quod est. Ut baptizetur unusquisque in nomine Jesu Christi (Act. II), non hoc dicit ut vocationem quae in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti est, relinquentes, Jesum Christum in baptismate vocent, sed quale hoc est, quod in Moyse baptizati sunt in nube et in mari, ut diceret, quia sub nube et mari Aegyptiorum separati sunt, liberati eorum servitute, ut Moysis leges attenderent: tale hoc est, ut cum ad ipsum accessissent tanquam Salvatorem et omnium bonorum auctorem et doctorem veritatis, ab ipso, ut pote auctore bonorum et doctore veritatis, vocarentur, sicut omnibus hominibus quamque sectam sequentibus consuetudo est ab ipso dogmatis inventore vocari, ut Platonici, Epicurei, Manichaei, et Marcionistae, et si quidam tales dicuntur: eodem enim modo et nos nominari Christianos judicaverunt apostoli, tanquam per hoc certum facientes, quod istius doctrinam oportet attendere: sic et quod ab ipso datum est susciperent baptisma, in ipso quidem primo constitutum, qui et primus baptizatus est, ab ipso autem et caeteris traditum, ut secundum praeformationem futurorum celebretur.
Vigilii responsio.
In supradicto decimo septimo capitulo ex verbis B. Petri, quibus in Actis apostolorum dicit: Baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine Jesu Christi, hoc astruitur, quia in ea invocatione, quae in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti fit, non contineatur et Christus et quod dixit Petrus apostolus, debere eos in Christi nomine baptizari, ut secundum hunc intellectum appareat introducta quaternitas. Adjicitur etiam in eodem capitulo, quia sic a Christo Christiani vocemur, quemadmodum diversarum sectarum et errorum sequaces ab inventoribus et magistris suis sunt sortiti vocabula, ut a Platone Platonici, a Marcione Marcionistae, et a Manichaeo [Manete] Manichaei. Si quis haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit. Nos enim ideo Christiani vocamur et sumus, quia ipsum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum in baptisma percipientes induimus, ipso nobis existente capite omnes in eodem unum corpus efficimur.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XVIII. Et secundum duas rationes locum imaginis obtinet: qui enim amant quosdam, post mortem eorum saepius imagines statuentes, hoc sufficiens mortis solatium habere arbitrantur: et eum qui non videtur, nec praesens est, tanquam in imagine aspicientes, putant videre, ita flammam desiderii et vigorem placantes: sed etiam illi qui per civitates habent imperatorum imagines, tanquam praesentes et videntes honorare videntur eos qui non sunt praesentes, cultu et adoratione imaginum. Ista autem utraque per illum adimplentur: omnes enim qui cum illo sunt, et virtutem sequuntur, et debitorum Dei parati redditores, diligunt eum et valde honorant, et charitatem quidem ei, divina natura licet non aspiciatur, adimplent in illo qui ab omnibus videtur, sic omnibus existimantibus, ut ipsum videntibus per illum, et illi semper praesentibus, et honorem vero omnem sic attribuunt tanquam imagini imperiali, cum quasi ipso sit divina natura, et in ipso spectetur. Si enim et Filius est qui inhabitare dicitur, sed cum eo est etiam Pater, et inseparabiliter omnimodo ad Filium esse ab omni creditur creatura, et Spiritus autem non abest, ut pote etiam in loco unctionis factus ei, et cum eo est semper qui assumptus est; et non mirandum est, cum etiam in quibuslibet hominibus virtutem sequentibus cum Filio et Patre esse dicitur: Veniemus enim et ego, et Pater, et mansionem apud eum faciemus (Joan. XIV). Quod autem et Spiritus hujusmodi hominum inseparabilis est, certum est omnibus.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto decimo octavo capitulo ita invisibilis Dei imago asseritur esse Christus, tanquam si absentium principum imagines pro eorum colantur honoribus. Quae si quis ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XIX.
Hoc enim quod, Hic est Filius meus dilectus in quo mihi complacuit (Luc. III), in baptismate adoptionem demonstrat, sed non comparatione [secundum comparationem] Judaicae adoptionis: quia et ad illos dictum erat: Ego dixi: Dii estis, et filii excelsi omnes, et: Filios genui et exaltavi (Psal. LXXXI): ejus adoptionis praecipuum, eo quod dixit: Dilectus, et in eo mihi complacuit (Isai. II), ostendens. Propter hoc et vox Patris fiebat adoptionem confirmans, et Filii nominatione per adoptionem secundum gratiam eum qui vere Filius est demonstrabat: cujus conjunctio ad veram et firmam adoptionem istum constituebat: et Spiritus sanctus in specie columbae descendens permansit super eum, quatenus in conjunctione ad eum qui vere Filius est, ejus cooperationi intentus maneat, firmam adoptionis habens dignitatem. Per omnia autem in quo primo adoptionis performabatur baptisma, dico autem Domini Christi ex Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu sancto, hoc quod fiebat complebatur.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto decimo nono capitulo, ubi Evangelium secundum Lucam de baptismo Christi videtur exponi, duae sunt reprehensiones: una quia dualitas inducitur filiorum, cum per adoptionem videtur dici Christus Filius Dei; alia, quia in nomine Trinitatis ipse quoque asseritur baptizatus; per quod quaternitas sine dubitatione monstratur. Si quis igitur haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XX.
Ideo ergo differentiam quidem Dei Verbi et recepti hominis tantum nobis ostendit psalmus: divisa vero haec in Novo Testamento reperiuntur, Domino quidem in se accipiente primordia psalmi, in quibus factorem cum dicit esse creaturae, et elevatam habere super coelos magnificentiam, et mirificari in omni terra. Apostolo autem supradicta quae de homine dicuntur, qui tantum beneficiorum meruit, quomodo non manifestum, quod alterum quidem nos divina Scriptura docet evidenter esse Deum Verbum, alterum vero hominem, et multam eorum esse ostendit nobis differentiam: nam iste quidem memorat, ille autem memoriam meretur: et iste quidem visitat, alter autem cum visitationem meretur, beatus dicitur: et iste quidem beneficium dando minuit paulo minus ab angelis, ille autem et per talem minutionem beneficium accepit: et iste quidem gloria et honore coronat, alter autem coronatur, et pro his beatus dicitur: et iste quidem constituit ipsum super omnia opera manuum ejus, et omnia subjecit sub pedibus ejus: alter autem meritus est dominari eis, quorum antea non habebat potestatem.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto vigesimo capitulo, ubi octavus psalmus videtur exponi, et nudus homo (sicut et in aliis jam dictum est) Christus asseritur, et divisus a Verbo monstratur, et dualitas inducitur personarum. Quae si quis ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non ita in Christo Domino duas naturas invisibiliter et inconfuse unitas intelligat, ut manente earumdem differentia naturarum, ipse unus atque idem verus sit Dei et verus hominis Filius, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXI.
Sed non volentes ista considerare, voces omnes trahere ad Dominum tentant Christum, ut ea quae de populo facta sunt simili modo intelligerent, et risum praestarent Judaeis, quando ex scriptorum sequentia nihil ad Dominum Christum pertinentes ostendant voces.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXII.
Tale est, et quod non derelicta est anima ejus in inferno, nec caro ejus vidit corruptionem (Psal. XV): nam propheta quidem supra modum ipsam ponit circa populum providentiam, volens dicere, quoniam inter tentabiles eos ab omnibus conservavit malis. Quoniam autem hoc verum et ex ipsis rebus eventum accepit in Domino Christo, frequentissime de eo loquens beatus Petrus, utitur voce; ostendens quoniam quod de populo supra modum dictum est, ex quadam ratione utente voce propheta, hoc verum eventum in ipsis rebus accepit nunc in Domino Christo.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascriptis vigesimo primo et vigesimo secundo capitulis hoc videtur dici, quod prophetiam, quae ex persona Christi loquens ait: Non derelinques animam meam in infernum, nec dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptionem (Psal. XV), non de ipso Christo praedictam fuisse, sed de populo Israeliticae generationis: beatum vero Petrum apostolum ad Christum hanc prophetiam per eventum aptare voluisse (Act. II). Et ideo qui haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXIII.
Eumdem intellectum habet et illud: Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea, et super vestimentum meum miserunt sortem (Psal. XXI). Quod etenim psalmus nullatenus convenit Domino, certum est: neque enim erat Domini Christi, qui peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore ejus (I Petr. II), dicere: Longe a salute mea verba delictorum meorum (Psal. XXI). Sed et ipse Dominus, cum secundum communem hominum legem in passione opprimeretur, Deus meus, Deus meus, quare me dereliquisti (Matth. XXVII)? misit vocem; et apostolis: Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea, et super vestimentum meum miserunt sortem (Psal. XXI), ad eum traxerunt manifeste: quoniam quod supra modum dictum fuerat prius a David, propter illata ei mala, hoc ex operibus evenit in Domino Christo, cujus et vestimenta diviserunt, et sorti tunicam subjecerunt.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto vigesimo tertio capitulo exponendo quaedam vigesimi primi psalmi verba, quibus dicitur: Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea, et super vestem meam miserunt sortem, negantur Jesu Christo Domino convenire; sed quod David propter quaedam mala quae perpessus est, de se dixerit, evangelistam ex eventu ad Christum traxisse, et adjicitur, quia non poterat dicere Dominus Jesus, qui peccatum non fecit: Longe a salute mea verba delictorum meorum (Ibidem): et ideo qui haec sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non ea in quibus delictorum meminit, ad corpus ipsius, quod est Ecclesia, quae in hoc mundo sine delicto esse non potest, intelligit pertinere; illa autem de divisione vestimentorum, non specialiter de ipso capite, id est Domino Deo nostro Jesu Christo praedicta, et in ipso credit esse completa, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXIV.
Foderunt manus meas et pedes (Psal. XXI), et omnia perscrutabantur, et quae agebam, et quae conabar. Nam foderunt, ex translatione dicit eorum qui per fossionem scrutari quae in profundo sunt tentant. Dinumeraverunt omnia ossa mea (Ibidem): totius meae fortitudinis et totius meae substantiae detentores facti sunt, ut etiam numero mea subjicerent. Istud autem ex consuetudine quam habent hostes dixit, qui quando obtinuerint, numero et talis subtilem notitiam inventorum faciunt [Locus corruptus]. Propterea et sequenter dicens: Ipsi vero consideraverunt, et conspexerunt me, intulit: Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea, et super vestimentum meum miserunt sortem. Considerantes enim me, ait, et conspicientes quod omnia eis evenerunt in me desiderata (conspicere enim ita ut apud nos dicitur pro eo quod est: Vidit in eum quae volebat pati eum) jam, tanquam me omnino malis dedito, sicut hostes, mea post vastationem et captivitatem diviserunt sorte divisionem eorum facientes. Et evangelista quidem in Domino verba ex rebus assumens, eis usus est, sicut et in aliis diximus. Nam quod non pertineat ad Dominum psalmus, in superioribus evidenter ostendimus. At vero beatus David supra modum ista magis in his quae ab Absalom facta sunt, dixit: quoniam dum recessisset David, jure belli metropolim ingressus, omnes quidem obtinuit res regales, non piguit autem patris cubile inquinare.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto vigesimo quarto capitulo de memorato eodem vigesimo primo psalmo illa verba ubi dicit: Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos, dinumeraverunt omnia ossa mea: ipsi vero consideraverunt et inspexerunt in me (Psal. XXI); asseritur non de Christo esse praedicta, sed David hoc de se dixisse propter tyrannidem Absalom, qui regiam urbem substantiamque pervaserat, atque in terra omnia dinumeraverat patris; sed evangelistam haec ex eventu ad Christi traxisse personam. Qui igitur haec ita credit, sapit, docet aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXV.
Quoniam cibi et potus suaves quidem fiunt in tempore gaudii, insuavia autem et amara in tristitia; talia erant (inquit) quae ab illis fiebant, ut ex tristitia et ira esset quidem mihi in locum fellis cibus, esset autem et potio aceto nihil differens. Maxime autem hoc fit in iracundiis quae cum tribulatione fiunt, quod verisimile erat pati eos contra suos. Usus est autem evangelista hoc testimonio in Domino, et ipse autem Dominus: Zelus domus tuae comedit me (Joan. II), de seipso dicens. Et beatus Paulus de Judaeis loquens: Fiat mensa eorum (Rom. XV), etc.; beatus Petrus de Juda: Fiat habitatio ejus deserta (Act. I). Et certe diversis constitutis rebus, non quasi psalmo modo pro his dicto, iterum autem de illo, et iterum de alio: sed quia de Judaeis dicta sunt plura, qui se separaverunt de Deo et lege, convincentia illorum devotionem, necessarius est testimoniorum usus simul ex rebus captus, qualis est: Dederunt in escam meam fel, et in siti mea potaverunt me aceto (Psal. LXVIII).
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto vigesimo quinto capitulo de eo loco psalmi ubi dicit: Dederunt in escam meam fel, et in siti mea potaverunt me aceto; contra evidentem Evangelii veritatem exponitur, dicendo: quia nec vero aceto potatus est Dominus, sed ad tristitiam et iracundiam offerentium habuerit potationem in aceti loco et escam in fellis; nec de ipso praedictum, sed evangelistam hoc testimonio usum fuisse ex eventu in Domino. Propterea qui haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXVI.
Sicut igitur per hujusmodi confessionem non deitatis Nathanael habens scientiam ostenditur (Judaei et Samaritae talia sperantes plurimum, quantum Dei verbi a scientia longe erant?), sic et Martha per confessionem illam, non deitatis habens tunc scientiam probatur: manifeste autem nec beatus Petrus: adhuc etenim ipsis sufficiebat tunc revelationem illam suscipientibus praecipuum aliquid majus de ipso praeter caeterorum hominum phantasiam accipere: post resurrectionem autem Spiritu perducti ad scientiam, tunc et revelationis perfectam scientiam suscipiebant, ut scirent quia praecipuum ipsi praeter caeteros homines non aliquo puro honore ex Deo pervenit, sicut in caeteris hominibus, sed per unitatem ad Deum Verbum, per quam omnis honoris ei particeps est post in coelos ascensum.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto vigesimo sexto capitulo et agnitionem deitatis Christi ante resurrectionem ejus Petrus habuisse negatur, phantasiam vero intelligentiae prae caeteris hominibus accepisse dicitur: et rursus dualitas filiorum inducitur: dum hominem participem dicit ad Verbum postquam in coelos ascendit: Qui ergo ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non unum eumdemque esse intelligit Christum et Dominum nostrum Dei et hominis Filium, manente in ipso unitarum differentia naturarum, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXVII.
Matthaeus quidem evangelista post tentationes dicit: quod accedentes angeli ministrabant ei (Matth. IV), scilicet cum eo constituti cooperantes, et omnibus circa eum Deo ministrantes, quod jam per certamina ad diabolum ostensus est clarior; sed et quod passuro ei aderant angeli, ex Evangeliis discimus. Et cum resurrexit, in monumento visi sunt (Matth. XXVIII; Luc. XXII): per omnia enim ista monstratur dignitas Christi, quod inseparate ei angeli aderant, omnibus circa eum ministrabant: sicut enim a peccantibus separantur, sic et per meritum honoratis subveniunt. Propter quod bene Dominus ait: Quod majus videbitis, et quod coelum aperietur omnibus per me, et omnes angeli semper mecum erunt, nunc quidem ascendentes, nunc vero descendentes, sicut ad domesticum Dei et amicum (Joan. I).
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto vigesimo septimo capitulo, ubi de Matthaeo evangelista exponitur, quia consummatis tentationibus accesserunt angeli, ut ministrarent Christo, dicitur: Quia sicut et alii per meritum honorato Christo subvenerint angeli, et quia sic ad Christum in coelos ascenderint et descenderint angeli, tanquam ad amicum et domesticum Dei. Qui ergo haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non ut vero Deo, veri Dei Filio, uni eidemque cum assumpta ex utero Virginis perfecta humanitate, angeli ut pote Creatori et Domino deservierint atque deserviant, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXVIII.
Plus inquietabatur Dominus, et certamen habebat ad animae passiones quam corporis, et meliore animo libidines vincebat, mediante ei deitate ad perfectionem; unde et Dominus ad haec maxime instituens videtur certamen: cupiditate enim pecuniarum non deceptus, et gloriae desiderio non tentus, carni quidem praebuit nihil, nec enim illius erat talibus vinci: animam autem si non recepisset, sed deitas est quae ea vinceret, nullatenus eorum quae facta sunt, ad nos respicit lucrum: quae enim ad conversationis perfectionem similitudo deitatis et animae humanae? Etiam videntur Domini certamina non ad nos respiciens habere lucrum, sed ostentationis cujusdam gratia fuisse: quod si hoc dicere non est possibile (certum etenim est quod illa propter nos facta sunt, et majus certamen instituit ad animae passiones, minus autem ad carnis) quanto et amplius et magis inquietare illos contingebat, et magis illa erant, quae et ampliori indigebant medicina, videlicet quod et carnem et animam assumens pro utraque certabat, mortificans quidem in carne peccatum, et mansuetans ejus libidines, et facile capiendas meliori ratione animae faciens, erudiens autem animam, et exercitans et suas passiones vincere, et carnis refrenare libidines, haec autem deitas inhabitans operabatur, haec inhabitans medebatur utrique eorum.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto vigesimo octavo capitulo iterum purus homo Christus inducitur, qui ratione animae, corporis dicitur mansuetas fecisse libidines, et erudisse animam, et exercitasse eam, ut passiones suas vinceret, et carnis in se libidines refrenaret: quae tamen utraque, mediante deitate, operatam fuisse dicit animam: ut secundum haec jam nec ipsum unum eumdemque Jesum Christum mediatorem Dei et hominum habeamus, sed carni et animae mediatrix deitas fuisse videatur. Qui igitur haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXIX.
Sed si caro erat, inquit, crucifixa, quomodo sol radios avertit, et tenebrae occupaverunt terram omnem, et terraemotus, et petrae dirumpebantur, et mortui surrexerunt? Quid igitur dicant et de tenebris in Aegypto factis temporibus Moysis, non per tres horas, sed per tres dies? quid autem propter alia per Moysem facta miracula? et quae per Jesum Nave, qui solem stare fecit? qui sol et in temporibus Ezechiae regis et contra naturam retrorsus est? Et de Elisaei reliquiis quae mortuum suscitarunt? Si enim Verbum Deum passum demonstrant quae in cruce facta sunt, et propter hominem non concedunt facta esse; et quae in temporibus Moysis, propter genus Abraham non erant, et quae in temporibus Jesu Nave, et quae in Ezechiae regis: quod si illa propter Judaeorum populum mirabiliter facta sunt, quomodo non magis quae in cruce facta sunt, propter Dei Verbi templum?
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto vigesimo nono capitulo, dum quasi Apollinari, qui divinam naturam passionibus implicabat, contradicitur, a recto tramite declinatur, et modus assertionis exceditur, ut purus homo pependisse putetur in cruce. Et ideo qui hoc ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non Christum Deum verum credens, manente impassibili deitate, eumdem carne propria passum esse confitetur, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXX.
Manifestum est autem quod unitas convenit: per eam enim naturae collectae unam personam secundum unitatem effecerunt. Sicut enim de viro et muliere dicitur, quod jam non sunt duo, sed una caro (Matth. XIX); dicamus et nos rationabiliter secundum unitatis rationem, quoniam non sunt duae personae, sed una, scilicet naturis discretis. Sicut enim ibi non nocet numero duorum unam dici carnem (certum est enim secundum quod una dicitur); ita et hic non nocet naturarum differentiae personae unitas. Quando etiam et naturas discernimus, perfectam naturam Dei Verbi dicimus, et perfectam personam: nec enim sine persona est subsistentiam dicere perfectam: perfectam autem et hominis naturam et personam similiter. Quando autem ad conjunctionem respiciamus, unam personam tunc dicimus.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto trigesimo capitulo pessimo exemplo tentatur ostendi, quomodo una persona Christi possit intelligi, id est, sicut de viro et de muliere convenientibus legitur, sic et in Christo discretis naturis quasi unam esse personam: et sequitur perfectam esse naturam Dei Verbi, et perfectam personam, et perfectam hominis naturam atque personam, et similiter: unde apparet quia et de exemplo viri ac mulieris, ubi duae personae sunt, et de his quae sequuntur, tametsi tacetur numerus, duae autem inducuntur unius Christi personae. Quod qui ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXXI.
Sed Christum quidem secundum carnem et assumptam servi formam, eum autem qui eam assumpsit super omnia nominans Deum, intulit tamen hoc secundum conjunctionem; ut per significationem nominum, naturarum manifestam divisionem faciat. Nemo igitur, neque eum qui secundum carnem ex Judaeis est, dicat Deum, nec iterum Deum, qui est super omnia, secundum carnem ex Judaeis.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto trigesimo primo capitulo, in expositione quae de symbolo trecentorum decem et octo Patrum facta videtur, non solum divisio naturarum asseritur, sed et absolute dicendo, neque eum qui secundum carnem ex Judaeis nudus deitate homo, et purus sine carne Deus, quasi seorsum et seorsum duae pronuntiantur esse personae. Si quis ergo haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non sic in uno Christo unitas confitetur esse naturas, ut personae sive subsistentiae singularitas agnoscatur, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXXII.
Jesum enim dicit a Nazareth, quem unxit Deus Spiritu sancto et virtute (Act. X): qui autem Dei Spiritu unctus est, omnino aliquid inde assumpsit. Quis autem furens dicat de Spiritu aliquid assumpsisse divinam naturam; nec non et participem? participes enim ejus videlicet vocat qui et ipsi uncti sunt; qui autem uncti sunt, et in hoc participes ejus juste facti, non aliter unctiones communicare dicuntur, nisi ei qui assumptus est: hoc ipsum autem demonstratur, quod mercedem justam accepit: Pro hoc enim, inquit, quod dilexisti justitiam, et odisti iniquitatem, pro his praecipuam unctionem meruisti.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto trigesimo secundo capitulo in commento Epistolae ad Hebraeos adhibetur illud Petri, ubi dixit: Jesum a Nazareth, quem unxit Deus Spiritu sancto et virtute, et infertur: Qui autem Dei Spiritu unctus est, omnimode aliquid inde assumpsit; et additur: Quis autem furens dicat de Spiritu aliquid assumpsisse divinam naturam? per quae verba purus homo Christus inducitur, qui unctione Spiritus sancti particeps factus sit divinae naturae, sicut et alii: et mercedis justae nomine, quia dilexerit justitiam, et oderit iniquitatem, praecipuam meruerit unctionem. Qui ergo ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXXIII.
Rabbi, tu es Filius Dei, tu es rex Israel: hoc est, tu es ille qui de longe praedicatus es Christus: haec enim scilicet de Christo sperabat, sicut domestico constitute praeter omnes Deo.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXXIV.
Certus quidem et ipse erat Filius Dei, non secundum deitatis dicens nativitatem, sed secundum quod domesticus Deo erat, per quod Filii Dei qui per virtutem domestici Deo constituti homines interim vocabantur.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascriptis trigesimo tertio et trigesimo quarto capitulis de interpretatione Evangelii secundum Joannem adhibentur verba Nathanaelis dicentis Domino: Tu es Filius Dei, tu es rex Israel: et infertur dictum esse Christo tanquam domestico Dei, ut non ipse Christus sit Deus, sed plusquam alii homines sit domesticus Deo; et dicitur, quia sicut alii sancti homines filii Dei dicuntur, sic et Christus per familiaritatem quam ad Deum habet a Nathanaele, cum quo loquebatur, Deus sit nominatus. Quae qui ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non eumdem Christum verum Deum et verum hominem confitetur, unum in utraque natura perfectum, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXXV.
Quando enim dicit: De Filio suo, qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem, certum quidem quod filium hic eum qui ex semine David factus est secundum carnem non Deum dicit Verbum, sed assumptam servi formam. Nec enim Deus secundum carnem, nec Deus ex semine factus est David, sed sumptus pro nobis homo, quem Filium beatus Apostolus manifeste vocat.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto capitulo trigesimo quinto cum exponitur locus Apostoli de Epistola ad Romanos, ubi dicit: De Filio suo qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem, nuda servi forma depromitur, dicendo quod hic Filium eum qui ex semine David factus est secundum carnem, non Deum Verbum dicat, sed sumptum pro nobis hominem, quem Filium beatus Apostolus manifeste vocet: quae verba ostendunt nudum, sicut dictum est, hominem praedicari. Qui ergo ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non eumdem, qui ex semine David secundum carnem natus est, juxta David et Pauli apostoli vocem, ipsum credit esse etiam super omnia Deum, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXXVI. Renatus alter factus est pro altero, non jam pars Adam mutabilis et peccatis circumfusi, sed Christi, qui omnino inculpabilis per resurrectionem factus est.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto trigesimo sexto capitulo ubi ad baptizatum dicitur: Quia renatus alter factus est ex altero, non jam pars Adam mutabilis et peccatis circumfusi, sed Christi, qui omnino inculpabilis per resurrectionem factus est: quibus verbis Christum ante resurrectionem, quod absit, vult videri fuisse culpabilem. Qui ergo haec sapit, docet aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXXVII. Ut multam quidem ejus faceret diligentiam, omnia autem illius propria faceret et toleraret, per omnes conductus passiones, per quas eum secundum suam virtutem perfectum fecit, nec a mortuis secundum suae naturae legem recedens, sed sua praesentia et operatione et gratia liberans eum quidem de morte et malis quae inde sunt, resuscitans autem eum de mortuis, et ad meliorem finem perducens.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto trigesimo septimo capitulo dicitur, quia Christo in passionibus et morte Deus verbum praesentia et operatione et ad gratiam adfuerit: quod si ita est, tanquam alter alteri praesens gratiam et operationem impendisse videbitur. Qui ergo haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non ipsum Deum Verbum, servata impassibilitate divinitatis suae in carne anima rationali et intellectuali animata, quam sibi ab ipso conceptu univit ex Virgine, omnia quae de passione ejus scripta sunt, voluntarie sustinuisse dicit, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXXVIII.
Deinde ostendens cujus gratia passus est, diminutionem infert: Quatenus circa [citra] Deum pro omnibus gustaret mortem (Hebr. II): quia, divina natura ita volente, separata illa, ipse pro se [per se], pro omnium utilitate gustavit mortem: et ostendens quod deitas separata quidem erat ab illo qui passus est secundum mortis experimentum, quia nec possibile erat illam mortis experimentum accipere, non tamen illi qui passus est abfuerat secundum diligentiam.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto trigesimo octavo capitulo et falsatum testimonium Apostoli agnoscimus, quia ubi legitur: Ut gratia Dei pro omnibus gustaret mortem, hic invenitur: Ut sine Deo pro omnibus gustaret mortem, et hoc quasi astruendo dicitur: quia, divina natura separata, ipse pro se, vel ut purus homo pro omnium utilitate gustaverit mortem. Qui ergo ita sapit, docet, credit, aut praedicat, et non confitetur quia Deus verbum carnem, quam sibi ex ipsa conceptione secundum substantiam adunivit, nec in passionibus nec in morte unquam deseruerit, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XXXIX.
Jesum autem ait de Nazareth, quem unxit Deus Spiritu et virtute (Act. X), cujus unctionem meritus, et immaculatus effectus est per omnia, et ad divinam naturam meruit conjunctionem. Neque enim conjunctionem suscepisset illam, nisi prius immaculatus factus fuisset, ut sic condeceat illius unitatem.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto trigesimo nono capitulo rursum illud quod beatus Petrus dixit: Jesum a Nazareth, quem unxit Deus Spiritu et virtute: exponens dicit, per unctionem Spiritus, quod meruit, et immaculatum eum per omnia factum, et ad divinam naturam meruisse conjunctionem: quae verba Christum purum hominem aperte signant. Qui ergo haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XL. Nam et illud: Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacuit (Matth. III), insania evidens est de Deo Verbo putare dicere eum. Qui enim dixit: Hic est Filius meus dilectus, et intulit: In quo mihi complacuit, significavit quod aperte ad comparationem hoc dicit aliorum filiorum, qui nec dilecti facti sunt, rec placere nimis potuerunt ei.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto capitulo quadragesimo de interpretatione Evangelii secundum Matthaeum, ubi dicitur: Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacuit, subjungitur et dicitur: Insania evidens est de Deo dicere eum. Qui enim dixit: Hic est Filius meus dilectus, et intulit: In quo mihi complacuit, significavit quod aperte ad comparationem hoc dicit filiorum, qui ne dilecti ei facti sunt, nec placere nimis potuerunt. Quae verba Christum Jesum purum rursus hominem et adoptivum filium evidenter ostendunt. Qui igitur haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XLI.
Permanens autem, donec secundum suam creaturam et virtutem solvens mortis dolores, liberavit eum ineffabilibus illius vinculis, et de mortuis resuscitans, transtulit quidem in immortalem vitam: incorruptum autem eum et immortalem et immutabilem efficiens, in coelum duxit.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quadragesimo primo capitulo dicitur, quod solvens mortis dolores, liberavit Christum ineffabilibus illis vinculis, et de morte resuscitans transtulerit quidem ad immortalem vitam, incorruptum autem eum et immortalem et immutabilem efficiens, in coelum eduxerit: per quae omnia verba declaratur nudum hominem esse Jesum Christum. Qui ergo ita sapit, docet, credit, aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XLII. Christum justificatum et immaculatum factum secundum virtutem sancti Spiritus [sicut beatus Apostolus modo quidem dicit: Quod justificatus est in Spiritu (II Tim. III); modo vero: Quod per Spiritum aeternum immaculatum se obtulit Deo (Hebr. IX) ] mori quidem fecit secundum legem hominum, ut pote autem impeccabilem virtute sancti Spiritus factum resuscitavit de mortuis, et ad vitam constituit meliorem, immutabilem quidem anima cogitationibus, incorruptum autem et indissolutum ex carne faciens.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quadragesimo secundo capitulo dicitur Christum justificatum et immaculatum factum esse virtute Spiritus sancti; et adjicit: Mori quidem eum fecit secundum legem hominum, ut pote autem impeccabilem virtute Spiritus sancti factum resuscitavit de mortuis: quibus verbis sic separatus a verbo Dei insinuatur homo, ut sancti Spiritus virtute immaculatus et impeccabilis, quasi aliquis justus homo asseratur effectus. Qui ergo haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XLIII. Deo autem gratias, qui nobis dedit victoriam per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum (I Cor. XV); istorum causam nobis fuisse dicens Deum, qui contra omnes adversarios dedit nobis victoriam sive mortis, sive peccati, sive cujuscunque hinc nascendi mali: qui Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum pro nobis hominem sumens, et ipsum per resurrectionem de mortuis ad meliorem transtulit finem, et in dextera sua sedere fecit, et nobis ad eum donavit communionem.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quadragesimo tertio capitulo, exponendo verba apostoli Pauli quibus dicit: Deo autem gratias, qui nobis dedit victoriam per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. Et post plura subjungitur: Dominus noster Jesus Christus pro nobis hominem sumens, et ipsum per resurrectionem de mortuis ad meliorem transtulit finem, per quae jam quasi existens homo, a Deo verbo significatur assumptus, ut duo fuisse videantur, et alter alteri praestitisse. Qui ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XLIV.
Cum ergo interrogent: Hominis genitrix, aut Dei genitrix Maria dicatur a nobis? Utraque, unum quidem natura, alterum autem relatione: hominis enim genitrix natura, quia homo erat et in ventre Mariae, qui et processit inde; Dei autem genitrix, quia Deus erat in homine nato; non in illo circumscriptus secundum naturam, sed quod in eo erat affectu voluntatis.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quadragesimo quarto capitulo dicitur: Cum ergo interrogent: Hominis genitrix, an Dei genitrix Maria dicatur, quasi ex respondentis persona dicitur, utraque dici, et adjungitur: Unum quidem natura rei, alterum autem relatione; et additur: Hominis enim genitrix natura, quia homo erat et in ventre Mariae, qui et processit inde: Dei autem genitrix, quia Deus erat in homine nato: et adjicitur: Non ille circumscriptus secundum naturam, sed quod in eo erat affectu voluntatis. Quae verba item et unum hominem Christum, et duos filios beatae Mariae demonstrant. Quod qui ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non Deum verbum, qui ante omnia saecula ex Patre ineffabiliter natus est, eumdem ex sancta Virgine Maria (sicut in primo capitulo diximus) per secundam nativitatem suam incarnatum et natum unum in utraque natura inconfusa inseparabilique cognoscit, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XLV. Gratia filius qui ex Maria est homo, natura autem Deus Verbum: quod autem secundum gratiam, non natura, et quod secundum naturam, non gratia, non duo filii; sufficiat corpori, quod ex nobis est secundum gratiam filiatio, gloria et immortalitas: quia templum Dei Verbi factum est, non supra naturam elevetur: et Deus Verbum pro debita a nobis gratiarum actione non injurietur: et quae est injuria componere eum cum corpore, et putare indigere corporis ad perfectam filiationem! nec ipse Deus Verbum vult se David filium esse, sed Dominum; corpus autem hoc vocari David filium non solum non invidit, sed et propter hoc adfuit.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quadragesimo quinto capitulo dicitur, quia per gratiam sit filius qui ex Maria natus est homo, natura autem Deus Verbum: et quasi ratiocinatur dicendo: Quod gratia, non natura, et quod natura, non gratia; et adjungitur: Sufficit corpori quod ex nobis est secundum gratiam filiatio, et non supra naturam elevetur, et Deus Verbum pro debita a nobis gratiarum actione non injurietur; quae verba nudum hominem ex Virgine Maria significant, qui per gratiam appelletur Filius Dei. Qui ergo haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XLVI.
Quando erit quaestio de nativitatibus secundum naturam, ne Mariae filius Verbum Dei existimetur, mortales enim mortales generant secundum naturam, et corpus simile sibi: et duas nativitates Deus Verbum non sustinuit, unam quidem ante saecula, alteram vero in posterioribus temporibus.
Vigilii responsio.
In supradicto quadragesimo sexto capitulo dicitur, ut Mariae filius Deus Verbum non existimetur, adjiciendo: Quia mortalis mortalem generat secundum naturam, et corpus simile sibi. Quae verba et purum hominem de sancta Virgine Maria significant, et duos filios introducunt. Qui ergo ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XLVII.
Ergo jam cessabunt ab impudente pugna, desistent autem a vana contentione, erubescentes evidentiam praedictorum: plurimos enim dicunt filios in gloriam ducentes. Ecce igitur in filiationis ratione Apostolus apparet (I Tim. III), assumptum hominem caeteris connumerans, non secundum quod illis [illius] filiationis particeps est, sed secundum quod similiter gratia filiationem assumpsit, deitate sola naturalem filiationem possidente.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quadragesimo septimo capitulo id quod dicit Apostolus, Qui multos filios ad gloriam adduxerat (Hebr. II, 10), exponendo dicitur, quod assumptum hominem caeteris connumeret sanctus Apostolus, eo quod similiter gratiam filiationis acceperit, sola deitate naturalem filiationem possidente: quae quidem verba, sicut superius dictum est, duos introducunt filios, id est unum per gratiam, alterum per naturam. Quod qui ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XLVIII.
Sed ad hoc dicunt, quod Jesus nomen salvatorem significat. Salvator autem si dicitur, quomodo ille homo dicatur? obliti quod Jesus dicebatur etiam filius Nave: et quod mirandum est, quia non sit vocatus fortuito in generatione, sed transnominatus a Moyse. Certum autem est quod non hoc imponere homini patiebatur, si divinam naturam omnimodo significabat.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quadragesimo octavo capitulo de nomine Jesu, quod salvatorem significat, argumentando negatur, et dicitur: Quia si salvator divinam naturam significaret, nunquam tale nomen homini imponeretur. Quibus verbis absolute et purus homo Christus ostenditur, et duae personae intelliguntur. Quae qui ita sapit, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM XLIX.
Itaque non solum Filium ipsum vocat a Deo Verbo separans, sed etiam secundum rationem filiationis communicans caeteris participibus filiationis convincitur: quoniam gratia et ipse particeps fuit filiationis, non naturaliter ex Patre natus, habens tamen ad caeteros excellentiam, qui unitate ad ipsum filiationem possidet, quod ei firmiorem ipsius rei donat participationem.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quadragesimo nono capitulo dicitur, quia Christus per gratiam particeps fuit filiationis, habens tamen ad caeteros excellentiam, quod ei firmior ipsius rei donata fuerit participatio. Quod qui ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non magis Deus Verbum cum assumpta carne unus atque idem Dominus Jesus Christus et verus Filius Dei et idem ipse verus Filius hominis intelligitur et creditur, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM L.
Homo Jesus similiter omnibus hominibus, nihil differens connaturalibus hominibus quam quod ipsi gratiam dedit; gratia autem data naturam non mutat; sed post mortis destructionem donavit ei Deus nomen super omne nomen.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quinquagesimo capitulo dicitur, quod homo Jesus nihil differat ab omnibus connaturalibus hominibus, nisi quod ei gratiam dedit: quae verba Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum velut unum de justis hominibus faciunt aestimari, qui non deitate sua excelsus intelligatur, sed gratia aliquid amplius quam caeteri homines asseratur adeptus. Quod si quis ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM LI. Sed mei fratres, qui ejusdem mihi matris sunt filii dicunt mihi. Non separa hominem et Deum, sed unum eumdemque dic hominem, dicens: Dico connaturalem mihi, dico Deum. Si dicam connaturalem Deo, dico: Quomodo homo et Deus unum sunt? Nunquid una natura hominis et Dei, domini et servi, factoris et facturae? Homo homini consubstantialis est, Deus autem Deo consubstantialis est: quomodo igitur homo et Deus unus per unitatem esse potest: qui salvificatur, qui salvificat, et qui ante saecula, et qui ex Maria apparuit?
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quinquagesimo primo capitulo negatur quod unus idemque dici possit Deus et homo dicendo: Quomodo homo et Deus unus per unitatem esse potest, qui salvificat, et qui salvificatur, qui ante saecula est, et qui ex Maria apparuit? Quae verba duas introducunt in Christo personas. Si quis igitur ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM LII.
Bene intulit: Namque et ego homo sum (Matth. VIII), ut dicat: Nihil mirandum si hoc potes cum sis homo accipiens a Deo: quoniam et ego cum hoc sim, accipio obedientes, semel habens jubendi potestatem propter datoris indulgentiam.
THEODORI CAPITULUM LIII. Quapropter et nec incongruum est et te, accepta ista a Deo potestate, verbo solo jubentem abigere passiones, nec enim tanquam Filio Dei, et ante universam creaturam existenti, et creatori eorum quae sunt accessit centurio.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascriptis quinquagesimo secundo et quinquagesimo tertio capitulis dicitur, quia Christo dixerit centurio, nihil mirandum esse si hoc potes, cum sis homo accipiens a Deo: quoniam et ego cum hoc sim, accipio obedientes, semel habens jubendi potestatem propter datoris indulgentiam. Et quamvis ex eo quod sequitur, centurionem non tanquam Filium Dei adiisse, qui universam condiderit creaturam; videatur quidem esse confiteri eum esse Filium Dei et creaturae totius opificem. Tamen quia nec de centurionis intellectu bene existimavit, cujus Dominus fidem non laudaret dicendo: Non inveni tantam fidem in Israel (Ibidem), nisi sciret eum intellexisse quia Deus: et ex his et superioribus capitulis et aliis dictis jam non per unitatem subsistentiae, sed per gratiam dicitur Christus esse Filius Dei, et ex eo Christus purus homo videtur induci, qui pro merito suo acciperet per datoris indulgentiam potestatem. Si quis ergo haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM LIV.
Consonantia et Apostolus dicit: Et manifeste magnum est pietatis mysterium, quod manifestatum est in carne, justificatum est in Spiritu (I Tim. III), justificatum esse in Spiritu dicens ipsum, sive quod ante baptisma cum subtilitate competente legem custodivit, sive quod etiam post illud gratiae conversationem cooperatione Spiritus cum magna complevit subtilitate.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quinquagesimo quarto capitulo id quod Apostolus dicit: Quod manifestatum est in carne, justificatum est in Spiritu, Christus justificatus esse asseritur, sive quod ante baptismum cum subtilitate competenti legem custodivit, sive quod etiam post illud gratiae conversationem cooperatione Spiritus cum magna subtilitate compleverit. Quae verba quia item purum hominem Christum justificatione egnisse demonstrat, si quis ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non magis ipsum ut verum Deum consubstantialem Patri et Spiritui sancto justificare impios per fidem credit, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM LV. Idem hoc dicimus juste et de Domino, quod Deus verbum sciens ejus virtutem, et secundum praescientiam statim in ipso initio complasmationis cohabitare bene voluit, et uniens eum sibi affectu voluntatis, majorem quamdam praestabat gratiam, ut pote gratia quae in eum est, et in omnes homines dividenda. Unde et circa bona voluntatem integram ei custodiebat. Non enim hoc dicemus, quod ille homo voluntatem habebat nullam, sed quod volebat quidem bonum, magis autem ei voluntarie plurimum aderat et boni desiderium, et contrarii odium: conservabatur vero a divina gratia illi voluntas integra ab initio, Deo qualis erit subtiliter sciente, qui et ad confirmandum eum magnam illi cooperationem habitatione sua praestabat pro omnium nostrum salute: unde nec injustum dicat aliquis esse, quod praeter omnes praecipium aliquid datum est illi homini, qui a Domino assumptus est.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quinquagesimo quinto capitulo dicitur quia Deus verbum secundum praescientiam sciens hominis Christi virtutem, initio complasmationis statim inhabitare in ipso bene voluerit, et uniens eum sibi affectu voluntatis majorem quamdam ei praestabat gratiam. Ex quibus verbis, et ex aliis quae sequuntur, duae evidenter inducuntur esse personae, et quia Filius Dei in filio hominis per affectum et gratiam et relationem habitare videatur. Si quis ergo haec ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, et non unum eumdemque Christum in duabus perfectis et individuis inconfusisque agnoscit et credit naturis, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM LVI.
Nam rationalis quidem proprium est discretio bonorum et malorum: cum vero non sint contraria, non erat ei possibile aliquid discernere primum: igitur in his quae creata sunt magnam contrarietatem fecit.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quinquagesimo sexto capitulo dicitur, rationalis proprium esse discretionem bonorum et malorum; et post pauca sequitur: Primum igitur in his quae creata sunt magnam contrarietatem fecit. Quae verba si ea intentione dicantur, ut mali natura sicut et boni introducatur, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM LVII. Quoniam autem non obaudit Adam, deinde subditus est morti: et factus est hoc propter inobedientiam, quod et citra inobedientiam propter utilitatem nostram a Creatore factum est, edocti sumus omnes peccatum.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quinquagesimo septimo capitulo dicitur, quia etsi non fuisset Adam inobediens, tamen propter utilitatem hominum a Creatore factum esse, et edoctos nos esse peccatum: quod absit ut catholica fides credat, a Deo nos, ut peccatores efficeremur, doceri potuisse peccatum. Si quis ergo hoc ita sapit, docet aut praedicat; et non magis prohibente Deo, primi hominis culpa introductum fatetur esse peccatum, et justo Dei judicio eum atque ejus progeniem propter inobedientiam suam mortis subiisse supplicium, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM LVIII.
Nec igitur mortem non sponte et praeter judicium suum intulit hominibus, nec peccato aditum ad nullam utilitatem dedit: nec enim hoc fieri, nolente ipso, non poterat: sed quoniam sciebat utile esse nobis, magis autem omnibus rationabilibus prius quidem malorum et deteriorum fieri aditum, postea autem deleri quidem haec; introduci autem meliora: ideo in duos status divisit Deus creaturam, praesentem, et futurum; in isto quidem ad immortalitatem et immutabilitatem omnia adducturus, in praesenti vero creaturam in mortem et mutabilitatem interim dimittens. Nam siquidem statim ab initio immortales nos fecerit et immutabiles, nullam differentiam ad irrationabilia haberemus, proprium nescientes bonum. Ignorantes enim mutabilitatem, immutabilitatis ignorabamus bonum; nescientes mortem, immortalitatis lucrum nesciebamus; ignorantes corruptionem, non laudabamus incorruptionem; nescientes passionum gravamen, impossibilitatem non mirabamur (compendiose dicam, ne longum sermonem faciam); nescientes malorum experimentum, bonorum illorum non poteramus scientiam mereri.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quinquagesimo octavo capitulo dicitur, ideo Deum dedisse peccato aditum, quia utile hoc sciebat esse nobis, magis autem omnibus rationabilibus, ut prius videlicet malis et deterioribus rebus fieret aditus, postea autem his deletis introduci meliora: et adjicitur: Quia si statim ab initio immortales nos fecisset et immutabiles, nullam differentiam ad irrationabilia haberemus, proprium nescientes bonum. Quibus verbis primum contra regulam fidei Deus asseritur tanquam nobis utile introduxisse peccatum. Secundo cum omnia rationabilia complectitur, hoc etiam de angelis et de universa coelesti militia, quae ratione est praedita, facit intelligi. Tertio quia illud, quod diabolus ad decipiendum primis hominibus persuaserit, quia, si de ligno prohibito manducarent sicut dii scientes bonum et malum, beneficii loco asseritur profuisse. Quae si quis ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM LIX.
Necesse est autem omnia simul rationabilia, invisibilia dico, et nos ipsos, quibus mortale quidem est corpus, anima autem per omnia ejusdem generis invisibilibus [Forte immortalis cum eisdem invisibilibus] et rationabilibus substantiis, hic quidem praesentem mutabilitatem pati, ut optima erudiamur doctrina religiositatis, et ad benevolentiam constituamur.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto quinquagesimo nono capitulo dicitur: Necesse est omnia simul rationabilia, invisibilia, et nos ipsos, quibus mortale quidem est corpus, anima autem per omnia ejusdem generis invisibilibus et rationabilibus substantiis, hic quidem praesentem mutationem pati, ut optima erudiamur doctrina religiositatis, et ad benevolentiam constituamur. Quibus verbis si angeli lucis, et universae coelestes invisibilesque virtutes sic mutabilitati hactenus subjacere, sicut humanae animae asseruntur, anathema sit.
THEODORI CAPITULUM LX.
Nam sciebat quidem quod peccabunt omnimodo, concedebat vero hoc fieri, expedire eis cognoscens, quoniam erat impossibile eum, qui cum fecerit non exstantes, et tantorum quidem demonstraverit dominos, tanta vero bona proposuerit, ut eis fruantur, nec prohibere peccati aditum, si expedire eis hoc cognosceret. Sed enim non erat possibile nos aliter discere peccatum, et passionum molestias, et deteriora, et nostram infirmitatem in his demonstrandam, ad ostendendam magnitudinem immutabilitatis, quam postea nobis esset donaturus, nisi sic ab initio haec fuissent a Deo dispensata, ut collatione et experimento infinitorum malorum, bonorum possemus scire magnitudinem, et hujus gratia, ut pote profuturum nobis, peccatum intrare dimittens, magnum in ejus bello auxilium invenit.
Vigilii responsio.
In suprascripto sexagesimo capitulo dicitur quia Deus sciens hominem peccaturum, ideo peccare permiserit, quia hoc ei noverat expedire, et propterea non prohibuisse peccati aditum, quia sic ab initio a Deo fuerit dispensatum, ut collatione et experimento infinitorum malorum, bonorum possemus scire magnitudinem, et hujus rei gratia, ut pote profuturum nobis, peccatum intrare dimittens, magnum in ejus peccati bello auxilium invenerit homo. Quae verba quoniam aliena sunt a sensu divinae Scripturae, ut dicatur, quia peccatum a Deo pro utilitate nobis introductum sit. Si quis ita sapit, docet, credit aut praedicat, anathema sit. Sancta enim catholica Ecclesia hoc certum tenet et credit, quia Deus et prohibuerit a peccato primum hominem, et per inobedientiam peccatum punierit justo supplicio; sed bene utens etiam malis nostris, singulari nos remedio, per unigeniti Filii sui incarnationem, passionem, mortem, et resurrectionem, hoc est Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ab omnium peccatorum nexibus liberavit.
His igitur competenter et per orthodoxae fidei rectitudinem apostolicae sententiae auctoritate damnatis, constituimus, ut ex omnibus istis, quae nos Patrum statutis atque traditionibus inhaerentes apostolica auctoritate damnavimus, nulla injuriandi praecedentes Patres vel doctores Ecclesiae (quae procul dubio scandala sacrosanctae Ecclesiae suscitat) praebeatur occasio: anathematizantes omnem ad ordines ecclesiasticos pertinentem, qui Patribus atque doctoribus Ecclesiae contumeliam ex suprascriptis impietatibus quodammodo ascribere vel irrogare voluerit. Et quoniam praefata dogmata, quae secundum intellectum de his expositum anathemati atque damnationi subjecimus in eo volumine quod nobis per fratrem nostrum Benignum episcopum nuper a pietate vestra transmissum sub Theodori Mopsuesteni episcopi perhibentur nomine praenotata; ad hoc sollicitudinis nostrae animum consequenter admonuimus, ut si quid de persona vel nomine memorati Theodori apud Patres quaesitum sit, vel si qua super ejus nomine ab eis regulariter fuerint constituta sive disposita, diligentissima indagatione quaerere curaremus. Et haec investigantes advertimus beatae recordationis Cyrillum Alexandrinae civitatis antistitem de persona jam mortui Theodori episcopi Joanni reverendae memoriae Antiochenae civitatis episcopo, vel Orientali synodo ad ejus litteras rescribentem, inter alia ita tradidisse: Quae prolata est in sancta synodo Ephesina definitio, veluti a Theodoro disposita, sicut offerentes dicebant, nihil habens sanum, evacuavit quidem eam sancta synodus veluti perversarum plenam intelligentiarum, condemnans item eos qui sic sapiunt. Dispensatim vero mentionem viri non fecit, neque eum nominatim anathemati subdidit, neque alios. Ipsam vero synodum Ephesinam primam sollicite recensentes, nihil de Theodori Mopsuesteni persona referre comperimus, sed symbolum, quod Charisius presbyter illic prodidit, magis quia ab Athanasio et Photio, qui tunc temporis haeretico Nestorio adhaerebant, per Antonium et Jacobum nomina tantum presbyterorum habentes ad Philadelphiorum ecclesias fuerit destinatum: ex quo claret beatum Cyrillum hoc quod per litteras profitetur a prolatoribus scilicet symboli jam defuncti Theodori episcopi nomen fuisse delatum, sua providentia ecclesiasticam moderationem circa mortuum sapientia sacerdotali servantem, noluisse nomen ejus, ne monumentis quidem synodalibus, propter regulam quae de mortuis in sacerdotio servanda est, contineri. Quomodo autem hoc quod supra dixit beatus Cyrillus dispensative factum, ut minime anathemati nomen viri subjicere voluisset intelligi, ad ecclesiasticam regulam porrigendum, in eadem epistola sua subter adjecit, dicens: Sed juste audient, tametsi nolint, qui hujusmodi causas praebent. Obliviscimini vos ipsos, quando adversus cineres arcus extenditis: non enim superest qui apud eos inscriptus est: et me nullus culpet in haec verba progressum, sed cedant valde, nimirum praedecessori.
Grave est enim insultare defunctis, vel si laici fuerint, nedum illis qui in episcopatu hanc vitam deposuerunt. Justissimum enim apparet prudentibus viris cedere praescienti, Deo scilicet, uniuscujusque voluntatem; et cognoscenti qualiscunque quisque futurus sit. Beatum quinetiam Proclum hujus regiae civitatis antistitem ita memorati Joannis Antiocheni episcopi similiter constat respondisse rescriptis, dicentem inter alia: Quando enim scripsi tuae sanctitati, oportere aut Theodorum, aut alios quosdam, qui pridem defuncti sunt, anathemati subdi, aut nominatim alicujus feci mentionem? et post pauca. Et illa capitula quae subjecta sunt repuli, ut pote subtilitatem non habentia pietatis: neque autem de Theodoro, neque de alio quoquam qui jam defuncti sunt scripsi, Deo amantissimi, aut ut anathematizaretur, aut ut abdicetur. Sed neque charissimus Theodotus, qui a nobis directus est, diaconus talia mandata suscepit. Item ipse beatus Proclus in epistola ad Maximum diaconum post alia ita dicit: Quomodo igitur per litteras didici nunc, quia Theodori Mopsuesteni, et aliorum quorumdam nomina praeposita sunt capitulis ad anathematizandum, cum illi ad Deum jam migraverint: et eos qui jam vitam reliquerunt supervacuum est injuriari post mortem, quos nec vivos aliquando culpavimus. Et post pauca: Post subscriptionem autem tomi, et post abjectionem capitulorum, quae cujus sint ignoramus, continuo praepara diaconum Theodorum venire ad regiam civitatem.
Perpendat ergo pietatis vestrae sapientia singularis, quia Proclus eruditissimus sacerdotum, et non longe a Theodori Mopsuesteni vita repertus, mala quae libenter damnaverat cujus essent se jam tunc professus est ignorare. Sed neque in sancto ac venerando Chalcedonensi concilio aliquid de saepius designati Mopsuesteni Theodori episcopi nomine invenimus statutum vel dictum esse contrarium, dum in relatione, quam eadem veneranda synodus piae memoriae Marciano tunc imperatori transmisit, quam vos quoque vestris legibus, dum orthodoxa professione unum de sancta Trinitate Christum Deum ac Dominum nostrum confitendum astruitis, ad testimonium laudabiliter adduxistis, litterae Antiocheni Joannis cum Orientali synodo ad Theodosium tunc piissimae recordationis principem destinatae venerabiliter memorentur, quibus Mopsuesteni Theodori episcopi persona, ne post mortem damnari deberet, excusatur.
Post haec ampliori cura prospeximus, si quid in his qui jam defuncti sunt, et minime reperiuntur in vita damnati, etiam sanctae recordationis praedecessores nostri decreverint. Quibus inspectis, agnovimus quod hujus cautelae providentiaeque formam veneranda praedecessorum nostrorum sedis apostolicae praesulum constituta nobis apertissime tradiderunt. Nam beatissimus papa Leo ad Theodorum episcopum Forojuliensem post alia ita dicit: Non necesse est nos eorum qui sic obierunt merita actusque discurrere; cum Dominus Deus noster, cujus judicia nequeunt comprehendi, quod sacerdotale mysterium implere non poterat, suae justitiae reservavit. Item beatus Gelasius papa in epistola quam ad episcopos Dardaniae de causa Acacii scripsit, post alia ita dicit: Qui postquam in collegium recidens pravitatis, jure meruit ab apostolica communione secludi, in hac autem persistens damnatione defunctus est, absolutionem, quam superstes nec quaesivit omnino, nec meruit, mortuus jam non potest impetrare. Siquidem ipsis apostolis Christi voce delegatum est: Quae ligaveritis super terram, et quae solveritis super terram (Matth. XVIII). Caeterum jam de eo qui in divino est judicio constitutus nobis fas aliud decernere non est, praeter id in quo eum dies supremus invenit.
Item memoratus beatae recordationis papa Gelasius in gestis synodalibus de Miseni episcopi Cumani absolutione confectis, hoc evidenter edocuit, dicens: Totum quod supra facultatis est modulum, divino judicio relinquamus: non autem nobis poterunt imputare, cur praevaricationis offensam viventibus remittamus; quod Ecclesiae, Deo largiente, possibile est: nec nos jam mortuis veniam praestare deposcant: quod nobis non esse possibile manifestum est; quia cum dictum sit: Quae ligaveritis et solveritis super terram, hos, quos super terram jam non esse constat, non humano, sed suo Deus judicio reservavit: nec audet Ecclesia sibimet vindicare, quod ipsis apostolis conspicit non fuisse concessum: quia alia est causa superstitum, alia defunctorum. Hanc autem regulam et in sanctorum Joannis Constantinopolitani episcopi, quem Chrysostomum vocant, atque Flaviani ejusdem civitatis episcopi, veneranda memoria constat esse servatam, qui licet violenter exclusi sunt, non tamen pro damnatis sunt habiti, eo quod semper inviolatam eorum communionem Romani pontifices servaverunt, nec abscindi ab Ecclesia dici potuerunt vel poterunt, quos sibi inconvulse unitos apostolica judicavit auctoritas.
In Eusebii etiam cognomento Pamphili Historiae libro septimo legitur, Dionysium Alexandrinae civitatis episcopum, qui longe ante fuerat, de Nepote quodam episcopo Aegypti ita fecisse: hic enim Nepos episcopus de mille annis, quibus post primam resurrectionem sanctos cum Christo regnaturos esse beatus Joannes Apostolus in Apocalypsi dicit, scripsisse asseritur, in quibus Judaicum intellectum habuisse narratur. Post cujus mortem, cum ad Dionysium Alexandriae episcopum pervenisset, quod tota Aegyptus ipsos libros, quos Nepos reliquerat, veluti magnum aliquod et occultum mysterium se habere putaret: et pergens ad eum locum (in Arsinoite enim quaestionem ipsam motam fuisse refert) scribensque destruxit eosdem libros atque evertit: Nepotem vero qui eos scripserat, propter hoc maxime quia jam defunctus fuerat, nulla sit aggressus injuria. Quae si quis latius agnoscere velit in memorato septimo historiae ejusdem Eusebii libro reperiet.
Quibus omnibus diligenter inspectis, quia licet diverso Patres nostri verborum modo, unius tamen ductu intelligentiae, disserentes, illaesas sacerdotum in pace ecclesiastica defunctorum servavere personas, idemque regulariter apostolicae sedis quae supra diximus definiunt constituta: Nulli licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judicare personis: sed in hoc relinqui, in quo unumquemque dies supremus invenit, et specialiter de Theodori Mopsuesteni nomine, quid sancti Patres nostri disposuerint, superius evidenter expressum est: eum nostra non audemus damnare sententia, sed nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus: absit tamen ut suprascripta capitula dogmatum, quae secundum subjectos intelligentiae sensus a nobis constat esse damnata, vel quaecunque dicta cujuslibet sine nomine praenotata, evangelicis tamen et apostolicis, ac quatuor synodorum, Nicaenae, Constantinopolitanae, Ephesinae primae, atque Chalcedonensis, et apostolicae sedis non congruentia consonaque doctrinis, non solum sensu, sed vel etiam aure patiamur admittere.
De scriptis vero quae sub viri venerabilis Theodoreti quondam episcopi nomine proferuntur, miramur primum, cur necesse sit ejus sacerdotis nomine in obtrectationem quidquam cujuslibet studio devocari: qui ante centum et amplius annos in sanctae ac venerandae Chalcedonensis synodi judicio constitutus sine aliqua cunctatione subscripsit, et beatissimi papae Leonis epistolis prona devotione consensit. Dehinc cum existerent tunc Dioscorus et Aegyptii episcopi, qui eum dicerent sanctum Cyrillum anathematizasse, et eumdem Theodoretum etiam haereticum esse, tamen sancti Patres nostri haec audientes, diligentissime eodem Theodoreto posthac examinatione discusso, et praesente a praesentibus inquisito, nihil aliud ab eo exegisse noscuntur, nisi ut statim Nestorium ejusque impia dogmata anathematizaret atque damnaret, hoc sibi tantummodo sufficere judicantes, quod ille coram universo concilio faciens, Nestorium cum dogmatibus suis, universis Patribus audientibus, clara voce damnavit. Ex quo evidenter apparet, quia quidquid sit vel fuerit sub cujuslibet prolatum nomine, quod impii Nestorii videatur concordare dogmatibus, hoc tunc in illo sancto concilio a viro venerabili Theodoreto fuerit sine dubitatione damnatum: et sit valde contrarium, et Chalcedonensis synodi judicio indubitabiliter inimicum, quaedam Nestoriana dogmata nunc sub ejus sacerdotis nomine condemnari, qui cum sanctis Patribus eumdem impium Nestorium et exsecrabilia ejus dogmata (sicut diximus) tunc apertissime anathematizavit. Quid enim aliud est, mendaces aut simulantes professionem rectae fidei Patres in sancta Chalcedonensi synodo residentes ostendere, quam dicere aliquos ex eis similia sapuisse Nestorio, quorum judicio videas Nestorium ejusque dogmata fuisse damnata.
Nec illud arbitrandum est, quia sanctae memoriae Cyrilli injuriis per duodecim capitulorum ejus reprehensionem a viro venerabili Theodoreto (ut putatur) ingesta beatissimi Patres nostri in sancta synodo Chalcedonensi neglexerint, sed aut (ut pote rebus de proximo gestis cuncta prae oculis habentes) Theodoretum nihil tale fecisse probaverunt, aut exemplum ipsius sanctae memoriae Cyrilli judicaverunt esse sequendum, qui post multa et gravia contra se ab Orientalibus apud Ephesum scripto gesta, tempore quo cum ipsis in concordiam remeavit, tanquam si acta non fuissent, pacis amore, silentio dereliquit; ut impleret utique illud apostolicum dictum, quo Corinthiis scribit, dicens: Cui enim aliquid donastis, et ego (II Cor. II). Nam et illud sancta synodus Chalcedonensis intendisse credenda est, quia dum doctrinam sancti Cyrilli ex epistolis ejus in eadem synodo reseratis atque receptis memoratus episcopus Theodoretus ita devota mente suscepit, ut doctrinae quoque ejus ad laudandam beatissimi papae Leonis epistolam testimoniis uteretur, etiamsi in eum injurias intulisse constaret, plenissime satisfecisse videretur, illius venerabiliter amplectendo fidem, cujus falso fuerat suspicatus errorem. Et ideo nos nec aliquid velut omissum a Patribus nostris quaerere nunc aut retractare convenit; et eos quibus sancti Cyrilli reprehensio nunc placet, aut iisdem sanctis Patribus nostris aestimant placuisse, modis omnibus refutamus.
Hac ergo rerum veritate perpensa, statuimus atque decernimus, nihil in injuriam atque obtrectationem probatissimi in Chalcedonensi synodo viri, hoc est Theodoreti episcopi Cyri, sub taxatione nominis ejus a quoquam fieri, vel proferri: sed custodita in omnibus personae ejus reverentia, quaecunque scripta, vel dogmata ejus cujuslibet nomine prolata sceleratorum Nestorii atque Eutychetis manifestantur erroribus consonare anathematizamus atque damnamus. Etenim satis habet, abundeque sufficere debet, quod damnantes atque anathematizantes cum Paulo Samosateno et Bonoso Nestorium, et e diverso cum Valentino atque Apollinare Eutychetem simul et errores eorum, aliosque haereticos omnes cum dogmatibus suis, illos quoque pariter condemnamus qui eorum impliciti et inemendabiles permanentes de vita praesentis saeculi migraverunt. Siquidem per hoc nihil perversae doctrinae relinquimus, quod non per hanc sententiam a nobis prolatam a sancta De Ecclesia apostolica auctoritate inveniatur exclusum.
I. Rursus tamen hoc specialiter dicimus: ut si quis, servata inconvertibilitate naturae divinae, non confitetur Verbum carnem factum, et ex ipsa conceptione de utero Virginis humanae naturae sibi secundum subsistentiam unisse principia, sed tanquam cum existenti jam homine fuerit Deus Verbum; ut per hoc non sancta Virgo vere Dei genitrix esse credatur; sed verbo tenus appelletur, anathema sit.
II. Si quis secundum subsistentiam unitatem naturarum in Christo factam denegat, sed seorsum existenti homini tanquam uni justorum inhabitare Deum Verbum, et non ita confiteatur naturarum secundum subsistentiam unitatem, ut Deus Verbum cum assumpta carne una permanserit permaneatque subsistentia sive persona, anathema sit.
III. Si quis voces evangelicas et apostolicas in uno Christo ita dividit, ut etiam naturarum in ipso unitarum divisionem introducat, anathema sit.
IV. Si quis unum Jesum Christum verum Dei et eumdem ipsum verum hominis Filium futurorum ignorantiam aut diei ultimi judicii habuisse dicit, et tanta scire potuisse, quanta ei deitas, quasi alteri cuidam inhabitans, revelabat, anathema sit.
V. Si quis illud Apostoli, quod est in Epistola ad Hebraeos dictum, quod experimento cognovit obedientiam, et cum clamore forti et lacrymis preces supplicationesque obtulit ad Deum, qui salvum illum posset a morte facere, tanquam nudo deitate Christo deputans, qui laboribus virtutis perfectus sit, ut ex hoc duos introducere Christos vel duos filios videatur, et non unum eumdemque credit Christum Dei et hominis Filium ex duabus et in duabus naturis inseparabilibus indivisisque confitendum atque adorandum, anathema sit.
His omnibus et hujusmodi blasphemiis ita a nobis abdicatis atque damnatis, hac praesentis constitutionis dispositione quam maxime providemus, ne (sicut supra diximus) personis, quae in pace et communione universalis Ecclesiae quieverunt, sub hac damnati a nobis perversi dogmatis occasione aliquid derogetur, sed exsecrabilibus dogmatibus in Nestorio atque Eutychete haeresiarchis, universisque eorum sequacibus condemnatis, illis sacerdotibus qui in pace catholica Ecclesiae (sicut dictum est) sunt defuncti nulla contumelia generetur, ne inde injuriarum nascatur occasio, unde potius debeat sanctorum Patrum reverentia custodiri.
De epistola quoque venerabilis viri Ibae, quondam Edessenae civitatis episcopi, de qua pariter inquisistis, diligenti nihilominus investigatione quaesivimus, si quid de ea priscis temporibus apud Patres nostros motum, vel agitatum, sive quaesitum, seu fuerit constitutum. Et quia Graecae linguae (sicut cunctis et maxime pietati vestrae notum est) sumus ignari, nunc per nostros, qui ejusdem linguae videntur habere notitiam, gesta sancti venerandique Chalcedonensis concilii in synodalibus codicibus diligentissime perquirentes, dilucide aperteque reperimus, duabus in eadem synodo actionibus praedicti viri venerabilis Ibae examinatum fuisse negotium, ibique ex gestis apud Photium Tyri et Eustathium Beryti episcopos habitis, hanc de qua quaeritur, inter caetera prolatam fuisse contra eum ab accusatoribus ejus epistolam: cumque consummata ipsius disceptatione negotii, a venerandis fuisset Patribus requisitum, quid de ejusdem constituendum videretur Ibae negotio, consequenter hujusmodi processisse sententias.
Paschasinus et Lucentius, reverendissimi episcopi, et Bonifacius presbyter, tenentes locum sedis apostolicae (quia missi apostolici semper in synodis prius loqui et confirmare soliti sunt), per Paschasinum dixerunt: Relectis chartis, agnovimus ex sententia reverendissimorum episcoporum, Ibam reverendissimum innoxium approbari: relecta enim ejus epistola agnovimus eum orthodoxum. Et ob hoc decernimus ei honorem episcopatus restituendum, et Ecclesiam, a qua injuste et absens expulsus est, reparandam. De episcopo igitur sanctissimo Nonno, qui pro eo paulo ante factus est, existimationis erit venerabilis episcopi Antiochenae Ecclesiae quid oporteat de eo formari [firmari] sive statui.
Anatolius reverendissimus archiepiscopus Constantinopolis novae Romae dixit: Dei amantissimorum episcoporum et judicum fides, ac lectio omnium horum quae sunt subsecuta, demonstrant innoxium Ibam reverendissimum ab accusationibus quae illatae sunt in eum: unde omnem in praesenti suspicionem abjicio, quoniam consentit et subscribit ei quae nunc de fide sententia data est a sancto concilio, et epistolae sanctissimi archiepiscopi Romae Leonis, et dignum eum judico episcopatu, et habere curam in qua pridem existebat Ecclesiae.
Maximus reverendissimus episcopus Antiochenus dixit: Ex iis quae modo relecta sunt, constitui manifestum esse, quia ab omnibus ei illatis reverendissimus Ibas innocens est repertus: ex relecto vero rescripto epistolae, quae probata est ab eo qui adversarius ejus existit, orthodoxa est ejus declarata dictatio.
His igitur ita in sanctae Chalcedonensis synodi judicio dispositioneque jacentibus, et ita vicariatum sedis apostolicae venerandorum praesulum sustinentium et caeterorum Patrum interlocutionibus declaratis, evidenter advertimus, quod ab his qui in eadem sancta Chalcedonensi synodo locum beatissimi praedecessoris nostri papae Leonis tenuisse noscuntur, dictum sit: Relecta ejus epistola agnovimus eum esse catholicum; et ab Anatolio Constantinopolitano dictum sit: Lectio omnium quae sunt subsecuta demonstrat innoxium Ibam reverendissimum ab his quae in eum accusatores intulerant; a Maximo vero Antiocheno dictum sit: Ex relecto scripto epistolae quod perlatum est ab adversario ejus, catholica est ejus declarata dictatio; quorum interlocutionibus caeteri episcopi non solum non contradixisse, verum etiam apertissimum noscuntur praebuisse consensum.
Propter praedicationem fidei, per quam venerandae recordationis Cyrillus Alexandrinus episcopus, et reverendissimus Joannes Antiochenus antistes, atque omnes Orientales episcopi per Paulum Emesenae civitatis episcopum ad concordiam redierunt, quam Ibas quoque in eadem epistola laudans, libenter amplectitur, orthodoxa est Ibae episcopi a Patribus pronuntiata dictatio. Illa vero quae in ipsa Ibae sacerdotis epistola in injuriis beatae recordationis Cyrilli per errorem intelligentiae dicta sunt, Patres in sancta Chalcedonensi synodo epistolam pronuntiantes orthodoxam, nullatenus receperunt: quippe quae etiam ipse venerabilis episcopus, intellectu capitulorum ejus meliore recepto, mutando refutavit, sicut interlocutione venerandae memoriae Eunomii Nicomediensis episcopi in eadem sancta Chalcedonensi synodo residentis evidentissime declaratur; quod ita se habet: Eunomius episcopus Nicomediae dixit: Jam quidem ex his quae relecta sunt innoxius approbatus est beatus Ibas; in quibus etiam dicendo male culpare visus est beatissimum Cyrillum, et in postremis recte confessus illa quae culpaverat refutavit. Unde et ego anathematizantem eum Nestorium et Eutychetem et impia eorum dogmata, et consentientem his quae a sanctissimo archiepiscopo Leone scripta sunt, et in hac universali synodo, dignum esse episcopatu decerno.
Nam et venerabilis memoriae Juvenalis interlocutio hoc idem significat: quod Ibas episcopus de eo quod sancto Cyrillo capitula ejus aliter intelligendo detraxerat, postea professus, quia, his ab eo explanatis et a se intellectis, in communionem ejus devote concurrerit, et de his quae prius aliter intellexerat sit conversus; propterea recipere eum episcopatum decrevit, ut pote quantum ad professionem fidei orthodoxum existentem, ita dicens: Qui convertuntur Scriptura divina suscipi jubet; quapropter et ab haereticis revertentes suscipimus. Unde praevideo reverendissimum Ibam mereri clementiam; quia et senex est, ut habeat episcopatus gradum, orthodoxum existentem. Quibus verbis hoc intelligitur, quod si ab haereticis venientes suscipimus, quomodo Ibam qui est orthodoxus, et intellectu capitulorum beati Cyrilli haesitans ei obloqui visus est, nunc ab eo in quo fallebatur intellectu conversum non suscipiamus, cum eum orthodoxum constet existere? Neque enim orthodoxum existere Ibam diceret Juvenalis episcopus, nisi ex verbis epistolae ejus confessionem fidei orthodoxam comprobaret. Ut autem appareat quia interlocutio Juvenalis Eunomii interlocutioni concordat, verba ipsa ex interlocutione Eunomii nos edocent, quae inter alia ita se habent: In quibus enim dicendo male culpare visus est beatissimum Cyrillum, in postremis recte confessus, illa quae culpaverat, refutavit. Ex quibus verbis evidenter declaratur, in Iba episcopo nihil de confessione fidei reprehensum, quam constat esse laudatam; sed eumdem Ibam quod fallente intelligentia de beato Cyrillo male senserat refutasse.
Nam idem venerabilis episcopus Ibas ex ipsis gestis praecedentibus, sicut Photii et Eustathii sententia continet, apertissime perhibetur habere se et recipere omnia quae in Ephesina prima synodo gesta sunt, et aequa judicare quae in Nicaea sunt constituta, et nullam differentiam arbitrari ejus ad alia, et nimis ejus sanctitatem se laudasse pronuntians, quod prone Ibas sapuerit curare eos qui vel suspicione, vel alio aliquo modo ejus laederent opinionem doctrinae: nam et post explanationem duodecim capitulorum beati Cyrilli factam, et intellectum ejus sibi quem sanctus Cyrillus in ipsis capitulis habuit declaratum, et orthodoxum eum se cum omnibus Orientalibus episcopis habuisse, et in communione ipsius usque ad exitum permansisse professus est. Ex quo apparet eumdem Ibam, et priusquam duodecim capitula beati Cyrilli intelligeret, et cum in eis suspicaretur unam Christi praedicari naturam, orthodoxo sensu quod male dictum existimaverat reprobasse, et post explanationem eorumdem orthodoxo sensu quae recte dicta cognoverat venerabiliter suscepisse.
Sed et illud indubitanter cunctorum fidelium mentibus patet, quod magis in Ephesina secunda haeretico intellectu Dioscorus cum Eutychete beato Cyrillo et primo Ephesino concilio contumelias irrogarint, qui crediderunt sanctum Cyrillum unam naturam in Domino Deo nostro Jesu Christo per duodecim sua praedicasse capitula: et ob hoc aliquos Orientales episcopos, qui unius naturae praedicationem noluerunt suscipere, Dioscorus condemnavit: inter quos et Ibam episcopum propter hanc specialiter fidei ejus professionem, qua duas naturas, unam virtutem, unam personam, quod est unus Filius Dominus noster Jesus Christus, apertissime confitetur, haereticum condemnavit; et Eutychetem propter unius naturae praedicationem sicut catholicum revocavit, damnans quoque propter duarum naturarum vocem sanctae recordationis Flaviani personam: et inventus est ipse magis Dioscorus Ephesinam primam synodum conari destruere, qui eam sub exsecrabilis intellectus imagine defendebat; et amplius beatum Cyrillum criminatus est laudans Dioscorus atque Eutyches, quam Ibas sub falsi intellectus errore vituperans. Namque cum laus atque vituperatio ad unum tenderent intellectum, Dioscorus et Eutyches, qui laudaverunt, haeretico spiritu laudasse reperti sunt, atque ideo sunt a sancta Chalcedonensi synodo damnati; at vero Ibas episcopus, qui per errorem, unam putans in his praedicari naturam, prius vituperavit capitula, et post declaratum sibi intellectum eorum, communicatorem se beati Cyrilli cum omnibus Orientalibus esse professus est, et in catholicae fidei rectitudine ab eadem Chalcedonensi synodo judicatus est permansisse. Haec ergo eadem synodus in Dioscoro atque Eutychete, qui se falso per beatum Cyrillum velamine tegere nitebantur, videns potius beati Cyrilli praedicationibus Dioscorum atque Eutychetem apparere contrarios, per hoc quod unam post adunationem naturam blasphemo spiritu praedicabant, simili atque eadem Dioscorum cum Eutychete sententia condemnavit, destruens Ephesinam secundam, primamque confirmans.
Et quia nobis de Ezechielis prophetae verbis objicitur illud, quod ad sacerdotes Jerusalem malum a bono non discernentes ex persona Domini dicebat: Sacerdotes ejus spernentes legem meam coinquinaverunt sancta mea; inter sanctum et pollutum non distinguebant, et inter medium mundi et immundi non secernebant (Ezech. XXII). Debet vestra pietas pariter nobiscum et universorum corda fidelium ex his verbis advertere, ideo non audere Chalcedonensis synodi retractare judicium, ne ibidem considentibus sacerdotibus ista (quod absit) ab haereticorum insidiis macula inuratur: ut eos inter sanctum et pollutum, et inter medium mundi et immundi non potuisse discernere criminentur, si nos modo causas ejusdem sanctae synodi cum consensu sedis apostolicae judicio terminatas, sub qualibet occasione viderint retractare. Propterea ergo disciplinam atque judicium sanctorum Patrum nos in omnibus conservantes, et rerum omnium dispositionem secundum eam quam reddimus rationem ex Chalcedonensis synodi judicio declaratam cum satis apertissima luceat veritate, ex verbis epistolae viri venerabilis Ibae rectissimo ac piissimo intellectu perspectis, et ex gestis apud Photium et Eustathium habitis, et ex ipsius Ibae episcopi praesentis a praesentibus intentione discussa, Patres nostros in Chalcedone residentes justissime orthodoxam ejusdem viri venerabilis Ibae episcopi pronuntiasse fidem, et reprehensionem beati Cyrilli, quam humanitus per errorem intelligentiae evenisse cognoverant, congrua satisfactione purgatam: praesentis sententiae nostrae auctoritate statuimus atque decernimus, cum in omnibus, tum etiam in saepius memorata venerabilis Ibae epistola intemeratum Patrum in Chalcedone residentium manere judicium.
Nec quemquam ad ordines et dignitates ecclesiasticas pertinentem hoc constituto nostro permittimus aliquando praesumere, vel super ejusdem epistolae negotium, vel aliis in Chalcedonensi concilio consensu vicariorum sedis apostolicae judicatis, ordinatis, definitis, atque dispositis, tanquam imperfectis atque reprehensibilibus, sive per additamentum, sive per diminutionem, sive per immutationem, vel quoquo modo aliquid temerariae novitatis inferre.
Pari ratione decernimus, ne quisquam epistolae beati Cyrilli, cui duodecim sunt subjecta capitula, vel ipsis capitibus adversus Nestorii perfidiam promulgatis existimet derogandum: cum constet eumdem Ibam, vel inter omnes Orientales episcopos, post explanatum sibi eorumdem capitulorum intellectum, beati Cyrilli communicatorem toto vitae ejus tempore permansisse, abjicientem ea, et a veri intellectus rectitudine repellentem, in quibus vel ex suprascripta epistola unius Ibae episcopi, vel ex omnibus quae in sancta synodo Chalcedonensi judicata, ordinata, definita atque disposita sunt, ita quidquam aptatur, aut per auctoritatem ejusdem synodi aut perversum dogma assertum esse Nestorii, aut ipse dicatur Nestorius excusatus.
Et ne quis forsitan arbitretur ambiguum, quod praefatis legatis atque vicariis sedis apostolicae a beatissimo papa Leone tantum fidei causa, et non etiam de depositorum incompetenter episcoporum fuerit revocatione mandatum, et quasi superflue Ibae quoque Edessenae civitatis episcopi causam coram sanctis Patribus existimet agitatam; noverit beatissimum papam Leonem sanctae Chalcedonensi synodo haec inter caetera scripsisse, dicendo: Quia vero non ignoramus per pravas aemulationes statum multarum Ecclesiarum fuisse turbatum, plurimosque episcopos, qui haeresim non reciperent, sedibus suis pulsos, et in exsilia deportatos, atque in locum superstitum alios substitutos; his primitus vulneribus adhibenda est medicina justitiae, ne quisquam careat propriis, vel aliter utatur alienis.
Et ne quis dubitet utrum ea quae de restitutione episcoporum gesta sunt in Chalcedonensi synodo, ad beatissimi Leonis fuerint perducta notitiam, et ab eodem confirmata, ipsam potius synodi relationem ad beatissimum Leonem praedecessorem nostrum directam congrua legere sollicitudine non omittat: cujus post alia in fine haec verba sunt: Omnem vobis gestorum vim insinuare curavimus ad consistentiam nostram, et eorum quae a nobis acta sunt confirmationem et dispositionem. Post quorum notitiam idem beatissimus papa Leo ad piae memoriae Pulcheriam Augustam gratias referens de restitutis episcopis, ita scribit: Clementia igitur vestra cognoscat omnem Romanam Ecclesiam de universis fidei vestrae operibus plurimum gratulari, sive quod legationem nostram pio per omnia juvistis affectu, et quod sacerdotes catholicos, qui ab Ecclesiis suis injusta fuerant ejecti sententia, reduxistis. Ecce et in eo quod omnia gesta beatissimo papa Leoni directa sunt, rerum gestarum ad eum perducta notitia est, et in recurrentium actione gratiarum rerum gestarum confirmatio declaratur.
Non dubitamus igitur omnium fidelium sensibus patefactum, quae vicariis beati Leonis papae, loco ejus synodo praesentibus, ab eodem fuerit dispensadarum rerum forma mandata, vel quales ad expugnandum perceperint actiones, vel quae ab illo generali concilio, praesidente ac consentiente per vicarios suos sedis apostolicae praesule, fuerint constituta; quae neque minus, neque augeri, neque perfringi, neque posse fas est ab aliquo retractari. Non licere autem venerandae Chalcedonensis synodi statuta convelli, vel quolibet colore seu titulo retractari, praedecessorum nostrorum pauca de innumeris prolata constituta nos docent, ex illius praecipue beati Leonis praedecessoris nostri epistolis, quo in vicariis suis summo praesule floruit sanctum Chalcedonense concilium. Ait namque in epistola ad piae memoriae Leonem Augustum ita: Haec autem Dei munera ita demum nobis divinitus conferuntur, si de his quae sunt praestita non inveniamur ingrati, et tanquam nulla sint quae adepti sumus, contraria potius exspectemus. Nam quae patefacta sunt quaerere, quae perfecta sunt retractare, et quae sunt definita convelli, quid aliud est quam de adeptis gratias non referre, et ad interdictae arboris cibum in pravos appetitus mortiferae cupiditatis extendere? Et post aliquanta: Ita praenoscat, inquit, igitur pietas tua, venerabilis imperator, hos quos spondeo dirigendos, non ad confligendum cum hostibus fidei, nec certandum contra illos a sede apostolica profecturos: quia de rebus et apud Nicaeam et apud Chalcedonem, sicut Deo placuit, definitis nullum audemus inire tractatum, tanquam dubia vel infirma sint, quae tanta per Spiritum sanctum finxit auctoritas.
Nec non idem beatus praedecessor noster papa Leo ad praefatum venerabilem Augustum in alia epistola: Non sinas, ait, contra dexterae Omnipotentis triumphos redivivis exsurgere motibus exstincta certamina; praesertim cum in [Forte, id] damnatis jam dudum haereticorum ausibus omnino non liceat, et hic fructus piis laboribus debeatur, ut omnis Ecclesiae plenitudo in suae unitatis soliditate secura permaneat, nihilque prorsus de bene constitutis retractetur: quia post legitimas et divinitus inspiratas constitutiones velle confligere, non pacifici est animi, sed rebellis, dicente Apostolo: Verbis enim contendere nihil utile est, nisi ad subversionem audientium (II Tim. II). Nam si humanis persuasionibus semper disceptare sit liberum, nunquam deesse poterunt qui veritati audeant resultare, et de mundanae sapientiae loquacitate confidere. Item post pauca: Pie nobis et constanter videndum est, ne, dum talium disputatio admittitur, his quae divinitus definita sunt auctoritas derogetur. Item in epistola papae Leonis ad Anatolium Constantinopolitanum episcopum: Ut autem haec exhortatio ad omnium fratrum possit notitiam pervenire, diligentiae vestrae cura perficiat, quia, quod saepe dicendum est, tota religio Christiana turbatur, si quidquam de his quae apud Chalcedonem constituta sunt convellatur, et quae ex divina sunt dispositione composita, ulla patiamini novitate temerari.
Sed et beatissimus praedecessor noster papa Simplicius ad Zenonem Augustum sic inter caetera dicit: Neque aliquis dubius rationis et trepidus mentis exspectet novi aliquid post Chalcedonense concilium contra definitiones ipsius retractari: quia per universum mundum insolubili observatione retinetur quod a sacerdotum universitate est constitutum.
Item memoratus papa Simplicius Zenoni Augusto: Nullus ad aures vestrae pietatis perniciosis mentibus pandatur accessus: nulla retractandi de veterrimis fiducia concedatur: sic haeresum denique machinamenta cunctarum ecclesiasticis prostrata decretis, nunquam sinuntur oppugnationibus elisa reparare certamina.
Item praedictus papa Simplicius ad praefatum Zenonem Augustum: Ita Chalcedonensis synodi constituta, vel quae beatae memoriae praedecessor meus Leo apostolica traditione perdocuit, intemerata vigere jubeatis: quia nec ullo modo retractari potest, quod illorum definitione sopitum est.
Constat ergo ex praefatis testimoniis Patrum, quam tenere debeamus pro apostolicae sedis rectitudine, et pro universalis Ecclesiae consideratione, cautelam: cujus nos quoque cautelae jam dudum memores, in eam quam tunc dederamus ad Mennam Constantino, politanum episcopum epistolam, quam tum praesentibus pluribus sacerdotibus et glorioso senatu, Menna sanctae recordationis episcopo vestrae clementiae offerente, et pietate vestra nobis cum ejus consensu restituente receptam, quantum ad trium capitulorum causam pertinet, evacuamus, nullatenus a loci nostri atque propositi circumspectione cessantes, competentem Chalcedonensis synodi reverentiam curavimus omnibus exhibere, sicut series ejusdem testatur epistolae, cujus ad probandam cautelam nostram subjecimus perpauca de plurimis: quibus diligenter inspectis, qualiter apud nos sancta Chalcedonensis synodus inviolata permanserit atque permaneat evidenter ostenditur. Siquidem de eadem synodo ita nos in ipsa epistola nostra certum est inter caetera posuisse, dicentes: Cum apud nos manifesta ratione perclareat, quicunque in contumeliam antefatae synodi aliquid tentat agere, sibi potius nociturum. Item post alia:
Sed si evidenter nobis fuisset ostensum in ipsis gestis potius contineri, nullus auderet tantae praesumptionis auctor existere, ut aliquid, quod in illud sanctissimum judicium productum est, velut dubium judicaret: cum credendum sit illos tunc praesentes a praesenti rerum memoria diligentius etiam praeter scriptum aliqua requirere, vel definire certius potuisse, quod nobis tunc post tanta tempora velut ignota causa videatur ambiguum, cum et hoc deferatur reverentiae synodorum, ut et in his quae minus intelliguntur, eorum cedatur auctoritati. Item post alia: Salvis omnibus atque in sua perpetua firmitate durantibus, quae in Nicaeno, Constantinopolitano, Ephesino primo, atque Chalcedonensi, venerandis constant conciliis definita, et praedecessorum nostrorum auctoritate firmata, et cunctis qui in memoratis sanctis conciliis abdicati sunt, sine dubitatione damnatis, et his nihilominus absolutis, de quorum ab iisdem synodis absolutione decretum est. Item post alia:
Anathematis sententiae eum quoque subdentes, qui quaevis contra praedictam synodum Chalcedonensem, vel praesenti, vel quaelibet in hac causa sive a nobis, sive a quibuscunque gesta scriptave inveniuntur, pro aliqua susceperit firmitate; et sancta Chalcedonensis synodus, cujus magna et inconcussa est firmitas, perpetua et veneranda, sicut Nicaena, Constantinopolitana atque Ephesina prima habent, suam teneant firmitatem. Item post alia: Anathematizamus et eum quoque quicunque sanctam Nicaenam, Constantinopolitanam, Ephesinam primam, atque Chalcedonensem sanctissimas synodos in una et immaculata fide apostolis consonantes, et ab apostolicae sedis praesulibus roboratas, non et fideliter sequitur, et aequaliter veneratur: et qui ea quae in ipsis conciliis quae praefati sumus gesta sunt, vult quasi prave dicta corrigere, aut vult imperfecta supplere.
Ecce, venerabilis imperator, luce clarius demonstratur hanc nos habuisse semper in sanctarum quatuor synodorum reverentia voluntatem, et quaecunque a sanctis Patribus in eisdem considentibus definita vel statuta sive judicata sunt, intemerata permanere. Manentibus ergo omnibus quae de epistola Ibae personaque ejus in sanctorum Patrum et sedis apostolicae vicariorum interlocutionibus continentur, illud nobis omnibusque catholicis, aequali voluntate sufficiat, quod illic sibi sancta synodus sufficere posse clamavit, dicendo: Nestorium et ejus dogmata modo anathematizet: quo anathemate nefandissimorum Nestorii et Eutychetis ab Iba episcopo toties iterato, totius satisfactum esse synodi voluntati.
His igitur a nobis cum omni undique cautela atque diligentia propter servandam inviolabilem reverentiam praedictarum synodorum et earumdem venerabilia constituta dispositis, memores scriptum esse (Prov. XXII), terminos patrum nostrorum nos transcendere non debere, statuimus et decernimus, nulli ad ordines et dignitates ecclesiasticas pertinenti licere quidquam contrarium his quae praesenti asseruimus vel statuimus constituto de saepe dictis tribus capitulis aut conscribere vel proferre, aut componere vel docere, aut aliquam post praesentem diffinitionem movere ulterius quaestionem. Si quid vero de iisdem tribus capitulis contra haec quae hic asseruimus vel statuimus, nomine cujuscunque ad ordines et dignitates ecclesiasticas pertinentis factum, dictum, atque conscriptum est, vel fuerit, et a quolibet ubicunque repertum, hoc modis omnibus ex auctoritate sedis apostolicae, cui per gratiam Dei praesidemus, refutamus.
SUBSCRIPTIO. Juvante Deo et per ipsius gratiam Vigilius episcopus sanctae Ecclesiae catholicae urbis Romae huic constituto nostro subscripsi.
SUBSCRIPTIONES EPISCOPORUM. Joannes Episcopus Ecclesiae Marsorum huic constituto consentiens subscripsi.
Zacchaeus episcopus Ecclesiae Scyllacenae huic constituto consentiens subscripsi.
Pastor misericordia Dei episcopus Ecclesiae Iconiensis metropolis huic constituto consentiens sub scripsi.
Vincentius episcopus Claudiopolitanus metropoleos huic constituto consentiens subscripsi.
Zacchaeus episcopus rogatus a fratre Valentino episcopo Silvae Candidae, ipso praesente et consentiente et mihi dictante, huic constituto pro ipso subscripsi.
Julianus humilis episcopus Ecclesiae Cingulanae huic constituto consentiens subscripsi.
Paulus humilis gratia Dei episcopus Ecclesiae Ulpianensis huic constituto, quod beatissimus papa Vigilius in causa trium capitulorum protulit, ad omnia suprascripta consentiens subscripsi.
Projectus episcopus Nassitanae civitatis huic constituto consentiens subscripsi.
Fabianus gratia Dei episcopus Zapparenae civitatis huic constituto, quod beatissimus papa Vigilius in causa trium capitulorum protulit, ad omnia suprascripta consentiens subscripsi.
Primasius Dei gratia episcopus civitatis Adrumetinae, quae etiam Justinianopolis dicitur, concilii Byzaceni, huic constituto, quod beatus papa Vigilius in causa trium capitulorum protulit, consentiens subscripsi.
Stephanus episcopus Ecclesiae Ariminensis huic constituto consentiens subscripsi.
Alexander episcopus Ecclesiae Melitenae huic constituto consentiens subscripsi.
Julianus episcopus Ecclesiae Melitensis huic constituto consentiens subscripsi.
Redemptus episcopus Ecclesiae Nomentanae huic constituto consentiens subscripsi.
Venantius episcopus Ecclesiae Lippiensis [Liparensis] huic constituto consentiens subscripsi.
Quodvultdeus episcopus Ecclesiae Numanae [Nuceranae] huic constituto consentiens subscripsi.
Theophanius archidiaconus sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae huic constituto consentiens subscripsi.
Pelagius miserante Deo diaconus sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae huic constituto consentiens subscripsi.
Petrus miserante Deo sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae diaconus huic constituto consentiens subscripsi.
Datum pridie idus Maii, imperante domino nostro Justiniano perpetuo Augusto anno 27 post consulatum Basilii viri clarissimi anno 12 in Constantinopolitana civitate (Anno Christi 553).
UPDATE 2025 March 25 14:37: Giib pointed out two typos in the comments, which I have fixed.
UPDATE 2025 September 9: Somehow, the Responsio to Chapters 33 and 34, which is a single responsio, got separated into two near-identical responsios. This is the kind of mistake ChatGPT routinely makes in translation, and I caught many similar errors, but I guess I missed this one. Sorry!
UPDATE 2026 January 18: In Responsio 24, my good pal GPT hallucinatedsome words here: “Therefore, if anyone believes, teaches, or proclaims such things, and does not instead believe that these words are specifically foretold about the Lord our God, Jesus Christ, and that they were fulfilled in him, let him be anathema.” I corrected the passage by removing the offending words.
Okay, I admit, this one wasn’t a translation. It’s just that the document was not available online at the time. I had to scan it from a physical book I had to dig up at a local theological library.
The membership numbers only include those still in schism. The Church of the East had another, internal schism in 1552, which spawned what is known today as the Chaldean Catholic Church. The Chaldeans reunified with Rome in 1553… then broke up again over the course of the entire seventeenth century… then reunified again in 1771… but that caused another schism, which was healed in 1830.
Or something like that.
The upshot is, the Chaldean Catholic Church and its ~600,000 adherents (who also basically all live in Iraq) are in full communion with Rome, thus not counted as schismatics within the Church of the East. The Chaldean Catholic Church may still consider itself part of the Church of the East, though, perhaps even the “true” Church of the East, so be careful throwing around labels lest you offend an Iraqi Christian.
Schism is messy! It always plays out like this. You think “we’re just going to follow the true Gospel in peace without all this human hierarchical nonsense” and two hundred years later your grandchildren are in a blood feud over the hereditary crown of an irrelevant patriarchate nobody outside your sect can follow even with visual aids. Friends don’t let friends start schisms!
Do not attempt to unpack the distinctions between the Miaphysite position and what the orthodox view taught by Chalcedon unless you are prepared to take a loooonnnng lunch. Just know that people have died over it.
As is very often the case with these things, there is reason to believe that the disagreement between the Miaphysites and the (orthodox) Dyophysites was, at least initially, an artifact of imprecise translation. Translating very abstract philosophy and theology with very precisely defined terms-of-art can cause subtle but highly consequential shifts in meaning. The ecumenical commissions have been trying to sort it out for a century.
Yes, these countries are thousands of miles apart. Schism is weird!
Not to be confused with the Nestorian Church of the East from a few paragraphs ago!
We do not have time today to get into the full panoply of Origenist beliefs, but you can get the sense of them from the anathemas circulated against him in 543. For today, I will say only this:
Most of this is clearly an entirely different set of beliefs from Christianity.
Origen nevertheless died in the bosom of the Church. He never knowingly taught what the Church had rejected, and some of the really crazy stuff came from his successors, not from him. He remains a highly respected Church Father.
The anathemas of 543, linked above, are often claimed to have been promulgated by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, thus infallibly taught. This is a big deal, because, although most of this stuff sounds nuts to a modern Christian, Anathema #15 condemns apocatastasis, the belief that the punishments of Hell will eventually end and the damned will be reunited to God. Apocatastasis is an increasingly popular solution to the Problem of Hell among Christians today, so it matters a lot whether this condemnation was infallible or not.
My own opinion is that these anathemas were not formally defined by the Second Council of Constantinople, and that they are (therefore) not infallible. (I have the same opinion about the anathemas of 553.) Thus, apocatastasis, while very very difficult to reconcile with Christianity, has not been formally condemned and remains a hypothesis Catholics can explore. My view is a minority view, and it might very well be wrong; the historical record here is complicated and, in places, unclear. (This guy forcefully rejects my view, but, as a member of Eastern Orthodoxy, his interpretive principles are a bit different from mine.)
At least, this is the story related by several ancient and modern sources, including the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and the headnotes in my edition of Denzinger’s Enchiridion. I’m not 100% sure I believe it—it’s too cute—and I have not read the original sources.
If you’re thinking, “What? It makes no sense to posthumously excommunicate someone! He can’t do that!” then just wait until Pope Vigilius hears about this nonsense.
Mr. Bacchus of the 1913 Catholic Encylcopedia notes that Theodore had “written much against Origen,” and suggests it is therefore not a coincidence that the Origenists suggested making Theodore a sacrificial lamb for the Miaphysites.
Well, officially, it infuriated them. Like most things in politics (including Church politics), I suspect they were secretly delighted to have something they could be performatively furious about, because this reinforced the conclusion they had already committed to reaching.
Just to confuse you: sometimes, the condemned writings themselves (plus the person of Theodore) are referred to as “the Three Chapters.” In other cases, the condemnations of the Three Chapters by Justinian are referred to as “the Three Chapters.” Thus, describing someone as a “defender” or “opponent” of the Three Chapters does not actually tell you which side they were on without more information.
Note that “not containing falsehood” is a long way from “being the full truth.”
“Synod” is a synonym for “council,” although it has drifted from that meaning in twenty-first century Catholic discourse. I wrote about synods, councils, and the Synod On Synodality back in 2023.
They are still not entirely clear today! However, enormous progress has been made, at least on the Catholic side of the fence. St. Robert Bellarmine wrote the definitive work on it. Alas, if you live in the Twin Cities area, I don’t believe you can read it, because I think I’ve checked out both copies and I have them until May! Ha ha!
The Eastern Orthodox have their own views of conciliar infallibility that are opposed to the Roman Catholic view. I do not know nearly as much about them, but I assume they’ve made serious progress in the last fifteen hundred years, too.
This is before the Muslim Conquest, so North Africa, at this time, is solidly Catholic and extremely prestigious within the Church.
She and Byzantine general Belisarius arranged for Pope St. Silverius to be deposed and replaced by Vigilius. This was illegal and invalid; a pope cannot be deposed by any earthly power except resignation, according to Catholic teaching. For the first several months of Pope Vigilius’s reign, then, he was not actually a pope but an antipope! Silverius is universally recognized today as the sole valid pope from March 537 through 2 December 537. Alas, that was the day Silverius died of starvation in exile on a barren island. (Vigilius appears to be responsible for this inhumanely harsh exile.) Vigilius was then consecrated legitimately and became the true pope.
And some of you people think Pope Francis’s election was invalid just because a few cardinals maybe cut an illegal deal or three to win some extra votes! The Church has had so many worse succession problems than that!
There are conflicting accounts of Pope Vigilius’s first year in Constantinople, but everyone agrees he talked to a bunch of people about the whole Three Chapters issue.
The best-known surviving fragment of the Judicatum reads:
Et quoniam quse Nobis de nomine Theodori Mopsuestini scripta porrecta sunt, multa contraria rectae fidei releguntur, Nos monita Pauli sequentes apostoli dicentis : Omnia probate, quod bonum est retinete, ideoque anathematizamus Theodorum, qui fuit Mopsuestiae episcopus, cum omnibus suis impiis scriptis, et qui vindicant eum. Anathematizamus et impiam epistolam, quae ad Marim Persam scripta esse ab Iba dicitur, tamquam contrariam recta; tidei Christianse, et omnes, qui eani vindicant, vel rectam esse dicunt. Anathematizamus et scripta Theodoreti, quae contra rectam fidem et duodecim Cyrilli capitula scripta sunt.
In English:
And since many things contrary to the true faith are found in the writings presented to us concerning the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia, we, following the admonition of the Apostle Paul, who says: Test everything; hold fast to what is good, therefore anathematize Theodore, who was the bishop of Mopsuestia, along with all his impious writings and those who defend him. We also anathematize the impious letter said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, as being contrary to the true Christian faith, along with all those who defend it or claim it to be correct. We further anathematize the writings of Theodoret, which were written against the true faith and [against] the twelve chapters of Cyril.
(The “twelve chapters of Cyril” were an extremely important document St. Cyril of Alexandria sent to Nestorius in around 430. They were confirmed, elevated, and celebrated by the First Council of Ephesus in 431.)
This set of anathemas could hardly be clearer!
For you infallibilists out there, some notes on infallibility:
The Judicatum was a serious and weighty magisterial document, revealing the considered thoughts of the Pope after long consultation with many bishops on an important matter of faith or morals in high controversy. A Catholic would be a fool to dismiss it.
However, because the Judicatum does not appear to be directed toward “the Universal Church,” even indirectly, it would seem that none of its definitions can be considered infallible. Pastor Aeternus established that papal infallibility reaches only those teachings which the Pope defines “to be held by the Universe Church.”
This is slightly complicated by the fact that sometimes the Pope technically addresses a letter to a given bishop while knowing and desiring that the letter will ultimately be distributed to all the world and will be received as the papal judgment on the question. Such documents can contain infallible teachings, since they are indeed directed to the Universal Church (albeit indirectly).
However, the Judicatum doesn’t seem to be that. It seems instead that Vigilius very much wanted to keep it within Constantinople and the Imperial household, but was undermined by leaks. His swift retraction of the Judicatum after it went wide suggests that he, at least, didn’t view it as a reflection of his infallible judgment. (On the other hand—what is this, the fifth other hand?—Popes can be, and sometimes have been, wrong about whether they have taught something infallibly, so Vigilius’s opinion is not actually dispositive.)
Bottom line, I don’t think the Judicatum was the type of document that is capable of containing infallible teaching, but there are at least colorable arguments on the other side. If it were that type of document, then the anathema I gave would demand further analysis to determine whether it was such a teaching and, if so, what definition of faith the teaching established.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the past several years of my infallibility project, it’s this: infallibility is tricky and tedious and, above all, narrower than you think, even if you already think it’s narrower than people think.
The other surviving passages of the Judicatum are in the Constitution on the Three Chapters, which is the document we’re translating today, so we’ll get to them later, at least assuming we ever get out of this introduction and start the actual document!
Yeah, this is a real thing, not something they made up for Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame. Even the Pope can seek sanctuary! And has!
Papal rejection was the main reason the 449 Robber Council of Ephesus (aka the “latrocinium”) came to be known as the “Robber Council” instead of as the Fourth Ecumenical Council.
Also, the Pope wanted the opening of the council to be delayed for twenty days while he wrote this thing, since, traditionally, the papal judgment was available at the start of the council. Justinian seems to have dismissed this as a delaying tactic and opened the council anyway.
Obviously, all the books would still exist, but they are not self-canonizing. Why is the First Letter to the Thessalonians in the Bible, but not the First Letter of Clement? Why were the Marcionites wrong to exclude the entire Old Testament and most of the New Testament as uninspired? Because the bishops defined it, based on the teaching they had received from the Apostles, which had been handed down to them and guarded, Christians believed, by the Holy Spirit.
The if-by-whiskey argument is named for Mississippi legislator Joshua Sweat’s infamous 1954 speech on repealing the state’s ban on whiskey:
My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:
If, when you say whiskey, you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.
But, if, when you say whiskey, you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.
This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.
Frankly, if Vigilius is guilty of anything in this anathema, it’s gross understatement.
Indeed, much of the West’s indignation over Justinian’s condemnation of the Three Chapters is because they couldn’t read the Acts of Chalcedon. They just caught the general vibe that Justinian was messing with Chalcedon and came to the Council’s defense. Sometimes I think the Great Schism was caused more by the Tower of Babel than by anything that happened after the birth of Christ.
That’s not even all of them. I’m missing one. The Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 mentions that Ibas’s letter was discussed at “six councils,” but I can only count to five.
The Council of Chalcedon certainly restored Ibas, but that does not mean they considered the Letter to Maris a forgery (as Truglia contends), nor that they considered the letter orthodox. They may well have believed Ibas was a heretic when the letter was written in the mid-440s. They voted only that Ibas was not a heretic by 451.
Vigilius quotes “the letter we previously sent to Mennas.” As Karl Hefele showed in his 1895 book, this letter can only be the Judicatum of 548.
Am I allowed to say that about the bishops at an ecumenical council? That they made asses of themselves? Is that banned for Catholics? Much of their behavior parallels that of the Robber Council of Ephesus, and the councils themselves say many things about that council that are a lot nastier than what I said.
In any event, I’m fairly sure it’s the truth, and we worship a God Who Is Truth, so I’m going to risk it. Moralists and canonists, please call me out in the comments if this is detraction/calumny/maltreatment of sacred things.
One of the great images of the early Church is the papal legate Hilarius at the Robber Council. He rose only at the end for what must have looked like a speech, but then he said only one word: “Contradicitur.”
This single word, from the papal legate, annulled the council.
Then Hilarius booked it for the door, escaped the city, and returned to Rome by “a devious route,” because the fathers of the Robber Council were trying to kill him (and did kill another opponent, Flavian).
Emperor Theodosius II nevertheless ratified the Robber Council. The papacy stood firm against it for a year, until the Emperor dropped dead and the orthodox were able to prevail upon the new Emperor, Marcian, to allow a new council—the Council of Chalcedon. Chalcedon confirmed Rome’s condemnation of the Robber Council.
Saint Hilarius was elected pope about a decade after his thrilling escape from the Robber Council, and was canonized a saint shortly after his death, venerated by both Catholics and Orthodox.
The pope also sent a short letter to Patriarch Eutyches, who had run the council, confirming its acts. This letter can be read in English at the end of New Advent’s version of the acts (under the heading “The Decretal Epistle of Pope Vigilius”). It contains some parallel anathemas, but omits much of Vigilius’s reasoning, especially the tortured parts.
The actual language of the anathema is:
If anyone offers a defence for this more heretical Theodore [of Mopsuestia], and his heretical books in which he throws up the aforesaid blasphemies and many other additional blasphemies against our great God and saviour Jesus Christ, and if anyone fails to anathematize him and his heretical books as well as all those who offer acceptance or defence to him, or who allege that his interpretation is correct, or who write on his behalf or on that of his heretical teachings, or who are or have been of the same way of thinking and persist until death in this error: let him be anathema.
When you extract the operative teaching from this, though—the matter of faith and morals Catholics are actually required to believe as a result of this anathema—it turns out to be:
Theodore of Mopsuestia’s heretical writings are heretical.
As my giant spreadsheet of papal definitions notes in a nearby column, “…Theodore’s orthodox writings, presumably, are orthodox.”
Original:
Et ideo eos qui memoratam epistolam ad Marim Persam designatas superius blasphemias continentem a sancta Chalcedonensi synodo a praesenti tempore, innotescente sibi hujus nostri serie constituti, asserere voluerint esse susceptam, vel a quocunque eorumdem Patrum in Chalcedona residentum orthodoxam pronuntiatam nituntur astruere, pari anathematis poena percellimus.
“Susceptam” is the word I have translated as “formally ratified.”
Infallibilists need not examine this dubious argument too closely, since Vigilius’s highly fact-specific inquiry into this specific case is clearly not a matter of universal faith and morals and therefore does not threaten papal infallibility either way. Did the 382 Synod of Rome even have jurisdiction over Theodore? Did Theodore truly claim a duad of sons? Was Theodore even actively preaching in 382? Don’t know. Don’t really care. The dude had been dead for two hundred years and his case had long since passed out of human hands.
However, it still seems relevant to me, if not to Pope Vigilius or council fathers of Constantinople II, that Theodore of Mopsuestia died a respected bishop believed by everyone to be in the bosom of the Church.
Latin students: the online version of Whitaker’s Words at latin-words.com is inferior to the original, command-line software we all used back in The Olden Days. Download it!
This is a doctrinal ruling, because it affirms the actual contents of the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril. It breaks no new ground, though, since Cyril’s chapters were already apparently confirmed at the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and definitely confirmed by Chalcedon in 451.
This paragraph is actually a quote from the Judicatum of 548, which, as we’ve seen, was not directed to the Universal Church, so nothing in it can be taken as infallible.
If that were not the case, we would say that the first sentence of this paragraph (confirming the faith of the four ecumenical councils) might well be infallible. However, the second sentence could not be infallible. Even papal approbation cannot make so elevate ruling of an ecumenical council in a merely disciplinary case.
This is clearly only a disciplinary decree. “Shut up” is not a definition on faith or morals.
Great article. Love the very entertaining and enlightening telling of early church history (more of this please!) (especially the footnotes which continue to be un-skippable).
A few notes:
```
The Council went on to ferociously condemn the Three Chapters, including the posthumous excommunication of Theodore, exactly as Justinian wanted.
```
I assume (assuming this is the original Three Chapters and not Justinian's Three Chapters lol) that the council condemned the Three Chapters and affirmed (not condemned) the posthumous excommunication?
```
- attempted excommunication of a man who’d been for a century;
+ attempted excommunication of a man who’d been **dead** for a century;
```
I am not going to read the actual translated document, due to time (and the warning at the top of the article (which imo should be placed below the history section so people don't mistakenly skip it)), but it does comfort me that if I ever *did* want to read it, it would be there. Thank you for the effort!
James, thankyou so very much for this.
First question - you mention that you highlight that which is defined by Pope Vigilius in bold. However, none of the 'anathemas' in Vigilius' responses to the Theodore's chapters are thus highlighted. Is that because you do not believe that they are definitive, despite the anathemas?
Second question - this is found in Vigilius' response to the 24th chapter: "Therefore, if anyone believes, teaches, or proclaims such things, and does not instead believe that these words are specifically foretold about the Lord our God, Jesus Christ, and that they were fulfilled in him, let him be anathema." However, in the corresponding Latin all I can see is "Qui igitur haec ita credit, sapit, docet aut praedicat, anathema sit."
Could you perhaps elucidate this?
Thanks in advance.