Pagos efectuados sin autorización

On November 19, 430 AD, Emperor Theodosius II dispatched a letter to all metropolitan bishops of the empire summoning them to come to Ephesus at Pentecost the following year in order to settle the doctrinal issues raised in the dispute between Cyril and Nestorius. The letter also bore the name of Valentinian III, the ruler of the Western Empire, giving the summons an ecumenical character. Each metropolitan was allowed a small entourage of suffragans.79

78 _{Theodoret, Ep. 150 in NPNF}2 _{3, 324. The original text reads: “…τὰς αἱρετικὰς καὶ βλασφήµους ῥῆξε} φωνὰς καὶ τὴν πάλαι σβεσθεῖσαν Ἀπολιναρίου ὁµοῦ καὶ δυσσεβῆ διδασκαλίαν ἀνανεώσασθαι…” in: Théodoret de Cyr, Correspondance: Collections Conciliaires, ed. H. de Lubac and J. Daniélou, trans. Y. Azéma, vol. 4, Sources chrétiennes, vol. 429 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1998), 64.

79 _{Mansi IV, 1102; ACO I, 2, 114–16; Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church, 40; Eduard Schwartz,} “Zur Vorgeschichte des ephesinischen Konzils,” Historische Zeitschrift 112 (1914): 258; Stewardson, “The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus According to His Eranistes,” 18.; Peter L’Huillier, The Church of the

Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils (Crestwood, NY: St.

It is important to note that the council was convoked before the controversy between Cyril and the Antiochene party escalated to outright enmity. The convocation was issued a couple of weeks before Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius with the Twelve Anathemas arrived in Constantinople. Its ecumenicity is reflected in the universal eagerness for convocation of such a council.

In hindsight, it is ironic to note that Nestorius requested an assessment of the issue by an ecumenical council which would later bring about his downfall.80 But his request alone does not fully account for the summons, since his opponents in Constantinople expressed the same aspiration. The monks of the capital complained of the ill-treatment they received from Nestorius and they too sought the refuge and protection of an

ecumenical council.81 However, the motivation for the emperor’s intervention should not be sought only in the ecclesiastical affairs surrounding the controversy. Imperial power politics must be taken into account when considering the events that led to the

convocation of the Council of Ephesus.

Theodosius II was a natural ally of Nestorius, since the latter was brought to Constantinople and consecrated bishop of the capital at the insistence of the emperor. Nestorius’s ecclesiastical politics met with little approbation among the people, yet the emperor saw in his pontificate an opportunity for advancing his global ecclesiastical politics. The archbishops of Alexandria had been gaining power and influence in Egypt since the time of Athanasius.82 _{Their power kept growing throughout the fourth century,}

propelled by the cunning diplomacy of Theophilus of Alexandria (Cyril’s uncle). Cyril’s

80 _{Mansi V, 752; also Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church, 28.} 81 _{Evagrius, HE I, 7; Mansi IV, 1102; Ibid., 40.}

82 _{Eusebius of Nicomedia had already complained that “It could be said of the bishop of Alexandria that he} was a rich man and powerful and able to do anything.” (Athanasius, Apol. c. Arian. 9).

tenure as archbishop furthered the enormous accumulated power and prestige of

Alexandria.83 From the outset of his tenure, Cyril entered into conflict with the imperial authorities. He was elected to the see of Alexandria despite the best efforts of

Abudantius, the imperial commander of the garrisons in Egypt, to prevent it. He was also in constant confrontation with the urban prefect Orestes. Cyril’s power rose to such an extent that he even commanded a small private army of parabalani, originally medical personnel but later transformed into bludgeon-wielding personal bodyguards of the archbishop.84 Socrates summarized well the political aspect of Cyril’s pontificate: “Cyril came into possession of the episcopate with greater power than Theophilus had ever exercised. For from that time the bishopric of Alexandria went beyond the limits of its sacerdotal functions and assumed the administration of secular matters.”85 That such extensive power belonged to a recalcitrant archbishop must have been a major

inconvenience for the emperor and the political power structure of the empire. Thus it was natural for Theodosius to support Nestorius’s attempt to reduce the power and influence of the archbishop of Alexandria.

Another reason for Theodosius’ support of Nestorius and the convocation of the Council of Ephesus should be sought in the events of the previous summer. As previously mentioned, the Council of Rome, which met in August 430 AD, condemned the theology of the archbishop of Constantinople. The condemnation was likely a result of the long- standing controversy between Rome and Constantinople caused by the transfer of the axis

83 _{McGuckin rightly noted that with Theophilus and Cyril the see of Alexandria reached its zenith:} McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, 7.

84 _{See Wilhelm Schubart, “Parabalani,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 40 (1954) ; Alexandre}

Philipsborn, “La compagnie d’ambulanciers ‘Parabalani ’ d’Alexandrie,” Byzantion 20, no. 185–90 (1950); McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, 7ff.

85 _{Socrates, HE 7, 7 and 7, 13. See also McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological}

of power from Rome to the New Rome (Constantinople) in 330 AD, and fuelled by the decision of the Council of Constantinople 381 AD to match the prerogatives of the bishops of Rome with those of the bishops of Constantinople. The news of the decisions of the council of Rome must have reached Theodosius, who saw in the convocation of an ecumenical council an opportunity to send a message to Rome that, although the

archbishop of Alexandria might think so, the decisions of Rome were not final and irrevocable.86

The emperor’s motivations for supporting Nestorius and his Oriental supporters are also evident in his decision on the outcome of the Council of Ephesus. The emperor showed great respect for the Antiochene party’s positions, advocated by Theodoret of Cyrrhus. He expressly refused to accept the condemnations of heresy and subsequent depositions that Cyril’s council exacted upon its Oriental opponents.