Home > Justinian I
6 Relations with Rome
From the middle of the fifth century onward increasingly arduous tasks confronted the emperors of the East in the province of ecclesiastical polity. For one thing, the radicals on all sides felt themselves constantly repelled by the creed which had been adopted by the Council of Chalcedon with the design of mediating between the dogmatic parties. The letter of Pope Leo I to Flavian of Constantinople was widely considered in the East as the work of Satan; so that nobody cared to hear aught of the Church of Rome. The emperors, however, had to wrestle with a twofold problem. In the first place they had a policy of preserving the unity between East and West, between Byzantium and Rome; and this remained possible only if they swerved not from the line defined at Chalcedon. In the next place, the factions in the East which had become stirred up and disaffected on account of Chalcedon needed restraining and pacifying. This problem proved the more difficult because the dissenting groups in the East exceeded the party for Chalcedon in the East both in numerical strength and in intellectual ability; and so the course of events demonstrated the incompatibility of the two aims: whoever chose Rome and the West must renounce the East, and vice versa.
Justinian entered the arena of ecclesiastical statecraft shortly after his uncle's accession in 518, and put an end to the Monophysite schism that had prevailed between Rome and Byzantium since 483. The recognition of the Roman see as the highest ecclesiastical authority (cf. Novellae, cxxxi.) remained the cornerstone of his Western policy, offensive as it was to many in the East -- nonetheless he felt himself entirely free to take a despotic stance toward the popes such as Silverius and Vigilius. His policy towards Rome, though inconsistent at times, bore the mark of greatness. While no compromise could ever be accepted by the dogmatic wing of the church, his sincere efforts at reconcilliation gained him the approval of the major body of the church. A signal proof was his attitude in the Theopaschite controversy. At the outset he was of the opinion that the question turned on a quibble of words. By degrees, however, Justinian came to understand that the formula at issue not only appeared orthodox, but might also serve as a conciliatory measure toward the Monophysites, and he made a vain attempt to do this in the religious conference with the followers of Severus of Antioch, in 533.
Again, Justinian reviewed the same approvingly in the religious edict of March 15, 533 (Cod., L, i. 6), and congratulated himself that Pope John II admitted the orthodoxy of the imperial confession (Cod., I., i. 8). The serious blunder that he had made at the beginning by abetting after Justin's accession a severe persecution of the Monophysite bishops and monks and thereby embittering the population of vast regions and provinces, he remedied eventually. His constant aim now remained to win the Monophysites, yet not to surrender the Chalcedonian faith. For many at court, he did not go far enough: Theodora especially would have rejoiced to see the Monophysites favored unreservedly. Justinian, however, felt restrained in that policy by the complications that would have ensued with the West. Neither, for that matter, could he escape these issues; for instance, the Three-Chapter Controversy (see also Pope Vigilius). In the condemnation of the Three Chapters Justinian tried to satisfy both the East and the West, but succeeded in satisfying neither. Although the pope assented to the condemnation, the West believed that the emperor had acted contrary to the decrees of Chalcedon; and though many delegates emerged in the East subservient to Justinian, yet many, especially the Monophysites, remained unsatisfied. So the emperor squandered his efforts on an impossible task; the more bitter for him because during his last years he took a greater interest in theological matters.
7 Religious Writings
No doubt exists but that Justinian also took an actual, personal hand in the theological manifestoes which he put forth as emperor; although, in view of the author's exalted position, it becomes difficult to ascertain whether the documents current under his name came directly from his own pen. Apart from letters to the Popes Hormisdas, John II, Agapetus I, and Vigilius, and sundry other compositions (collected in MPL, lxiii., lxvi. and lxix.), the following documents may be noted (all to be found in MPG, lxxxvi. 1, pp. 945-1152):
- the edict on Origen's heterodoxies, in 543 or 544;
- summons to the bishops assembled at Constantinople on the occasion of the council of 553, with reference to their sitting in judgment on errors in circulation among the monastic followers of Origen at Jerusalem;
- an edict on the Three Chapters, probably framed in 551;
- an address to the council of 553, concerning the Antiochian theology;
- a document, probably antedating 550, addressed to some unnamed defenders (perhaps Scythians) of the Three Chapters;
- writ of excommunication against Anthimus, Severus and companions;
- an address to some Egyptian monks, with a refutation of Monophysite errors;
- a fragment of a document, mentioned in (7), to the Patriarch Zoilus of Alexandria.
The theology upheld in these writings agreed, in general, with that of Leontius of Byzantium ; in that it aimed at the final solution of the problem by interpreting the Chalcedonian symbol in terms of the theology of Cyril of Alexandria. Two points deserve note in this connection. First, the clever way in which the emperor, or his representative, contrives to defend the reputation and the theology of Cyril; secondly, his antagonism to Origen: a clear sign of the characteristic disinclination of that age for independent thinking; at least among personages of weight and influence.
One should also mention Aphthartodocetism, a doctrine professed by the emperor toward the close of his life. Evagrius reports (Hist. eccl., iv. 39) (and other sources confirm the point) that Justinian promulgated an edict in which he declared Christ's body incorruptible and not susceptible to natural suffering, and commanded bishops everywhere to accept this doctrine. The fall of the Patriarch Eutychius links with this final phase of the imperial policy. The sources saw a lamentable decline from the right faith in Justinian's latter conduct. The train of thought underlying Aphthartodocetism, however, does not necessarily oppose orthodoxy (see Julian of Halicarnassus ); because it need not deny the acceptance of the essential identity of Christ's nature with human nature. Hence one need not regard Justinian's final theological views as those of an old man, nor disregard them in surveying the aims of his full-bodied activity.
