ИСТИНА

In the secondary literature on the Church history it is customary to refer to the events of 484, which resulted in the break of communication between the Roman Church and the Churches of the East, as “Acacian schism”, named so after the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius (472–489). Meanwhile, a simple analysis of the outline of events shows that the initiator of the split of 484 was not the Patriarch of Constantinople. To counter the rebellion of Illus Emperor Zeno deposed, among other measures, a disloyal patriarch of Alexandria John Talaia and reinstated to his place the exiled anti-Chalcedonian patriarch Peter Mongus. The latter as a pledge of loyalty to the Emperor signed the imperial epistle, known as “Henoticon”. These events, mediated by the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius, made Pope Felix III (483–492) to take rush measures. On the 28th of July 484 he sent to Constantinople a letter of excommunication for Acacius, containing following charges: insult made to Saint Peter; failure of Acacius to respond before the “Apostolic See” to the charges, brought against him by John Talaia; Acacius’ entry into communication with the “heretic” Peter Mongus and intervention in the affairs of the Church of Antioch. On the basis of all papal letters and other works related to the event, it is possible to deduce some important observations. First of all, Pope Felix obviously attempted to usurp the authority of the Ecumenical Council. Under no legal circumstance had the pope any right to accept the appellation of John Talaia and to summon to the court in Rome the bishop of Constantinople. Pope’s decision to excommunicate Acacius was taken unilaterally and had not been even a conciliar decision of the Roman Church. The failure of the patriarch to arrive to the court could not allow Pope Felix to condemn him in absenti without previously calling three times upon him. Neither could the Pope raise against Acacius accusations of violating the rights of the Church of Antioch, that had never appealed to the Roman pontiff in this regard. From this point of view, the actions of Pope should be considered as interference in the affairs of the Church of Constantinople and that of Antioch alike. The charge of insulting St. Peter looks as totally absurd. The prosecution against Acacius for his communion with the “heretic” Peter Mongus also doesn’t sound convincing, since Peter Mongus had never been condemned as a heretic. Later attempts of the popes to accuse Peter along with Acacius of adherence to the heresy of Eutyches look ridiculous, because by signing “Henoticon” Peter signed double anathema to Eutyches. The whole situation forced the pope to take another uncanonical action: since his protegé, John Talaia, could not return to his see in Alexandria, Pope Felix made him bishop of Nola in Italy. Since the canons, recognized by the Roman Church, provided that a bishop under no circumstance could move from one see to another, we can conclude that Felix, who recognized the patriarchal dignity of John, allowed a grave violation of the canon. In view of all that, we can characterize the actions of Pope Felix III as non-canonical and highly arbitrary. Consequently the perception of the event of 484 must be reversed. Acacius of Constantinople, who never undertook any illegal action and tried to keep peace among the Churches, can’t be regarded guilty of the schism. The blame lies completely with Pope Felix and his successors and thus the schism itself should be rightfully called “Felician”