An Unpublished Letter of St Theodore the Studite

Joseph Gill, S.J. (+1989)

Former Professor of Byzantine Greek Language and of Byzantine History, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome

 

R. Devreesse in the catalogue of the Greek manuscripts of the Vatican Library that he edited noted that Cod. Vat. Gr. 712 contained two letters of St Theodore the Studite, the first published in Migne, P.G. 99, 1069-84 (= Bk. I no. 48), the second as far as he knew unpublished. Examination of the bibliographies and periodicals that should take notice of a new letter of Theodore leads to the conclusion that it has not been published since the appearance of the catalogue. One may, therefore, reasonably conclude that the letter is so far unedited and that its publication here is justified.

Both the letters in Cod. Vat. Gr. 712 treat of the same incident of the same larger situation. The situation was the rift between Theodore with his community and the official Church with the Emperor in the first decade of the ninth century. It arose in this way. In 795 the Emperor Constantine VI put his legitimate wife into a convent and took to himself a maid-of-honour, whom he caused to be crowned Augusta. The Patriarch Tarasius disapproved. Thereupon the Emperor prevailed on a priest, by name Joseph, to bless the union. Later Tarasius, invoking ‘economy’ (or a power of the Church to ratify without insisting on the rigour of the law), accepted the fait accompli. Not so the monastery of Saccoudion where Plato was Abbot and Theodore Prior. In 796 they were imprisoned, but they were soon set free, for Constantine was deposed by his mother. Tarasius then punished the priest Joseph. In 802 Irene lost the throne to Nicephorus, who, since Tarasius was dead, had a layman, also called Nicephorus, elected patriarch. Plato and his monks, who had meantime been installed by Queen Irene in the monastery of Stoudiou, disapproved. Worse was to come. In 806 the Patriarch Nicephorus with a synod of fifteen bishops rehabilitated the priest Joseph allowing him again to celebrate the divine liturgy. The monks of Stoudiou protested, broke off communion with Nicephorus and all others who entered into communion with Joseph. Plato, Theodore and Theodore’s brother Joseph (meantime become Archbishop of Thessalonica) were imprisoned, the monks were dispersed and in various ways punished. In January 809 an ‘adulterous synod’ (such is Theodore’s name for it) condemned with an anathema all those who refused the legitimacy of the ‘economy’ decreed for the priest Joseph. Theodore, who was the backbone of the resistance, naturally persisted in refusing and in his letters condemned the decree of the synod of 809 as heretical.

The two letters of Cod. Vat. Gr. 712 deal with this precise question and must therefore date from shortly after January 809. The first (the one in Migne) is addressed to ‘My son Athanasius’; the second published here, to ‘My son Gregory’ — both at that time monks of Stoudiou. Athanasius, who had suffered imprisonment at the turn of the century [1] but later regained his liberty and avoided further confinement by a frequent change of residence [2], had, it seems, been persuaded to accept the decision of the synod of 809 and had written to Theodore to say so and to influence him to a similar attitude. His arguments can be reconstructed in part from Theodore’s long answer [3], as follows.

My son Athanasius. First you condemned the ‘adulterous false teaching’; now you change. Your arguments are not God-inspired but are of this world. “For you would say that ‘all friends and orthodox, learned and unlearned, are furious [4] when they hear it called heresy, putting forward this explanation that, since no one champions [5] and propounds adultery and the absolution of the sacrilegious, why shall we call them heretics? — contraveners of the Lord’s commandments and spurners of the divine canons and sacrilegious — fair enough’”. I am surprised. Of course those who make a synodical decree and enforce it by an anathema against those who do not accept their decree — that is, their ‘economy’ — do teach it in practice every day. If not, why am I in prison and why are they persecuting my Father and the archbishop Joseph and many others (whose names, places of confinement and punishments are given in detail, covering nearly two columns of Migne). “You said: ‘Since no one champions [6] and propounds adultery and the absolution of the sacrilegious, why shall we reasonably call them heretics?’ True, they do not teach adultery and the absolution of the sacrilegious in so many words”, but they do it in fact, also by imposing with an anathema their ‘economy’ as salutary. Your principle could be extended to any and every transgression, but the laws of God are unalterable and apply to everyone, even Emperors. “I have shown you from the Gospels, the Epistles and the Fathers . . . that the ‘adulterous synod’ without any doubt is guilty of heresy” The elect are few: wisely join yourself to their number [7].

The information provided by this letter to Athanasius, and in particular the quotations in their context, are most useful for an understanding of the letter to Gregory, which is shorter and less precise. In this letter to Gregory, Theodore refers to two letters he had received, both critical of his attitude. One of them was the letter from the monk Athanasius, synopsised above. The other was from ‘our Father’, who presumably was Plato, also apparently become less unbending in respect of the ‘adulterous synod’. As he did no more (so writes Theodore) than repeat the words of the Archbishop Joseph and the monk Kalogiros (designated by the letters beta and gamma), they too must have been wavering. This is completely unexpected, for Plato, Joseph and Theodore had always been at one in their oppositions and had always suffered equally. In 809 all three were held in confinement in different localities.

Various letters of Theodore to Joseph are extant and all of them address him with the greatest affection and veneration. There is, however, one, affectionate like the rest, written seemingly shortly before the ‘adulterous synod’ of January 809, answering letters received from Joseph counselling moderation. Joseph had proposed three principles: 1) not to split the Church for the lapse of one individual; 2) not to communicate with the absolution of such a one; 3) to receive communion from every priest of good reputation. It is Theodore who reduces his brother’s letter to these principles [8], because he has to comment on them in such a way as to bring them into conformity with the stand he had adopted — and the stand he is thereby pushing Joseph to adopt and to retain. Kalogiros, who is coupled with Joseph in the second letter, is mentioned also in the first: “And I with my Father and Kalogiros driven into exile by the hand of the prince; the archbishop dismissed and, solely because he celebrated the Liturgy at my invitation in Stoudiou, degraded by them to be an ordinary priest” [9].

Also Euprepeianus was the recipient of a letter from Theodore on the ‘adulterous question’ [10]. He was clearly a person in whom Theodore placed much confidence, since he consulted him on what action to take and used him as a kind of confidential secretary who received and distributed letters, gathered and passed on information about the dispersed brethren, and did all that according to a code in which the letters of the alphabet stood for definite individuals, alpha meaning ‘our Father’, beta the Archbishop, and so on to omega which stood for Theodore himself [11]. A later letter to an Euprepeianus [11] who had endured prison both during the iconoclastic controversy and for the ‘adulterous question’ and on occasion had visited Theodore in prison by night coming over the tiles, laments that now he had cast aside his monastic habit, let his hair grow and was acting as a kind of bailiff to a convent of nuns: Theodore chides him and invites him to repentance. It was probably the same monk.

According to the description given in the Vatican catalogue Cod. Vat. Gr. 712 is made up of various items taken from a number of manuscripts of the 13th century. Its folios, made of paper, measure 230 × 150 mm. The writing is clear and regular, but the first and last lines of the pages containing our letters are faint from some kind of damage and an occasional word is illegible on account of a tear or a blot. The letter to Gregory is found on ff. 18r-19r.

 

Γρηγορίῳ τέκνῳ

Ἀπάντα τὸν λόγον, ἀδελφὲ ἠγαπημένε, ὡς Χριστοῦ στρατιώτης, ὡς σὺν ἐμοὶ τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ ἀπόκλειστος ὑπὲρ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου αὐτοῦ, μήτε ἀναλγήτως (ἀλογώτατον γάρ), μήτε αὖ πέρα τοῦ δέοντος καταλυπούμενος ([ἀχρ]ειότατον γάρ).

Ἐδεξάμην ἐπιστολὰς δύο· μίαν παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ἑτέραν [παρὰ] τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Ἀθανασίου· καθαπτομένου μου τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν τῆς ταπεινώσεως τῷ ὄντι, ἀλλὰ καὶ κλῶντός μου τὴν ἐλεεινὴν ψυχὴν εἰς συμπάθειαν· τοῦ δὲ ἀδελφοῦ Ἀθανασίου τοσοῦτον πνεύσαντος κατὰ τῆς ἀσθενείας μου, ὡς εἰ μὴ ὅτι κύριος ἐβοήθησέ μοι παραβραχὺ παρώκησε τῷ ᾅδῃ ἡ ψυχή μου. Οἶδας γὰρ ἐξ οὗ ἄνθρωπος ἐλπίζει βοηθεῖσθαι καὶ ὑπολαμβάνει τὸν τοιοῦτον ἰσόψυχον, ἰσόρροπον· τοῦτο πρόθυμον. Ὁπόταν ἐν καιρῷ πολέμου παρὰ τοῦ τοιούτου τροπὴν ἐπίδοι τὴν ἐναντίαν, θανάσιμόν τι πανθάνει πάθος.

Τοιοῦτό μοι, ποθεινότατε, ὤφθη ταχύν. Ὁ δεύτερος — ἀγγελία ἐπὶ ἀγγελίᾳ βαρείᾳ, μᾶλλον δὲ πονηρά — κατασπᾶν μου τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὴν ἐλεεινήν μου ψυχὴν εἰς ᾅδην ἐναγωνιζόμενος, κἂν ὡς φησι φειδοῖ· ἀμφότεροι μέν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι αἵρεσις δυνάμει λαλοῦντες τὰ τοῦ Β καὶ τοῦ Γ μάλιστα, (συνίημι γὰρ τοὺς λόγους καὶ τὰς διαθέσεις ἀμφοτέρων,) κἀντεῦθεν ὑποτιθέμενοι καὶ ὑπομιμνήσκοντες ἐπισκέψασθαι τὰ συγ γραφέντα μοι ὡς ἐσφαλμένα, καὶ ὡς ἵνα μὴ αἰσχυνθεὶς διορθώσασθαι ἐκπέσω τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ὑπὸ τῶν μεταγενεστέρων, εὑρισκόντων ἀλλότρια Θεοῦ τὰ συγγράμματα· θυμώδη με καὶ ἐκστατικὸν ἐπιγράφων ὁ πρῶτος· ὁ δὲ δεύτερος, ὡς τὸν κεν[ ]λαν χείρον ἡμᾶς εἶναι· καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀδελφῶν φυλάττει τοὺς λόγους σου· καθαπτόμενος λεληθότως τῶν δι’ ἐρωτήσεων ἀποκρίσεών μου· καὶ ὅτι εἰς μυρίας δόξας διῃρέθησαν· καὶ ὅτι οἱ πλείονες καί γε τῶν προεχόντων ταῦτα λέγουσιν, εἰ καὶ μηδεὶς ἔγνω ὅτι ἐπέστειλα, ἐπιχειρήσεις φέρων ἀσυνέτους καὶ ἀλλοκότους ὡς ὅτι εἰς ἑαυτὸν περιπίπτω ἐν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις μοι. Τοῦτο δὲ διδάσκων παντὶ σθένει, εὖ ἔχειν, ἐπεὶ φησι ὅτι πάντες οἱ φίλοι καὶ εὐσεβεῖς τὸ μὴ λέγειν αἵρεσιν ἀλλ’ ἢ μόνον παράβασιν τῶν ἐντολῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καταπατητὰς τῶν θείων κανόνων καὶ ἀνιέρους, (φεύγετε αὐτῶν τὴν κοινωνίαν παντάπασι,) καὶ ἕτερα πρὸς τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐπιπλήττων ὡς οὐχ οἷόν τε τὸ γράμμα ἀπαγγεῖλαι διὰ τὸ πλῆθος.

Τί οὖν ὁ ταπεινὸς ἐγώ; Ἀποτιναξάμενος τὴν ἀθυμίαν βοηθείᾳ καὶ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Εὐπρεπειανοῦ καὶ ἀπαρνησάμενος τῇ διαθέσει πᾶσαν σάρκα, πρὸς μόνον δὲ Θεὸν ἀποβλέψας ὑπὲρ οὗ μοι ταῦτα καὶ δι’ οὗ ἡ βοήθεια μάλιστα τῷ ἀσθενεῖ καὶ σαθρῷ, ἀνταπέστειλα δεόντως ἐπιλύων τὰς ἀπορίας αὐτῶν καὶ ἐνστάσεις μαρτυρίαις γραφικαῖς καὶ πατρικαῖς ἐν ὀκτὼ τετραδίοις πρὸς ἥμισυ. Ὁρῶν οὖν ὅτι τὸ μὴ φέρειν αὐτοὺς τὴν ἐκ τοῦ λέγειν αἵρεσιν ὀργὴν τοῦ κρατοῦντος αἴτιον τῆς ἀσυμφωνίας, ἢ νοὸς ἐν τοῖς μὲν ἀχωρησίαν, ἢ τάχα καὶ τοῦ φθόνου ὑπομηχόμενον τὸ κέντρον· καὶ πάντοθεν ἀπορῶν· τό τε σχίσμα ἡμῶν αὐτῶν δεδιὼς εἰς χαρὰν ὂν τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῶν αἱρετιζόντων, τό τε συνελθεῖν αὐτοῖς ἀποστασίαν εἶναι ἀληθείας, συμβουλίᾳ καὶ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ἐπὶ οἰκονομίαν ἦλθον μιμήσει τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἡμῶν, μηδὲν ἔχουσαν ὡς οἶμαι τὸ βλάπτον καὶ παρὰ τὸ εἰκὸς εἰς νόμον Θεοῦ· καὶ δὴ ταύτην παρατίθημι ἔχουσαν ὧδε.

Ἐπεὶ ὁρῶ ὑμᾶς εἰς τοσοῦτον ὑπενδοῦναι ὥστε ἀπορραγὴν γενέσθαι εἰς ἡμᾶς, τοῦτο φρονεῖν γέγονέ μοι εὖ ἔχειν εἰς οἰκονομίας τρόπον· εἰ μὴ φέροι τις λέγειν αἵρεσιν ἀχωρησίᾳ νοός, ἀσθενείας μὲν ἐστι κἂν οὐ βούλεται λογίζεσθαι οὕτως ὁ ἀκούων, συγχωρητέον δὲ ὅμως τὴν φωνὴν [χάριν] τῆς συναφείας, τῶν ἄλλων σωζομένων — λέγω δὴ τῆς τε ἀκοινωνησίας καθόλου καὶ ἄλλης πως οὐ συγκαταβάσεως — καθὰ καὶ οἱ φίλοι δῆθεν ἐπαινοῦσιν ὑμᾶς. Καμοὶ καὶ τοῖς ὁμοίως μοι αἱρουμένοις ἔστω τὸ λέγειν αὐτὴν αἵρεσιν καθὼς πεπιστεύκαμεν ἐν ἀποδείξει τῆς ἀληθείας. Καὶ εἰ οἱ δι’ ἐναντίας τοῦτο ὁρῶντες || ἐνδιαβάλλουσιν ἡμᾶς ἀσυμφώνους εἶναι μηδετέρῳ μέρει μελετῶντας — ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀφωνίᾳ, συμφωνία ἡμῖν πραγματεύεται τοὺς πράγμασι ἐξ ἴσου ἀφισταμένοις τῆς κοινωνίας αὐτῶν, ἕως ἂν ὁ Θεὸς πληροφορήσῃ ἡμᾶς, τοῦτο εἰδότες ὡς καὶ τὸ σχίσμα οὐδὲν ἔλαττον αἱρέσεως, ὡς τῷ Χρυσοστόμῳ εἴρηται.

* * *

Gregorio filio

Obviam ito sermoni, frater dilectissime, ut Christi miles, ut mecum peccatore seclusus propter ipsum evangelium, neque sine dolore (absurdum enim), neque rursus ultra quam decet tristitia depressus (supervacaneum enim).

Accepi epistulas duas: unam a Patre nostro, alteram a fratre Athanasio. Et Pater quidem noster humilitatem meam reprehendit revera, quin etiam flebilem meam animam infregit ad commiserationem; frater autem Athanasius tantum contra meam imbecillitatem invehit ut, nisi Dominus me adiuvasset, paulominus habitasset in inferno anima mea. Nosti enim: ex quo se quis adiivari sperat, hunc et praesumit idem sentire, eodem vergere: hoc animum accendit. Cum autem tempore belli in huiusmodi nomine inclinationem contrariam intuitus fuerit, letale patitur vulnus.

Tale mihi aliquid, optatissime, visum est in praesenti. Secundus ille (nuntius super nuntium gravis, immo malus) mentem meam et misellam animam in infernum detrahere conans, quamvis ut ait cum temperamento; ambo sane non esse haeresim potentialiter dicentes ea quae sunt ex B et C praesertim (intelligo enim sermones et dispositiones amborum) ac proinde suggerentes et admonentes se ea quae a me scripta sunt considerare ut erronea, et quasi eo fine ne propter pudorem renuens corrigere excidam ab Ecclesia sententia posterorum, comperientium aliena a Deo esse scripta, iracundum et mente captum me describens primus; secundus autem, nos ut [ ] esse adhuc peius, et quod ‘nullus frater verba tua observat’. Increpat quin ad responsa ope quaestionum a me facta animadvertat; dicit eos in innumerabiles opiniones divisos esse et plurimos etiam magnatarum haec dicere (etiamsi nemo me scripsisse sciat) argumenta stulta et inepta proferens, et me scriptis meis mihimetipsi discrepare. Quod omni vi docens, opinatur rem bene se habere cum dicat: ‘Omnes amici et orthodoxi asserunt illud “non dicendum haeresim” sed solummodo “transgressionem legum Dei” et eos “esse conculcatores divinorum canonum et sacrilegos”’. (Communionem eorum penitus evitate.) Praeter haec quae dixi alia etiam infligit quae propter longitudinem haec mea epistula narrare non potest.

Quid tunc ego humilis facerem? Auxilio fratris Euprepeiani segnitia deposita et omni indulgentia animae abnegata, oculis in solum Deum coniectis pro quo mihi haec et ex quo auxilium debili certe et tabido, in octo quaternionibus cum dimidio rescripsi difficultates eorum et instantias rite solvens testimoniis e Patribus et Scripturis haustis. Cum ergo conspicerem causam discordiae esse in eo quod illi imperatoris iracundiam ex eo quod haeresis dicitur ortam non ferebant, vel in aliquibus mentis angustias vel forte et invidiae aliquantulo limatum stimulum, cumque anceps remanerem quid facere deberim, veritus etiam ne nostrum schisma in diaboli et haereticorum gaudium verteretur et ne conversare cum illis idem esset ac prodere veritatem, consilio fratris roboratus, imitando sanctos nostros patres, in oeconomiam veni quae nil ut opinor habet quod laedeat vel quod immoderatum sit quod attinet ad Dei legem. Quam igitur sic sonantem subiungo.

Cum vos tantum cedere videam ut a nobis sitis disrupti, hoc consilium, quod ad modum oeconomiae, bene se habere mihi visum est. Si quis ob mentis angustias vocare haeresim non ferat, imbecillitatis est etiamsi auditor tali modo considerare non vult, sed vocabulum talibus omitti permittendum est unionis causa, salvis reliquis — dico nempe et de communione et de quavis alia condescensione penitus abnegatis — cum amici scilicet vos laudent; mihi tamen et illis qui mecum stare malunt licitum sit vocare eam haeresim, sicut in veritatis manifestatione credimus, et si illi qui rem aliter vident nos, neutrius partis studiosos, calumniantur quod conciliari nolumus — quid? Nam in silentio consensio nobis redditur in rebus aeque remotis a communione eorum, dum Deus nos certiores faciat, hoc interim scientes: schisma, ut a Chrysostomo dictum est, nihilo minus est quam haeresis.

 

A translation of the Letter to Gregory from the Greek edition here: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/06/heresy-vs-error-should-communion-be.html

 

FOOTNOTES [numbering combined]

1. A. Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, VIII (ed. I. Cozza, Romae 1871), S. Theodori Studitae epistolae, n. 8, p. 8, ‘Athanasio filio’.

2. Ibid. n. 236, p. 198, ‘Athanasio filio’.

3. P.G. 99, 1069-84: Cod. Vat. Gr. 712 ff. 13-18.

4. Reading ἐκμαίνονται for the ἐκμένονται of P.G. 99, 1072 A.

5. Reading ἀνισταμένου for the ἀνθισταμένου of P.G. 99, 1072 A.

6. Reading ἀνισταμένου for the ἐνισταμένου of P.G. 99, 1076 C.

7. The exact quotations in this résumé are repeated almost verbatim in the letter to Gregory, which is a proof of its authenticity.

8. P.G. 99, 1065 C.

9. P.G. 99, 1073 D where Καλογήτῳ is read, obviously in error.

10. P.G. 99, 1032-7. His name is spelt in Migne Εὐπρεπιανός.

11. A. Mai, op. cit., n. 233, p. 195-7.

 

Source: Orientalia Christiana Periodica 31 (Rome: Pontificio Instituto Orientalium Studiorum, 1968).