Глава V. У истоков великого церковного раскола, или разногласия «между самими правоверными»

Intra-church struggle in Christianity in the 4th century. occurred not only along the heretics-orthodox line. Just as there was no single “heretical camp” (each of the heresies was in opposition to both the orthodox and other heretical movements), so there was no unity between the orthodox (or Nicene, or true believers, or Catholics). Disagreements resulted in a variety of forms of rivalry and took on different scales. But the largest-scale religious and political rivalry between the orthodox was the struggle between Rome and Constantinople (or, more precisely, east and west), seeking to extend their influence to entire regions of the Roman world and claiming to be the arbiters of religious policy throughout the Roman Empire. The divergence of Western and Eastern Christianity was initially predetermined by different historical conditions for the development of ancient civilization. Political events of the 4th century. accelerated this process, the main milestones of which were the founding of a new eastern capital by Constantine (330) and the final division of the Roman Empire into Western and Eastern after the death of Theodosius (395). We have at our disposal interesting sources that allow us to shed light on the relations between the Western and Eastern churches in the last quarter of the 4th century. and look into the very origins of the great church schism - the division of the Christian church into Orthodox and Catholic in 1054. One of the main characters, as in many other events of the late 4th century, is Ambrose of Milan. During the dogmatic battles of the mid-IV century. relations between the Eastern and Western churches were virtually severed. Attempts to restore church peace throughout the Roman Empire were energetically undertaken in the 70s by Basil the Great, through whose efforts in 379 communication between east and west was restored for some time. The fact that the initiative in this belonged to the East was caused by the endless discord that tore apart the Eastern churches, while the West showed relative church unity. However, Rome treated the East's pleas for help calmly and indifferently, which prompted direct reproaches from Basil, who died without seeing church unity. The indifference of the Roman Church can be explained by the fact that, making a claim to indisputable priority in church affairs, Rome was not so much unwilling as it was powerless to do anything to restore order in the east. In those conditions, Rome had no choice but to take the position of an outside observer, however, assuming the appearance of the arbiter of the destinies of church politics throughout the empire. Nevertheless, the Eastern churches still managed to prove their viability and independence. Although much of the credit for this belongs not only to the church hierarchs, but to Emperor Theodosius, who came out with an active pro-Christian policy and personally made efforts to restore order in the Eastern churches. Moreover, Theodosius wanted to end the differences in them not through the West, but, in the words of N. F. Chernyavsky, “through the Orthodox power of the East.” As already mentioned, the Council of Constantinople, convened by Theodosius in 381, was exclusively eastern in its composition. Now the east ignored the west, and the main reason for this was the desire of the eastern churches for independence and independence from Rome. Despite the disagreements and polemics, the council still achieved a certain unity in the Eastern churches. Western bishops felt insulted that they were not invited to the Council of Constantinople. It is noteworthy that the Roman Church recognized the ecumenical character of this council only in 530, although this status was assigned to it back in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, and even that recognition was limited only to the creed and did not extend to the canons of the council. The Eastern churches' bid for independence has caused serious concern in the West, and the Western ones, led by Ambrose, are taking measures to preserve their shaky authority. The relationship between the Western and Eastern churches during this period is clearly illustrated by one of the letters of the Council of Aquileia and two letters from Western bishops to Emperor Theodosius. Researchers attribute the composition of all these letters to Ambrose of Milan, and they are traditionally included in collections of his letters. The first of them is addressed to the emperors Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodosius on behalf of the participants in the Council of Aquileia. From this letter it is clear that its authors still know nothing about the Council of Constantinople, and more than half of it is devoted to disagreements “between the faithful themselves” (Ambrose. Letter 12, 4). The main problem raised in this letter is the question of church community with Bishop Timothy of the Alexandrian Church and Bishop Paulinus of the Antiochian Church. Both were in ecclesiastical communion with Western bishops, but were condemned by orthodox Eastern bishops. Timothy was accused of the heresy of Apollinaris and removed from his post by the Bishop of Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus. Peacock was Meletius's rival for the Antiochian episcopal throne and was recognized as a schismatic, although Gregory of Nazianzus did not object to him becoming the head of the Antiochian church after the death of Meletius. There was even a special agreement on this score, but after the death of Meletius, the eastern bishops elected Flavian, the head of the “Meletian faction,” to the See of Antioch. In their message, the participants of the Council of Aquileia, led by Ambrose, persistently ask the emperors to convene a council of all Orthodox priests of Alexandria in order to discuss this issue of church communion. They motivate their appeal to the emperors for help by the fact that enemy invasion and the breakdown of the state are an obstacle to sending their representatives as mediators in order to restore peace. Outwardly, the request of Western bishops to the emperors looks very decent and can be interpreted as a real desire for peace in the church. However, Ambrose and other Western bishops hide their true goal behind beautiful phrases - a claim to the priority of the West over the East in resolving church issues. According to V.V. Bolotov, Western bishops “had the weakness to behave with proconsular importance in relation to the East,” and this attitude appeared more clearly in the next message addressed directly to Emperor Theodosius. This letter was written on behalf of Ambrose and other bishops of Italy (without listing names) shortly after the previous letter, when the death of Meletius and the elections of Flavian and Nektarios had already become known in the West. Whether a special council was convened on this occasion in the West (in literature it is sometimes called the Italic, Mediolan or Ambrose), or whether the letter was written by Ambrose with the prior consent of other bishops is unknown. The letter begins with a statement of the fact that “it was easier for the church to expel heretics than to find agreement among the faithful” (Ambrose. Letter 13, 1). Western bishops complain that the eastern ones acted contrary to their opinion, stated in the previous letter: in the place of the deceased Meletius, it was not Peacock, as agreed, but someone else who was chosen. The letter also condemns the election of Nektarios to the post of head of the Church of Constantinople, although the latter’s election was often compared with the election of Ambrose himself, since Nektarios also came from a noble family, was not baptized and was elected on the direct orders of Emperor Theodosius. Further in the letter, the Westerners, led by Ambrose, stand up for a certain Maximus, bishop of the Alexandrian Church, who was deprived of communication with the Eastern churches for fraud and deception, but managed to win the trust of the Western bishops by providing them at some council, probably Aquileia, with forged letters from the deceased Bishop of Alexandria Peter. With their letter, the Western bishops are trying to put pressure on Theodosius so that he contributes to the adoption of measures pleasing to the West “for the benefit of general peace and harmony” (Ambrose. Letter 13, 4). Westerners call their council (obviously Aquileia) general and speak of the Council of Constantinople as a meeting of those who rejected this general council. At the same time, a significant remark is made in which church historiography sees one of the oldest indications of the priority of Rome in church matters: the Council of Constantinople was not proclaimed in a legal manner and according to the custom of their ancestors, since the bishops of the east did not turn “for judgment to the churches of Rome, Italy and the entire west” (Ambrose. Letter 13, 4). Westerners demand that the issue of church communion be brought to a general verdict and propose to hold an ecumenical council (“of us and the easterners”) in Rome for this purpose, while at the same time offering an alternative, and, in fact, a strict demand: to return the previously appointed bishops to their posts, meaning Paulinus and Maximus. Thus, this letter as a whole expresses the complete opposition of the West to the Council of Constantinople and its decisions, as well as the West’s claim to priority over the East in church affairs. And at the end of the letter, the political connotation of the Western bishops’ appeal to Theodosius emerges: they directly say that they wrote it at the prompting of Gratian. Probably, in this, Ambrose and other Western bishops tried to find political support for the implementation of their plans: relying on the authority of the emperor who appointed Theodosius, to ensure that their intentions were carried out “from above,” that is, through political, and not through church channels. However, Theodosius in no way considered himself obliged to follow the lead of the Western bishops. The subordinate position of the eastern churches to the western ones at that time meant a diminishment of the power of Theodosius as emperor, and even a certain political subordination of the east to the west, given the role that the Christian church began to play by the end of the 4th century. in the Roman Empire. And Theodosius rightly judged that by elevating and strengthening the church in his half of the empire, he thereby strengthened his own position. The eastern emperor's response to the western bishops has not survived, but it can be judged from the following letter from Ambrose and others to Theodosius (letter 14). The general tone of this letter leaves no doubt that Theodosius in a very harsh manner tried to put the Western bishops in their place, called on them to mind their own affairs and reproached them for their pretentiousness in communicating with the East. Responding to Theodosius, the Westerners again return to the same questions, but the tone of their letter is completely different: they are trying to justify themselves and rehabilitate their position. The letter begins with flattering praises of the faith of the Eastern emperor and an explanation of the motives for writing the previous letter. Westerners are careful not to name any names of Eastern bishops and express regret that they are accused (probably by Theodosius himself) of neglecting friendship with the Easterners. Further, the Westerners take credit for the victory over Arianism in their half of the empire and ensuring peace and security in it (which the Easterners could not boast of) and advocate for the removal of worries from the entire church, but again they bypass the question of the appointment of the persons mentioned in the previous letter, since, judging by the context, Theodosius has already given his explanation on this matter. Finally, after explaining their request to convene a council and assuring that this message was aimed at nothing more or less than to win the favor of the emperor, the Westerners tried to convince Theodosius that they had not made a preliminary decision on the issue and that they did not consider themselves worthy of blame. Despite the general “apologetic” tone of the letter and the “due respect” for the authority of Theodosius, the Westerners still remain in their positions. True, this time they agree to change only the location of the new ecumenical council, based on security considerations. According to F. Dudden, in relations with the Eastern Church Ambrose “failed to show his usual insight as a statesman.” And no matter how hard the Western bishops, led by Ambrose, tried to demonstrate their zeal for church peace, in fact their ambitions and claims to priority turned out to be higher than this. It is significant that the Bishop of Milan behaves exactly like a politician in this church matter. His political calculation is already clear from the fact that all these letters were addressed not to the eastern churches and their leaders, but directly to the emperors. Here there is an attempt to resolve internal church issues with the help of secular authorities. It should be noted that this episode can rarely be found in the lives of Ambrose and in historiography, for the actions of the outstanding bishop were indeed, as the same F. Dudden put it, “unreasonable.” However, they can be recognized as such only from the point of view of the church world. On the contrary, the intervention of Ambrose and other Westerners in the internal affairs of the Eastern Church seems quite logical and calculated from a political and papist point of view. Although, it must be admitted that Ambrose’s calculations and his bet on Theodosius turned out to be truly unsuccessful. The relationship between church and state in the east developed completely differently than in the west. And Theodosius was a sufficiently insightful statesman to understand what lay behind the Western “zeal” for peace in the church. There was apparently no response from Theodosius to the last letter from the Westerners. The emperor left this matter to the eastern bishops, who in the summer of 382 again gathered in Constantinople for a council with the aim of giving an answer to the western ones, as reported by Theodoret, who preserved the letter of this council to Damasus, Ambrose, Ascholius, Valerian and other bishops of the west. In this letter, the eastern bishops talk about the impossibility of their trip to the Roman Council, explaining that they cannot leave their churches that have just begun to be renewed. At the same time, the council sent its delegates to Rome and, as the letter says, through them announced its peaceful intentions and zeal for the faith. However, along with peaceful intentions, the Council of Constantinople firmly declared the recognition of Nektarios, Flavian and Cyril of Jerusalem and just as firmly asked the West to communicate with them (Theodoret. Church History. V, 9). In the same summer of 382, ​​a council of Westerners took place in Rome, although it was attended by representatives of the East: Jerome (in the recent past himself a Westerner), Epiphanius of Salamis, Paulinus from Antioch and delegates of the Council of Constantinople - Bishops Cyriacus, Eusebius and Priscion. The course of the council was formally led by the Roman Bishop Damasus, but the main role was played by Ambrose, who was also the author of the main documents of the council. Ambrose was undoubtedly a more striking and significant figure than Damasus, but judging by his works, the Bishop of Milan gave due importance to the Roman see and recognized the priority of Rome in terms of religious doctrine. Contrary to the decision and letter of the East, the Roman Council did not change the previous position of the West (probably thanks to the persistence of Ambrose): Paulinus was accepted as Bishop of Antiochus, and Diodorus of Tarsus and Acacius of Beroi, who ordained Flavian, were deprived of church communion with the West. In contrast to the 3rd canon of the Council of Constantinople in 381, which assigned Constantinople the second place in the church world after Rome, Damasus proclaimed that the Roman Church did not depend on the decisions of this eastern council and that Rome gave the second place to Alexandria, and the third to Antioch. Thus, the West stubbornly stood its ground and did not want to take into account the opinion of the Eastern churches, which, in turn, were aware of their power and did not want to submit to the decisions of Rome. For ten years, east and west maintained the status quo in their relations, but in 392 the question of the Antiochian ecclesiastical throne arose again. Before his death, Paulinus, who never managed to remove Flavian from his post as Bishop of Antioch, chose his own follower - Evagrius, and did this in violation of church canons - single-handedly. Flavian still enjoyed the favor of the eastern bishops and the emperor himself. In this situation, the Westerners did not find anything better than to support Evagrius. A council was even convened in Capua, at which it was decided to test the faith of Evagrius and Flavian. However, Flavian did not appear in Capua, citing illness, and turned for help to Emperor Theodosius, who simply annulled the work of the Capua Council. Knowing the firm position of Theodosius, Ambrose this time tried to act through church channels. He writes a letter to Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria (the Western churches at that time maintained communication with the Egyptian churches). In this letter, the Bishop of Milan complains about the difficulties of convening a new council, condemns Flavian for his failure to appear and does not bypass the reproach of Evagrius, who reviled Flavian and “defended himself by his vices, and not by his virtues” (Ambrose. Letter, 56, 5). Ambrose asks Theophilus and the other priests of Egypt to summon Flavian again. He says nothing about the purpose of this challenge, but refers to a letter from Theophilus himself, in which the Bishop of Alexandria wrote that an appropriate means could be found by which Flavian's disagreement would be eliminated. If the latter persists and fails to appear, Ambrose recommends Theophilus to act in such a way “so that it does not seem that we are destroying what has been built” (Ambrose. Letter 56, 6), and also advises turning to the bishop of the Roman church. The editors of Ambrose's letters usually draw attention here to how ancient was the basis for turning to the court of the Roman pontificate, but Ambrose in this place says nothing that Rome's decision on this issue can be the only correct and indisputable one, and only indicates that the approval of the Roman Church would be pleasant for him. As can be seen from this letter, Ambrose no longer proposes any decisive measures and does not try very hard to impose an opinion on everyone. The futility of trying to get into someone else's monastery with his own charter became obvious, but he could no longer retreat from his previous position. And the firmness of Theodosius did not leave Ambrose the hope that the east would submit to the dictates of the west. Having failed in his attempt to restore “order” in the east by political means, the Bishop of Milan tried to involve the Egyptian Church in his politics, but this feeble attempt was also unsuccessful. As Theodorit writes, Theodosius was again forced to intervene in the dispute, who convinced the Western bishops to eliminate hostility and accept Flavian's ambassadors. However, reconciliation between Western and Eastern on this issue took place after the death of Ambrose, when Pope Innocent was at the head of the Roman Church (Theodoret. Ecclesiastical History V, 23). Thus, the struggle between the Eastern and Western churches was waged at the end of the 4th century. mainly by political methods, and the imperial power was drawn into the orbit of this struggle. This struggle did not touch upon dogmatic issues at all; it was waged within the framework of orthodox Christianity, and its goal was to achieve priority in the church world. Even then, the impossibility of creating a single church body in the conditions of the growing political split of the Roman Empire became obvious. The seeds of discord, sown in the 4th century, fell on fertile soil and bore abundant fruit. Claims to priority in church affairs from both Rome and Constantinople turned out to be quite strong, and each new truce between the churches of the East and West remained only a truce. The political events of the early Middle Ages steadily led Christianity to a great schism, the inevitability of which was already so clearly felt during the religious and political demarches of the end of the 4th century.