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).

In the 16th year of the reign of Justinian (542/3), this prince arrived in Constantinople and began to ask the empress to allow the installation of two or three bishops for the Monophysite Arabs. The Empress graciously accepted this request. It was decided to appoint two bishops. The choice fell on the monks Jacob Bourdeana (Baradei) and Theodore, whose consecration probably took place in 543. bishops who were in the vicinity of Constantinople.

{p. 432}

Theodosius, Patriarch of Alexandria, gave James secret permission to ordain not only presbyters, but also bishops. And so, in the year 543, James, making a tour of his vast province, wanted to consecrate Konon and Eugene as bishops from among the persons devoted to him and to come with them to Constantinople. Theodosius, however, did not dare to ordain them, but advised him to turn to Egypt and there look for bishops for the ordination of the above-mentioned personalities. Indeed, when James arrived in Alexandria, he found them. Conon was made bishop of Tarsus, Eugene of Seleucia. Not content with these, James ordained bishops in other places as well. The most famous of them was John of Ephesus, a missionary who enjoyed the favor of Justinian; he was also the author of the first church history in Syriac. All the efforts of James would not have been complete if he had not made Seria (544) head of the Monophysites, elevating him to the rank of Patriarch of Antioch. True, in the year 547 Sergius died, and his cathedra remained unoccupied for about three years. After consulting with Theodosius of Alexandria, James appointed Paul as the second patriarch of Antioch. Thus, the activity of James was extremely important for the Monophysites. He produced something more than the Monophysites themselves could have expected.

The struggle that had taken place up to that time between the Orthodox and the Monophysites should not be presented as a struggle between the two churches; it was rather a struggle between two theological trends or two philosophical theories. Each side assumed that the incorrect teaching would destroy itself and that there would remain one true catholic church. There was no division of the churches at all. James realized that in order to strengthen the existence of Monophysitism, it was necessary to create a special Monophysite hierarchy, separate from the Orthodox. Previously, it was like this: if the Monophysites managed to get a like-minded person to the patriarchal cathedra, he remained patriarch. The government did not even think of taking any measures to eliminate it. In Alexandria it was so for a long time, until Theodosius was summoned to Constantinople, although the cathedra remained unoccupied. In the same way, in other cities, the Orthodox did not take measures to ensure that an Orthodox would exist next to the bishop of Monophysite. On the other hand, while in Antioch and other places bishops were appointed by the Diphysites, the Monophysites did not recognize them, but considered it a temporary misfortune, without losing hope of surviving it. The policy of Justin and Justinian produced such a result that the Monophysites became convinced that their dreams were unrealizable, and decided to establish their own special hierarchy. This is what James did († 578). He was the true founder of the Monophysite Church. Thus, by the beginning of the reign of Justin II, there was no longer any hope of unification. Justinian's attempt to do this was in vain.

After the death of Theodora, Justinian did not cease relations with the Monophysites and treated Anthimus favorably. In the last year of his reign, he issued an edict that the flesh of Christ was incorruptible from birth. The doctrine of the incorruptibility of the flesh of Christ, which even the moderate Monophysites (Theodosians-Sevirians) considered heresy, the emperor thus wanted to impose on the Orthodox Church as a dogma. But this could not lead to the unity of the Monophysites with the church. There is reason to suspect whether his mental faculties were not damaged by this time. What he was trying to achieve with this edict is rather difficult to decide. The Monophysites at that time were a minority of the Greek population. The edict of the emperor, even if it had been adopted, could first of all have caused confusion in Monophysitism itself; But he did not promise anything to the Orthodox Church.

The bitter fate, of course, first of all affected Archbishop Eutyches of Constantinople. He did not recognize the edict as Orthodox, since he found that, in coming out of it, he must recognize the suffering and death of Christ as illusory. On January 22, 565, Eutyches was arrested for his resistance and almost killed. Then the emperor sent him into exile. It is reported that after this a council was held in Constantinople to condemn Eutyches, in order to give this sentence ecclesiastical sanction. Information about him is found in the biographical records of his disciple Eustratius. The accusations brought against Eutyches were of the most petty and even somewhat comical nature. The most important of these was that Eutyches ate game, which was considered at that time to be a purely sybaritic delicacy (some monastic orders in the West, among other things, differed in that they permitted the eating of game on the grounds that in the rule of Benedict of Nursia it was forbidden to eat the flesh of quadrupeds only); another accusation was that Eutyches prayed to God for a long time on his knees (οτι συκοτόκυλα όρνιθίων εφαγεν, καί ότι πολλάς ώρας γονυκλισίας ποιων ηυχετο). After the council, an embassy was sent to Eutyches from his own clerics. Eutyches asked them directly: "To whom are you sent?" "To the Lord Patriarch, Bishop of Constantinople," they answered. "You are right; although I am in such a position, I still remain a patriarch, and you believe so." After this he by his own authority gave them over to excommunication.

In his place was placed John Scholasticus († August 31, 577). It is difficult to say how John Scholasticus maneuvered, refusing to sign the edict and at the same time preserving the favor of the emperor. Other bishops also refused to sign the edict of the emperor, motivating their indecision by the fact that they wanted to know the opinion of other patriarchs on this dogmatic issue. Anastasius of Antioch spoke out with all resoluteness against the edict and, expecting exile for this, wrote a farewell sermon to his flock; but Justinian died before this new measure (November 14, 565).