Theodoret
Theodoret
Bishop of Cyrus and theologian, born at Antioch in Syria about 393; died about 457.
He says himself that his birth was an answer to the prayers of the monk Macedonius (“Hist. rel.”, IX; Epist. lxxi). On account of a vow made by his mother he was dedicated from birth to the service of God and was brought up and educated by the monks Macedonius and Peter. At a very early age he was ordained lector. In theology he studied chiefly the writings of Diodorus of Tarsus, St. John Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodoret was also well trained in philosophy and literature. He understood Syriac as well as Greek, but was not acquainted with either Hebrew or Latin. When he was twenty-three years old and both parents were dead, he divided his fortune among the poor (Epist. cxiii; P. G., LXXXIII, 1316) and became a monk in the monastery of Nicerte not far from Apamea, when he lived for seven years, devoting himself to prayer and study.
Much against his will about 423 he was made Bishop of Cyrus. His diocese included nearly 800 parishes and was suffragan of Hierapolis. A large number of monasteries and hermitages also belonged to it, yet, notwithstanding all this, there were many heathen and heretics within its borders. Theodoret brought many of these into the Church, among others more than a thousand Marcionites. He also destroyed not less than two hundred copies of the “Diatessaron” of Tatian, which were in use in that district (“Hæret. fab.”, I, xix; P. G., LXXXIII, 372). He often ran great risks in his apostolic journeys and labours; more than once he suffered ill-usage from the heathen and was even in danger of losing his life. His fame as a preacher was widespread and his services as a speaker were much sought for outside of his diocese; he went to Antioch twenty-six times. Theodoret also exerted himself for the material welfare of the inhabitants of his diocese. Without accepting donations (Epist. lxxxi) he was able to build many churches, bridges, porticos, aqueducts, etc. (Epist. lxxxi, lxxviii, cxxxviii).
Towards the end of 430 Theodoret became involved in the Nestorian controversy. In conjunction with John of Antioch he begged Nestorius not to reject the expression Theotókos as heretical (Mansi, IV, 1067). Yet he held firmly with the other Antiochenes to Nestorius and to the last refused to recognize that Nestorius taught the doctrine of two persons in Christ. Until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 he was the literary champion of the Antiochene party. In 436 he published his ’Anatropé (Confutation) of the Anathemas of Cyril to which the latter replied with an Apology (P. G., LXXVI, 392 sqq.). At the Council of Ephesus (431) Theodoret sided with John of Antioch and Nestorius, and pronounced with them the deposition of Cyril and the anathema against him. He was also a member of the delegation of “Orientals”, which was to lay the cause of Nestorius before the emperor but was not admitted to the imperial presence a second time (Hefele-Leclerq, “Hist. des Conc.”, II, i, 362 sqq.). The same year he attended the synods of Tarsus and Antioch, at both of which Cyril was again deposed and anathematized. Theodoret after his return to Cyrus continued to oppose Cyril by speech and writing. The symbol (Creed) that formed the basis of the reconciliation (c. 433) of John of Antioch and others with Cyril was apparently drawn up by Theodoret (P. G., LXXXIV, 209 sqq.), who, however, did not enter into the agreement himself because he was not willing to condemn Nestorius as Cyril demanded. It was not until about 435 that Theodoret seems to have become reconciled with John of Antioch, without, however, being obliged to agree to the condemnation of Nestorius (Synod. cxlvii and cli; Epist. clxxvi). The dispute with Cyril broke out again when in 437 the latter called Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia the real originators of the Nestorian heresy. Theodore entered the lists in their defence. The bitterness with which these polemics were carried on is shown both by the letter and the speech of Theodoret when he learned of the death in 444 of the Patriarch of Alexandria (Epist. clxxx).
The episcopate of Dioscurus, the successor of Cyril, was a period of much trouble for Theodoret. Dioscurus, by the mediation of Eutyches and the influential Chrysaphius, obtained an imperial edict which forbade Theodoret to leave his diocese (Epist. lxxix-lxxxii). In addition Theodoret was accused of Nestorianism (Epist. lxxxiii-lxxxvi); in answer to this attack he wrote his most important polemical work, called “Eranistes”. Theodoret was also considered the prime mover of the condemnation of Eutyches by the Patriarch Flavian. In return Dioscurus obtained an imperial decree in 449 whereby Theodoret was forbidden to take any part in the synod of Ephesus (Robber Council of Ephesus). At the third session of this synod Theodoret was deposed by the efforts of Dioscurus and ordered by the emperor to re-enter his former monastery near Apamea. Better times, however, came before long. Theodoret appealed to Pope Leo who declared his deposition invalid, and, as the Emperor Theodosius II died the following year (450), he was allowed to re-enter his diocese. In the next year, notwithstanding the violent opposition of the Alexandrine party, Theodoret was admitted as a regular member to the sessions of the Council of Chalcedon, but refrained from voting. At the eighth session (26 Oct., 451), he was admitted to full membership after he had agreed to the anathema against Nestorius; probably he meant this agreement only in the sense: in case Nestorius had really taught the heresy imputed to him (Mansi, VII, 190). It is not certain whether Theodoret spent the last years of his life in the city of Cyrus, or in the monastery where he had formerly lived. There still exists a letter written by Pope Leo in the period after the Council of Chalcedon in which he encourages Theodoret to co- operate without wavering in the victory of Chalcedon (P. G., LXXXIII, 1319 sqq.). The writings of Theodoret against Cyril of Alexandria were anathematized during the troubles that arose in connexion with the war of the Three Chapters.
WRITINGS
A. Exegetical
Theodoret wrote brief treatises in the form of questions and answers on special passages of the Octateuch, four Books of Kings, and two Books of Paralipomenon (P. G., LXXX, 75-858). He wrote commentaries covering the whole books on: The Psalms (P. G., LXXX, 857-1998, and LXXXIV, 19-32), written before 436 (Epist. lxxxi); Canticles (P. G., LXXXI, 27-214); the Greater Prophets, Daniel and Ezechiel before 436, Isaias and Jeremias before 448, of which the commentary on Isaias has been lost, excepting some fragments preserved in the “Catenæ”; the Minor Prophets before 436 (P. G., LXXXI, 495-1988); and the Epistles of St. Paul, written before 448 (P. G., LXXXII, 35-878).
B. Apologetic
“Græcarum affectionum curatio” (Remedy for the diseases of the Greeks), twelve books, written before 437, “the last and probably also the most complete of the numerous apologies which Greek antiquity has produced” (Bardenhewer, “Patrologie”, 3rd ed., 1910, p. 327). “De divina Providentia”, ten sermons, probably his best work, in which he proves the administration of Divine Providence from the physical, moral, and social systems of the world.
C. Dogmatico-Polemical
“Refutatio duodecim Anathematum”, against St. Cyril; it has been preserved in Cyril’s answer (P. G., LXXVI, 392 sqq.; Latin by Marius Mercator, P. L., XLVIII, 972 sqq.). “De Sancta et vivifica Trinitate” (P. G., LXXV, 1147-90), and “De Incarnatione Domini” (ib., 1419-78); these two last mentioned treatises have been proved by A. Ehrhard to have been written by Theodoret (see bibliography). “Eranistes seu Plymorphos” (P. G., LXXXIII, 27-l336), written in 448 in the form of three dialogues between an Orthodox (Theodoret) and a beggar (Eutyches); these dialogues sought to prove that the Divinity of Christ is (a) unchangeable, (b) unmixed with humanity, (c) incapable of suffering. In the fourth book the first three are briefly summed up in syllogisms. “Hæreticarum fabularum compendium” in five books (ib., 336-556); the first four contain a brief summary of heresies up to the time of Theodoret, and the last book contrasts them with Catholic faith and morals.
D. Historical
“Historia Ecclesiastica” (P. G., LXXXII, 881-1280) treats in five books the period from Arius up to 429. In this work Theodoret used Eusebius, Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomenus, Philostorgius, as well as documents long since lost. As an ecclesiastical historian, however, he is inferior to his predecessors. “Historia religiosa” (ib., 1283-1522) contains the biographies of thirty celebrated ascetics or hermits; the treatise “De divina charitate” forms the close of the work.
E. Letters
Theodoret’s lettters are of much value, both for his personal history and for that of his era. Cf. P. G., LXXXIII, 1173-1494, and Sakkelion, “Forty-eight Letters of Theodoret of Cyrus” (Athens, 1885).
F. Lost Writings
“Opus mysticum”, in twelve books; “Responsiones ad quæstiones magorum persarum” (Epist. lxxxii and cxiii), five “Sermones in laudem S. Johannis Chrysostomi”, of which the fragments are to be found in Photius, “Bibl.”, 273; and other “Sermones”. Von Harnack (“Texte und Untersuchungen”, N. F. 6, IV, 1901) assigned the “Responsiones ad quæstiones” to Diodorus of Tarsus, but a manuscript of the tenth century, edited by Papadopulos Kerameus (St. Petersburg, 1895), ascribes the work to Theodoret (see A. Erhard in “Byzantinische Zeitschrift”, VII, 1898, 609 sqq.).
DOCTRINE
In hermeneutics Theodoret followed the principles of the Antiochene school, but avoided the bias of Theodore of Mopsuestia. In his Christology also he followed the terminology of Diodorus and Theodore, and saw in the teaching of Cyril a revival of Apollinarianism. He would never acknowledge that the teaching of Nestorius presupposed the acceptance of two persons in Christ or, as Cyril believed, necessarily led to it.
———————————–
TILLEMONT, Mémoires, XV (Paris, 1700-13), 207-340; CAVE, Hist. lett., I (Oxford, 1740-43), 405 sqq.; CEILLIER, Auteurs sacrés, X (Paris, 1729-63), 19-142; NEANDER, Church History, ed. CLARK, IV (Edinburgh, 1851-58), 141-247; NEWMAN, Trials of Theodoret in Hist. Sketches, III (2 vols., London, 1890), 307-62; GLUBOKOVSKIJ, Der seelige Theodoret, Bischof von Cyrus (2 vols., Moscow, 1890), in Russian; SPECHT, Der exegetische Standpunkt des Theodor von Mopsuestia u. Theodoret von Cyrus … (Munich, 1871); SALTET, Les sources de l’Eranistes de Théodoret in Revue d’Histoire Ecclés., VI (Louvain, 1905), 289-303, 513-536, 741-754; GÜLDENPENNING, Die Kirchengesch. des Theodoret von Kyrrhos, Eine Untersuchung über Quellen (Halle, 1889); SCHULTE, Theodoret von Cyrus als Apologet (Vienna, 1904); EHRHARD, Die Cyrill von Alexandrien zugeschriebene Schrift Perí tês toû kuríon ’enandropéseos, ein Werk Theodorets von Cyrus (Tübingen, 1888); MAHÉ, Les anathématismes de S. Cyrille d’Aléxandrie et les évêques orientaux du patriarchat d’Antioche in Revue d’Hist. Eccl., VII (Louvain, 1906), 505-542; BERTRAM, Theodoreti Episcopi Cyrensis Doctrina christologica (Hildesheim, 1883).
CHRYS. BAUR. Transcribed by WGKofron In memory of Fr. John Hilkert, Akron, OhioFidelis servus et prudens, quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Theodoret
( ; also THEODORITUS) was one of the most eminent ecclesiastics of the 5th century. He was born of reputable, wealthy, and pious people at Antioch in 386 (Garnier) or 393 (Tillemont, Memoires, 20:869). His mother was especially devout, and susceptible to the influence of a number of hermit monks, one of whom had relieved her of an apparently incurable affection of the eyes, and another of whom announced to her, after thirteen years of sterile wedlock, that she should give birth to a son. In obedience to their directions, Theodoret was dedicated to the service of God. At the age of seven years he entered the monastery presided over by St. Euprepius, near Antioch; and there he remained for twenty years engaged in theological study. The works of Diodormus of Tarsus, Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia formed his mind, and it appears that the latter was the chief of his actual teachers. In time he was appointed lector in Antioch, and afterwards deacon; and in the latter office he acquired such reputation that he was, against his will (Ep. 81), consecrated to the bishopric, 420 or 423.
The diocese entrusted to his care had for its seat the impoverished town of Cyrus, or Cyrrhus, the capital of the Syrian district of Cyrrhestia, two days journey to the westward of Antioch, and it included eight hundred parishes. His life as bishop was exemplary, and characterized by charity, public spirit, thorough unselfishness, successful guidance of his clergy, and great zeal for the faith. Though great numbers of Arians, Macedonians, and especially Marcionites were found in his diocese, he succeeded by 449 in regaining them all to the Church. He reports the baptism of no less than ten thousand Marcionites alone. These labors he prosecuted often at imminent risk to his life, and always without invoking the aid of the temporal power. The quiet tenor of Theodoret’s life was interrupted by the Nestorian controversy, whose progress and results embittered his later career. Garnier states (in Life of Theodoret, 5, 350) that Nestorius had been Theodoret’s fellow-pupil in the monastery of St. Euprepius, and charges the latter with holding, in fact, the views which caused the ruin of the former representative of the Antiochian school. It appears, however, that Theodoret was concerned rather to resist the intolerance of Cyril of Alexandria and combat his errors, opposite to those of Nestorius, than to advocate the views of the latter. With his school, he opposed the unification of the two natures in Christ, and taught that the Logos had assumed, but had not become, flesh. He denied that God had been crucified, and thereby implied that God had not been born, and that the term could not, in any proper sense, be applied to Mary. It was, of course, impossible that while holding such views he should become an avowed antagonist of Nestorius.
In 430 Theodoret addressed a letter to the monks of Syria and surrounding countries in which he charges Cyril with having promulgated Apollinarism, Arianism, and other similar errors in the twelve Capitula. In 431, at the Synod of Ephesus, he urged delay in the transaction of business until the Eastern bishops could arrive; and when that advice was disregarded, he united with those bishops in a synod which condemned the proceedings of the council and deposed Cyril. He also headed, with John of Antioch, the delegation which the Orientals sent to the emperor with their confession of faith, whose rejection closed the series of incidents connected with the Ephesian synod. After his return from that mission, Theodoret wrote five books on the incarnation ( ), with the intent of setting forth his views and exposing the heretical tendency of Cyril’s tenets and the unjust conduct of his party in the proceedings at Ephesus. Of this work only a few fragments remain, which are derived from the Latin version of Marius Mercator, a bigoted adherent of Cyrillian views. He also wrote a work in defense of the memory of his master, Theodore of Mopsuestia, against the charge of having originated Nestorianism (see Hardouin, Act. Cone. 3, 106 sq.). He was however, induced to yield to the pressure brought to bear by John of Antioch on the opponents of the policy of the emperor, and to acknowledge the orthodoxy of Cyril. He also submitted, under protest; to the deposition bf Nestorius. But when the Nestorians were treated with extreme severity in 435, he renounced the idea of peace, and once more stood forth the decided opponent of Cyril. With the accession of Dioscurus as the successor of Cyvril, Theodoret’s position became more unfavorable. He opposed Eutychianism, as Cyril’s doctrine now came to be called, with inflexible energy; and the new patriarch, in 448, procured an order which forbade him, as a mischief- maker, to pass beyond his diocese.
Theodoret defended himself in several letters addressed to prominent personages (Ep. 79-82), and wrote repeatedly also to Dioscurus; but the latter responded with publicly anathematizing the troublesome bishop, and finally with causing him to be deposed, in 449, by a decree of the Robber Synod of Ephesus. Theodoret now invoked the assistance of the see of Rome, which was readily granted by Leo I; and he also applied to other Occidental bishops (Ep. 119). In the meantime he had been sent to the monastery of Apamea, where he was subjected to rigorous treatment until the emperor Theodosius died, in 450, and Pulcheria, with her husband, Marcian, ascended the throne. The imperial policy now changed, and the deposed bishops were set at liberty. Theodoret appeared before the ecumenical synod of Chalcedon in 451 as the accuser of Dioscurus and as a petitioner for the restoration of his bishopric. In this synod he found himself charged with being a Nestorian, and was prevented from making any explanation of his views until he consented to pronounce an anathema on Nestorius. He was thereupon unanimously restored (Hardouin, Cone. 2, 496). This action has been very generally condemned by students of history as the one blot upon an otherwise spotless career; but there are not wanting apologists to defend even this (see Smith, Dict. of Biog. and Mythol s.v. Theodoret). It would undoubtedly have been more creditable to him to have resisted the clamor of his enemies at that time. He left the synod with a crusty farewell, and returned to his bishopric, where he died in 457. The Eutychians anathematized his memory at their synods of 499 and 512, and his name was involved in the controversy of the Three Chapters. SEE CHAPTERS, THE THREE.
Theodoret was the author of many works in exegesis, history, polemics, and dogmatics, the exegetical being of chief consequence. He was generally free from the disposition to allegorize, and had a taste for simple and literal exposition. His method is partly expository, partly apologetic and controversial. On the historical books of the Old Test. he rather discusses difficult passages than presents a continuous commentary. He treated the first eight books, and also Kings and Chronicles, on the plan of simply stating and meeting the difficulties they present to the thoughtful mind, without entering into a consecutive commentary of the several books; but upon other books he wrote expositions in the usual form. His commentaries on Psalms, Canticles, and Isaiah exist no longer save in fragmentary extracts. He wrote also on the remaining prophets, the Apocryphal book Baruch, and the Pauline epistles; and Schrckh preferred Theodoret’s commentary on the latter to all others, though it is very defective as regards the statement of the doctrinal contents of the several books. The apologetical work , etc., was intended to exhibit the confirmations of Christian truth contained in Grecian philosophy, and affords evidence of the author’s varied learning, as do also his ten discourses on Providence. His dogmatico-polemical works are, a censure of Cyril’s twelve heads of anathematizaration : Franistes, seu Polymorphus, containing three treatises in defense of the Antiochian Christology, and directed against Eutyches, in 447, one year before the condemnation of that heretic at Constantinople: a compendium of heretical fables, whose statements are evidently inexact and very superficial; this work contains so harsh a judgment of Nestorius as to lead Garnier to deny its authenticity: twenty-seven books against Eutychianism, an abstract of which is supplied by Photius (Bibl. Cod. 46). The historical works are two in number. A History of the Church, in five books, extending from 325 to 429, which serves to complement Socrates and Sozomen: and a very much inferior , or Religiosa Historia, which contains the lives of thirty celebrated hermits, and is rather the work of a credulous ascetic than of a learned theologian.
There are only two complete editions of Theodoret’s works, the first by the Jesuits Sirmond and Garnier (Paris, 1642-84), in five volumes. The last volume was added after Garnier’s death by Hardouin. The other edition, by Schulze and Nosselt (Halle, 1769-74, 5 vols. in 10 pts. 5vo), is based on the former, and contains all that is good, while it corrects much that is faulty in its predecessor. For an account of editions of separate works, see Hoffmann, Lex. Bibl. Script. Graec.
See Garnier, Dissertationes, in vol. 5 of Schulze’s ed.; Tillenont, Mensoires, vol. 14; Cave, Hist. Lit. s.v. 423, p. 405 fol. ed. Basil.; Fabricius, Bibl. Graeca, 7:429; 8:277; Schulze, De Vita et Scriptis Theod. Dissert. prefixed to vol. 1 of his edition; Neander, Gesch. d. christl. Rel. u. Kirche, vol. 2 passim; Schrckh, Christl. Kirchengesch. 18:365 sq.; Oudin, Comment. de Scriptor. Eccl. Smith, Dict. of Biog. and Mythol. s.v.; Herzog, Real Encyklop. s.v.