О святом Вселенском пятом соборе

The Holy Ecumenical Fifth Council (also the second of those that took place in Constantinople) took place in 553 under the autocrat Justinian I. The materials of the Council include eight acts in Latin, according to Dositheus (Twelve Books. Book 5, Chapter 16), and in Greek - five, according to the “Synodikon” (vol. 2, p. 261). Fathers numbering 165 gathered for it, among whom shined first Mina, and then his successor Eutyches, the Patriarchs of Constantinople; Vigilius of Rome, who, although he was in Constantinople, was not present at the Council either personally or in the person of legates (the same thing happened at the Second Ecumenical Council), however, subsequently confirmed the Council by issuing a document; Apollinaris of Alexandria, Domnus of Antioch; Didymus and Evagrius, who replaced Eustochius of Jerusalem. The council anathematized the writings of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as Theodore and Diodorus themselves, according to Photius (code 18) 169 and the act of the VII Ecumenical Council. See also in the 1st volume “Chains of Interpreters”, on p. 14, about commentators who, initially thinking in accordance with Nestorian dogmas, left these dogmas in writing even after death (especially the Bishop of Mopsuestia, who, having become the teacher of Nestorius, said that one is God the Word and another is Christ, since Christ suffered from spiritual passions and carnal desires). The cathedral also anathematized the works of St. Theodoret against the twelve chapters of St. Kirill [ 170 ] and the so-called message of Iva, Bishop. Edessa, to Mara the Persian [171], anathematized Origen himself with Didymus and Evagrius and their vile teachings. They blabbered that souls exist before bodies [ 172 ] and after the death of one body pass into another, that torment has an end, that demons should receive the first dignity of angelic grace that they had, that souls should be resurrected naked, without bodies, that heavenly bodies have souls, and other false things. The Council also anathematized Anthem of Trebizond, who thought as wickedly as Eutyches, Sevirus, Peter of Apamea and Zoor [173]. This Council did not set out rules relating to church discipline, but stated only fourteen anathematisms against the mentioned and other heretics and fifteen against the Origenists alone (Synodikon. Vol. 2. p. 341). Phot. Vibl. 18 // PG 103, 57A. Note that Theodoret’s writings against Cyril are anathematized not in general, like the writings of the Bishop of Mopsuestia and the letter of Iva, but in the part where they defend the errors of Nestorius and, through incorrect interpretations, present Cyril as a heretic. Namely, as it turns out from the defensive writings of St. Cyril, Theodoret called the union of God the Word with man relative, and anathematized those who spoke about the union according to hypostasis, since, he argued, such a union is alien to the Divine Scriptures and the divine fathers. The assertion that union according to hypostasis is something unprecedented, and much more by St. Kirill refutes and considers it blasphemy, for to those who approve of all this is anathema. However, the Council did not anathematize the dogma that the Holy Spirit has existence not from the Son and not through the Son (which Theodoret spoke about in the same writings), since this dogma was not Nestorian, but was and remains a dogma of the Catholic Church. Therefore, neither the divine Cyril, nor Pope Celestine, who wrote against Nestorius, nor John of Antioch, nor Acacius of Verria, who spoke well of Nestorius, nor the emperors in their sacra against him said that Nestorius blasphemed the theology of the Holy Spirit, but only the incarnate economy, as we said. I said “so-called” because both Kedrin and Evagrius write about him this way (Synodikon. Vol. 2. pp. 346, 347), and especially because in the 6th act of the VII Ecumenical Council (p. 85) it was said that although this message was signed by Iva, it is not true that he wrote it. Therefore, the fathers of the IV Ecumenical Council did not anathematize Iva himself, but only this letter, since in it the Council of Ephesus was accused of condemning Nestorius without trial, rejecting the 12 chapters of St. Cyril, praised Nestorius, accepted Theodore of Mopsuestia as a saint and Orthodox, and confessed Christ as a simple man. After all, Iva himself admitted at the IV Council that this was not his message, and confessed all Orthodox dogmas that contradict this message (Synodikon. T. 2. pp. 372, 390). Origen called the pre-existence of souls the cause of predestination and condemnation. For if souls in the spiritual world did good, then they became predestined for the Kingdom, and if they did evil, then they were condemned to torment. Jerome writes against this opinion in a letter to Pammachius and Leo in Epistle 93, and Cyril of Alexandria refutes it with 24 arguments. I don’t know on what basis Nikolai Voulgaris in the “Holy Catechism” (p. 133) says that the V Ecumenical Council anathematized Peter Gnafevs, who said “Holy Immortal, crucified for us.” In fact, he was anathematized not by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, but long before that, at the Council convened against him in Rome under Felix of Rome, Acacius of Constantinople and Emperor Zeno.