Consequences of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. General Results of Justinian's Church Policy. The policy of his immediate successors.

Thus the Fifth Ecumenical Council concluded its sessions. The emperor informed about this with a sakra, confirming the decrees of the council. But there were no conversions to the Orthodox Church. On the contrary, the Monophysites mocked the zeal of Justitian. They answered the emperor with the following words: "Willow of Edessa and Theodoret were either good or bad; if they were good, then why were they anathematized, and if they were bad, then the Council of Chalcedon was good, which recognized them as Orthodox." The council did not provide any new polemical weapons for the Orthodox.

The condemnation of the three chapters was adopted in the East without strong protests. Only Alexander of Avila (in Palestine) did not sign the conciliar decrees, for which he was deposed. But the Westerners openly declared that the Fifth Ecumenical Council took place to the detriment and humiliation of the Council of Chalcedon. Rusticus, a Roman deacon, and the African abbot Felix, who had made public a protest against the decrees of the fifth council, were exiled to the Thebaid. Probably, the Western bishops who were in Constantinople who disagreed with the council were exiled. Facundus of Hermia was also to be exiled, but he had gone into hiding even earlier, and had written an epistle to Mocian (ad Mocianum). The clerics of Vigilius were exiled to the mines (or perhaps they were only threatened with this). Vigilius also suffered a bitter fate: he was exiled to prison.

As a result of the persecution, it turned out that the pope [p. 428] agreed to the condemnation of the three chapters. On December 8, 553, the pope wrote an epistle to Eutyches of Constantinople, in which he retracted his opinions. But the Pope's zeal went to the extreme. On February 23, 554, he issued an epistle to the Western bishops in order to convince them that the condemnation of the three chapters was legitimate. Here he declares that Iva's message is not only doubtful, but even false. The Fathers' comments on the Epistle of Willow to Mary refer to another document, not this Epistle. Vigilius manages to say that the enemies attributed a lot of unnecessary things to Iva. Thus, among other things, the words were attributed to him: "I do not envy Christ in the least, for if He became God, then neither am I." When at the Council of Chalcedon Iva this saying of his was pointed out, he replied that he had not heard it even from the demon himself. On these grounds, Vigilius asserts that the very epistle of Iva to Marius Perus is false. With such artificial interpretations, it was not difficult for Vigilius to agree with the decrees of the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Dad achieved his goal. From Rome, which at this time had been taken by Narses, Justinian's general, a deputation came to the emperor to intercede for Vigilius. Vigilius was released, but he was not destined to see Rome again. After sailing on the sea, he stopped in Sicily, sick, suffering from stone disease, and there he died on July 7, 555.

The death of the pope aroused great excitement in Rome. The choice of Vigilius' successor was stormy. Pelagius was chosen. It is noteworthy that there were not enough bishops to consecrate him. The consecration was performed by two bishops and a presbyter. Displeasure with Vigilius passed on to his successor. Pelagius was considered the culprit of Vigilius' death: he was the cause of his sufferings. Wishing to be freed from the accusations, Pelagius in the church on the ambo, holding the Gospel and the cross over his head, pronounced an oath that he was not guilty of the misfortunes and death of Vigilius.

The Roman population somehow reconciled themselves to the fact that Vigilius was succeeded by a person who condemned the three chapters. But it was not easy to persuade the other churches of the West to do so. From the bishops of the West there was an epistle to Justinian, condemning the emperor's conduct. In relation to those who were recalcitrant, the emperor acted with his characteristic policy. In the year 555 the Africans were persecuted, and when, after being exiled from one place to another, the most energetic bishops were removed, in the year 559 the strength of this church was finally broken. Northern Italy turned out to be more stable. In Aquileia in 555, a council was held to protest against the Fifth Ecumenical Council, asserting that those who condemn the three chapters fall into Monophysitism. The bishops in Tuscia refused to commune with the pope as a heretic. Pelagius found it necessary to write to the Frankish king Childebert an exposition of his faith in proof of his Orthodoxy.

In 568, the Longobards invaded Italy. The Aquileian Paulinus was forced to flee to the city of Grado, which was under the rule of the Greeks. In 569, when Milan was taken, Honoratus, bishop of Milan, fled to Genoa, where he died in 570. With him fled to Genoa many of his flock, so that there were as it were two Mediolanums. After the death of Honoratus, the Milanians, who were in Genoa, elected Lawrence as their bishop, and those who lived in Mediolanum elected Fronto. Obviously, Lawrence was elected illegally. To find support, he turned to the bishop of Rome in 571 and entered into an agreement with him (cautio - guarantee). The agreement was peculiar. It said that Lawrence, if demanded, should not swear that he had not anathematized the three chapters. When, after the death of Fronto, he returned to Milan, he was received by the Mediolanian flock.

Despite the fact that Paulinus of Aquileia moved to Grado under the rule of Byzantium, there was no pressure on him. His successor Elias, although persecuted by Smaragdus, the exarch of Ravenna, was left in peace by order of the emperor Maurice and died in 586 in his opposition to the Fifth Ecumenical Council. His successor was Severus. Smaragdus raised a persecution against him, summoned him to Ravenna, and demanded that he enter into communion with Archbishop John of Ravenna, who was in communion with Rome. When he returned to Grado, he was received there with such unfriendly attention that he was forced to renounce communion with John.

Gregory V. (590-604), a practical man, understood that the pacification of the Church and the joining of the opponents of the condemnation of the three chapters could be achieved only by a gradual influence on the rising new generation. Meanwhile, the position of the northern Italian bishops was such that the attitude of Gregory V. towards them was not devoid of the character of ambiguity. When he was in Constantinople, he declared that he recognized the four councils as the four Gospels, and the fifth as equal to them. and the Pope himself thought it quite prudent that Constantine, Bishop of Milan, would not open her eyes. As for the latter, thanks to his frequent intercourse in Rome, there were people who began to suspect him of having anathematized three chapters, and were already ready to depart from their bishop. With great difficulty, Bishop Constantine later managed to dismiss this suspicion.

If this was the case in Mediolanum, how much more difficult was the state of affairs in Aquileia. The population there consisted of two distinct elements: the Longobards and the Byzantines. Upon his accession to the cathedra in 590, Gregory tried to restore communion with the renegade Longobards. On this occasion, two councils were convened by the schismatics. The location of one of them is unknown; but his epistle to the Emperor Maurice has been preserved. The Fathers did not agree to the condemnation of the three chapters and in this case referred to Pope Vigilius, although this reference did not have sufficient grounds, since Pope Vigilius later nevertheless gave his consent to the condemnation of the three chapters. At the same time, the fathers expressed considerable fear that Severus would be inclined to condemn the heads. In the meantime, Severus convened a council in Grado, but the acts of this council have not been preserved.

Be that as it may, Gregory V. did not succeed in restoring communion with the renegades in the eastern half of Italy. He died in 604, and soon, three years later, in 607, Severus went to the grave. His successor was Bishop Candidian. He soon entered into ecclesiastical communion with Rome. But the renegade Longobards did not want to know this, and proclaimed the bishop of Aquileia patriarch. The bishop of the city was also given the title of patriarch. Thus, there were two patriarchs in the small Aquileian region, and the desire for ecclesiastical communion was not realized in practice. And only Bishop Sergius I of Rome (687-701) managed to restore church unity. The main support in this important matter was given to him by the decisions of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. These definitions had such a clear anti-Monophysite character that they themselves; the renegades were ashamed to point out that the Orthodox Church had fallen into monophysitism. And so, around the year 700, a council was convened in Aquileia, and at this council ecclesiastical communion was restored.

Disputes over the Fifth Ecumenical Council were reflected in Gaul and Spain, where, however, it did not come to a complete break with Rome. And what was the attitude in these regions to the Fifth Ecumenical Council is evident from the remark of Isidore of Seville, that "Justinian, in order to please the Acephalians, condemned the three chapters of the Council of Chalcedon." In Spain, on the other hand, the councils of the sixth and seventh centuries mention only four councils, and the fifth is silent.

Thus, the policy of Justinian gave rise to nothing but troubles in the West. It did not give good results in the east either. He might have understood, it seems, that his goal was unattainable, that his efforts were doomed to sterility. In the first years of his reign, he lacked the energy to fully implement Justin's policy towards the Monophysites. We know that Bishop John of Tellus tried to counteract Justinian's intentions towards the Monophysites, to deprive them of their hierarchy; John was captured, and the Monophysites were in great danger. But they managed to find support in the person of one Arab prince Halit bar-Gabal (Ghassan tribe).