:"After the death of the holy [[Patriarch]] Menas, the [[Apostle Peter]] appeared in a vision to the emperor Justinian and, pointing his hand at Eutychius, said, 'Let him be made your bishop.' At the very beginning of his patriarchal service, St Eutychius [not Justinian himself] convened the [[Fifth Ecumenical Council]] (553), at which the [[Church Fathers|Fathers]] condemned the heresies cropping up and anathematized them. However, after several years a new heresy arose in the Church: Aphthartodocetism [asartodoketai] or "imperishability" which taught that the flesh of Christ...[was] not capable of suffering. St Eutychius vigorously denounced this heresy, but the emperor ''Justinian'' himself inclined toward it, and turned his wrath upon the saint. By order of the emperor, soldiers seized the saint in the church, removed his patriarchal vestments, and sent him into exile to an Amasean monastery (565)."^{[http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=101008]} However, Father Asterios Gerostergios in his book ''Justinian the Great: The Emperor and Saint'', refutes the assertion that Justinian succumbed in his last years to the heresy of aphthartodocetism. It is commonly accepted that, after a lengthy reign in which Justinian spared no effort to try to bring the Monophysites back into the fold of the Orthodox Church, people were weary of the aged Emperor. Thus, it is commonly asserted that Justinian adhered to the aphthartodocetist heresy, which was essentially an extreme form of Monophysitism, and deposed Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople for his supposed refusal to conform to this teaching.  Justinian’s supposed decree imposing aphthartodocetism was not preserved, and the only contemporary source that refers to it is the testimony of the historian Evagrius. Most historians have accepted the information of Evagrius as true, reasoning that Justinian had either converted to the heresy at the end of his life or had succumbed to senility. These scholars thus relate the decree to the depositions of both Eutychius and Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch. Father Gerostergios states: : That they were deposed because of their refusal to accept the edict we do not believe to be true because of the following reasons: : 1. The bishop of Northern Africa, Victor, an enemy of the Emperor, mentions the deposition of Eutychius in his ''Chronicle'', but does not give any reasons for the deposition. If he really knew anything about a new edict, and if, further, he knew of Justinian’s acceptance of the aphthartodocetistic heresy, not only would he certainly have mentioned it, but he would also have emphasized the event, in order to defame Justinian’s exiling and imprisoning him.  : 2. If Eutychius had been deposed for this reason, his successor, John the Scholastic, would have had to accept such a decree. We have absolutely no information concerning his acceptance of the edict, nor any testimony that he accepted aphthartodocetism. On the contrary, Pope [Saint] Gregory the Great, who was then the papal representative in Constantinople, praises the new patriarch, John, for his holiness and Orthodoxy. : 3. The same Pope Gregory praises Justinian for his Orthodoxy and he makes no mention of the edict. He says that Patriarch Eutychius was an Origenist. For this reason, W. H. Hutton and A. Knecht have stated: this was the cause for Eutychius’ deposition.  : 4. When Patriarch Eutychius returned to the throne of Constantinople in 577, he did not mention the reasons for his dethronement.  : 5. Bishop John of Ephesus, contrary to Evagrius, makes no mention of what transpired in Antioch concerning the deposition of Anastasius. … : For all the above reasons, we can only conclude that Justinian never issued or planned to issue an edict imposing aphthartodocetism. Such an act would have been in antithesis to his whole previous theological work, and it is clear that it would not have helped the overall purpose of unification. Moreover, such a complete change at such an advanced age, we believe to be a totally unnatural thing. With regard to the deposition of the two mentioned Patriarchs, we believe that it was not related to such an edict, because there is no basis for such a conclusion from the contemporary sources. We are of the opinion that their deposition was due to other reasons, probably to their failure to obey the old Emperor. ^{[http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ibmgs/lives.html]}