CANONS of the COUNCIL of TRULLO
religious Vigilius happened to be present in this imperial city and took part in
all the criticisms against the three chapters. He had frequently condemned them
by word of mouth and in his writings. Later he gave a written agreement to take
part in our council and to study with us the three chapters so that we could all
issue an appropriate definition of the true faith.
The most pious emperor,
prompted by what was acceptable to us, encouraged a meeting between Vigilius and
ourselves because it is proper that the priesthood should impose a common
conclusion to matters of common concern. Consequently we asked his reverence to
carry out his written undertakings. It did not seem right that the scandal over
these three chapters should continue and that the church of God should be
further disturbed. In order to persuade him, we reminded him of the great
example left us by the apostles and of the traditions of the fathers. Even
though the grace of the holy Spirit was abundant in each of the apostles, so
that none of them required the advice of another in order to do his work,
nevertheless they were loathe to come to a decision on the issue of the
circumcision of gentiles until they had met together to test their various
opinions against the witness of the holy scriptures.
In this way
they unanimously reached the conclusion which they wrote to the gentiles: It has
seemed good to the holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than
these necessary things; that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols
and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.
fathers, who have gathered at intervals in the four holy councils, have followed
the examples of antiquity. They dealt with heresies and current problems by
debate in common, since it was established as certain that when the disputed
question is set out by each side in communal discussions, the light of truth
drives out the shadows of lying.
The truth cannot be made clear in any other way when there are debates about questions of faith, since everyone requires the assistance of his neighbour. As Solomon says in his proverbs: A brother who helps a brother shall be exalted like a strong city; he shall be as strong as a well-established kingdom. Again in Ecclesiastes he says: Two are better than one, for they have a good reward for their toil. And the Lord himself says: Amen I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Vigilius was frequently invited by us all, and most distinguished judges were sent to him by the most pious emperor. Eventually he promised to give judgment personally on the three chapters. When we heard this promise, we remembered the warning of the Apostle that each of us shall give an account of himself to God. We were afraid of the condemnation which threatens those who scandalize one of the least important, and of the much more serious one which threatens those who scandalize so very christian an emperor, the people and all the churches.
We also remembered what was said by God to Paul: Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not be silent; for I am with you, and nobody shall be able to harm you. When we met together, therefore, we first of all briefly made a confession of the faith which our lord Jesus Christ true God, handed down to his holy apostles and by means of them to the holy churches, the same faith which those who afterwards were holy fathers and doctors handed down to the people entrusted to them.
We confessed that we believe, protect and preach to the holy churches that confession of faith which was set out at greater length by the 318 holy fathers who met in council at Nicaea and handed down the holy doctrine or creed. The 150 who met in council at Constantinople also set out the same faith and made a confession of it and explained it. The 200 holy fathers who met in the first council of Ephesus agreed to the same faith. We follow also the definitions of the 630 who met in council at Chalcedon, regarding the same faith which they both followed and preached. We confessed that we held to be condemned and anathematized all those who had been previously condemned and anathematized by the catholic church and by the aforesaid four councils. When we had made this confession in this way, we made a start on the examination of the three chapters.
First, we considered Theodore of Mopsuestia. When all the blasphemies
in his works were exposed, we were astonished at God’s patience, that the
tongue and mind which had formed such blasphemies were not straightaway burned
up by divine fire. We would not even have allowed the official reader of these
blasphemies to continue, such was our fear of the anger of God at even a
rehearsal of them (since each blasphemy was worse than the one before in the
extent of its heresy and shook to their foundation the minds of their
listeners), if it had not been the case that those who revelled in these
blasphemies seemed to us to require the humiliation which their exposure would
bring upon them. All of us, angered by the blasphemies against God, burst into
attacks and anathemas against Theodore, during and after the reading, as if he
had been living and present there. We said: Lord, be favourable to us; not even
the demons themselves have dared to speak such things against you.
intolerable tongue! O the wickedness of the man ! O the proud hand he raised
against his creator! This disgraceful man, who had made a promise to understand
the scriptures, did not remember the words of the prophet Hosea: Woe to them,
for they have strayed from me! They have become notorious because of their
impiety towards me. They spoke evil things about me, and after they had
considered them, they spoke even worse things against me. They will fall into a
trap because of the depravity of their tongues. Their contempt will be turned
inwards on themselves, because they have broken my covenant and acted impiously
against my law. The impious Theodore deserves to come under these curses. He
dismissed the prophecies about Christ and he vilified, as far as he could, the
great mystery of the arrangements that have been made for our salvation. In many
ways he tried to demonstrate that the divine word was nothing but fables
composed for the amusement of the gentiles. He ridiculed the other condemnations
of the impious made by the prophets, especially the one in which holy Habakkuk
says of those who teach false doctrines: Woe to him who makes his neighbours
drink of the cup of his wrath, and makes them drunk, to gaze on their caverns.
This refers to their teachings which are full of darkness and quite separate
from the light.
Why ought we
to add anything more? Anyone who wishes can consult the volumes of the heretical
Theodore or the heretical chapters from his heretical books which have been
included in our acts. Anyone can see his unbelievable folly and the disgraceful
utterances made by him. We fear to continue and to rehearse again those shameful
things. The writings of the holy fathers against him were also read out to us.
We heard what had been written against his folly which was more than all the
other heretics, and the historical records and imperial laws which set out his
heresy from its beginning. Despite all this, those who defended his heresy,
delighting in the insults offered by him to his creator, declared that it was
improper to anathematize him after his death. Although we were aware of the
ecclesiastical tradition concerning heretics, that they are anathematized even
after death, we deemed it necessary to go into this matter as well and it can be
found in the acts how several heretics were anathematized after they were dead.
In many ways it has become clear to us that those who put forward this argument
have no concern for God’s judgments, nor for the pronouncements of the
apostles, nor for the traditions of the fathers. We would willingly question
them concerning what they would say about the Lord, who said of himself: He who
believes in him is not condemned, he who does not believe in him is condemned
already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of
God. And about that claim of the Apostle: Even if we, or an angel from heaven,
should preach to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, let him be
accursed. As we said earlier, I repeat once more: If anyone preaches to you a
gospel contrary to what you have received, let him be accursed.
Lord declares that the person is judged already, and the Apostle curses even the
angels if they instruct in anything different from what we have preached, how is
it possible even for the most presumptuous to assert that these condemnations
apply only to those who are still alive? Are they unaware, or rather pretending
to be unaware, that to be judged anathematized is just the same as to be
separated from God? The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally
by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off
from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the
Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him
once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is
perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.
It was in the spirit of this text that Cyril of holy memory, in the books which he wrote against Theodore, declared as follows: “Whether or not they are alive, we ought to keep clear of those who are in the grip of such dreadful errors. It is necessary always to avoid what is harmful, and not to be worried about public opinion but rather to consider what is pleasing to God”. The same Cyril of holy memory, writing to bishop John of Antioch and to the synod which met there about Theodore who was condemned with Nestorius, says, “It was necessary that a brilliant festival should be kept since all those who had expressed opinions in accordance with Nestorius had been rejected, whoever they were. Action was taken against all those who believed, or had at any time believed, in these mistaken views. This is exactly what we and your holiness pronounced: ‘We anathematize those who assert that there exist two sons and two Christs. He who is preached by you and us is, as was said, the single Christ, both Son and Lord, the only-begotten as man, as learned Paul says’“. Moreover in his letter to the priests and fathers of monks, Alexander, Martinian, John, Paregorious and Maximus, and to those who were living as solitaries along with them, he says: “The holy synod of Ephesus, meeting in accordance with the will of God, has pronounced sentence against the heresy of Nestorius and has condemned according to justice and with accuracy both Nestorius himself and all those who might later, in inane fashion, adopt the same opinions as he held, and those who had previously adhered to the same opinions and who were bold enough to put them in writing, placing upon them all an equal condemnation.
It was quite logical that when a condemnation was issued against one person for such stupidity in what he said, then that condemnation should apply not only to that person alone but also, so to speak, against all those who spread the heresies and untruths. They express these falsehoods against the true dogmas of the church, offering worship to two sons, trying to divide what cannot be divided, and introducing to both heaven and earth the offence of the worship of man. But the sacred band of heavenly spirits worship along with us only one lord Jesus Christ”.
Moreover, several letters of Augustine of sacred memory, who was particularly outstanding among the African bishops, were read in which he indicates that it is correct to condemn heretics even after their death. Other most reverend bishops of Africa have also observed this church custom; moreover the holy church of Rome has issued anathemas against certain bishops even after they were dead, although they had not been accused on matters of faith while they were alive; the acts of our deliberations bear witness to both these cases. Since the followers of Theodore and his heresy, who are plainly opposed to the truth, have tried to adduce some sections of the writings of Cyril and Proclus of holy memory, as though these were in favour of Theodore, it is appropriate to apply to these attempts the observation of the prophet when he writes: The ways of the Lord are right, and the upright walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them.
These followers have willfully misunderstood what the holy fathers wrote, even though it was true and appropriate; they have quoted these writings, dissembling excuses for their own iniquities. It seems that the fathers did not lift the anathema against Theodore but rather used the language of concession in order to lead away from their mistake those who offered some defence of Nestorius and his heresy; their aim was to lead them to perfection and to instruct them that not only was Nestorius, the disciple of heresy, condemned but also his teacher Theodore. The fathers indicate their intention in this matter despite the conciliatory forms used: Theodore was to be anathematized. This has been very clearly shown to be the case by us in our acts from the works of Cyril and Proclus of blessed memory in respect of the condemnation of Theodore and his heresy. This conciliatory attitude is also to be found in the holy scriptures. The apostle Paul employed this tactic at the start of his ministry when he was dealing with those who had been Jews; he circumcised Timothy so that by this conciliation and concession he might lead them to perfection. Afterwards, however, he ruled against circumcision, writing on the subject to the Galatians: Now I Paul say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
We found that the defenders of Theodore have done exactly what
the heretics were accustomed to do. They have tried to lift the anathema on the
said heretical Theodore by omitting some of the things which the holy fathers
had written, by including certain confusing falsehoods of their own, and by
quoting a letter of Cyril of blessed memory, as if all this were the evidence of
the fathers. The passages which they quoted made the truth absolutely clear once
the omitted sections were put back in their proper place. The falsehoods were
quite apparent when the true writings were collated. In this matter those who
issued these empty statements are those who, in the words of scripture, rely on
lies, they make empty pleas; they conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity,
they weave the spider’s web.
After we had
investigated in this way Theodore and his heresy, we took the trouble to quote
and include in our acts a few of Theodoret’s heretical writings against true
faith, against the twelve chapters of holy Cyril and against the first synod of
Ephesus. We also included some of Theodoret’s writings on the side of the
heretical Theodore and Nestorius so that it would be made clear, to the
satisfaction of anyone reading our acts, that these opinions had been properly
rejected and anathematized.
Thirdly, the letter which is alleged to have been written by Ibas to Mari the Persian was brought under scrutiny and we discovered that it too ought to be officially read out. When the letter was read out, its heretical character was immediately apparent to everyone. Until this time there had been some dispute as to whether the aforesaid three chapters ought to be condemned and anathematized. Since the supporters of the heretics Theodore and Nestorius were conspiring to strengthen in another way the case of these men and their heresy, and were alleging that this heretical letter, which approves and defends Theodore and Nestorius, had been accepted by the holy council of Chalcedon, it was therefore necessary for us to demonstrate that that holy synod was unaffected by the heresy which is present in that letter, and that clearly those who make such allegations are doing so not with the assistance of the holy council but so as to give some support to their own heresy by associating it with the name of Chalcedon.
It was demonstrated in our acts that Ibas was previously accused of the same heresy which is contained in this letter. This accusation was levelled first by Proclus of holy memory, bishop of Constantinople, and afterwards by Theodosius of blessed memory and Flavian, the bishop there after Proclus, both of whom gave the task of examining the whole matter to Photius, bishop of Tyre, and to Eustathius, bishop of the city of Beirut. When Ibas was later found to be blameworthy, he was deposed from the episcopate. This being the state of affairs, how could anyone be so bold as to allege that that heretical letter was accepted by the holy council of Chalcedon or that the holy council of Chalcedon agreed with it in its entirety? So as to prevent those who misrepresent the holy council of Chalcedon in this way from having any further opportunity to do so we instructed that there should be a formal reading of the official pronouncements of the holy synods, namely the first of Ephesus and that of Chalcedon, on the subject of the letters of Cyril of holy memory and of Leo of blessed memory, formerly pope of older Rome.
We gathered from these authorities that nothing which has been written by anyone ought to be accepted unless it has been shown conclusively that it is in accord with the true faith of the holy fathers. Therefore we broke off from our deliberations so as to reiterate in a formal declaration the definition of faith which was promulgated by the holy council of Chalcedon. We compared what was written in the letter with this official statement. When this comparison was made, it was quite apparent that the contents of the letter were quite contradictory to those of the definition of faith. The definition was in accord with the unique, permanent faith set out by the 318 holy fathers, and by the 150, and by those who gathered for the first council at Ephesus. The heretical letter, on the other hand, included the blasphemies of the heretical Theodore and Nestorius and even gave support to them and describes them as doctors, while it condemns the holy fathers as heretics.
We make it quite clear to everyone that we do not intend to omit what
the fathers had to say in the first and second investigations, which are adduced
by the supporters of Theodore and Nestorius in support of their case. Rather
these statements and all the others were formally read out and what they
contained was submitted to official scrutiny, and we found that they had not
allowed the said Ibas to be accepted until they had obliged him to anathematize
Nestorius and his heretical doctrines which were affirmed in that letter. This
was the view not only of the two bishops whose interventions some have tried to
misapply but also of the other religious bishops of that holy council. They also
acted thus in the case of Theodoret and insisted that he anathematize those
opinions about which he was accused. If they would permit the acceptance of Ibas
only if he condemned the heresy which was to be found in his letter, and on
condition that he subscribed to a definition of faith set out by the council,
how can an attempt be made to allege that this heretical letter was accepted by
the same holy council? We are rightly told: What partnership has righteousness
with iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has
Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What
participation has the temple of God with idols?
Now that we have given the details of what our council has achieved, we repeat our formal confession that we accept the four holy synods, that is, of Nicaea, of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and of Chalcedon. Our teaching is and has been all that they have defined concerning the one faith. We consider those who do not respect these things as foreign to the catholic church. Furthermore, we condemn and anathematize, along with all other heretics who have been condemned and anathematized by the same four holy councils and by the holy, catholic and apostolic church, Theodore, formerly bishop of Mopsuestia, and his heretical writings, and also what Theodoret heretically wrote against the true faith, against the twelve chapters of holy Cyril and against the first synod of Ephesus, and we condemn also what he wrote defending Theodore and Nestorius.
Additionally, we anathematize the heretical letter which Ibas is alleged to have
written to Mari the Persian. This letter denies that God the Word was made
incarnate of the ever virgin Mary, the holy mother of God, and that he was made
man. It also condemns as a heretic Cyril of holy memory, who taught the truth,
and suggests that he held the same opinions as Apollinarius. The letter condemns
the first synod of Ephesus for deposing Nestorius without proper process and
investigation. It calls the twelve chapters of holy Cyril heretical and contrary
to the orthodox faith, while it supports Theodore and Nestorius and their
heretical teachings and writings. Consequently we anathematize the aforesaid
three chapters, that is, the heretical Theodore of Mopsuestia along with his
detestable writings, and the heretical writings of Theodoret, and the heretical
letter which Ibas is alleged to have written. We anathematize the supporters of
these works and those who write or have written in defence of them, or who are
bold enough to claim that they are orthodox, or who have defended or tried to
defend their heresy in the names of holy fathers or of the holy council of
having been treated with thorough-going exactness, we bear in mind what was
promised about the holy church and him who said that the gates of hell will not
prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of
heretics); we also bear in mind what was prophesied about the church by Hosea
when he said, I shall betroth you to me in faithfulness and you shall know the
Lord; and we count along with the devil, the father of lies, the uncontrolled
tongues of heretics and their heretical writings, together with the heretics
themselves who have persisted in their heresy even to death. So we declare to
them: Behold all you who kindle a fire, who set brands alight! Walk by the light
of your fire, and by the brands which you have kindled! Since we are under
command to encourage the people with orthodox teaching and to speak to the heart
of Jerusalem, that is the church of God, we very properly hurry to sow in
righteousness and to reap the fruit of life. In doing this we are lighting for
ourselves the lamp of knowledge from the scriptures and the teachings of the
fathers. It has therefore seemed necessary to us to sum up in certain statements
both our declarations of the truth and our condemnations of heretics and their
ANATHEMAS AGAINST THE “THREE CHAPTERS”
Edictum rectae fidiei, Drei dogmatische Schriften Iustinians,(Giuffre,Milan,1973) pp. 130-168 ser Legum Iustiniani imperatoris vocabularium. Subsidia 2, ed. Amelotti, M. Albertella, R. Migliardi, L.
This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 1990