(_c_) Council of Rome, A. D. 649, _Canons_, Mansi, X, 1150. _Cf._ Denziger, nn. 254 _ff._
Condemnation of Monotheletism, the _Ecthesis_, and the _Typos_, by Martin I.
Text of canons or anathematisms and abstract of proceedings in Hefele, 307.
Canon 18. If any one does not, according to the holy Fathers, and in company with us, reject and anathematize with mind and mouth all those whom as most wicked heretics the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of G.o.d, that is, the five universal synods and likewise all approved Fathers of the Church, rejects and anathematizes, with all their impious writings even to each point, that is, Sabellius, etc. and justly with these, as like them and in equal error Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius of Constantinople, and his successors Pyrrhus and Paul, persisting in their pride, and all their impious writings, and those who to the end agreed with them in their thought, or do so agree, that there is one will and one operation of the deity and manhood of Christ; and in addition to these the most impious _Ecthesis_, which, by the persuasion of the same Sergius, was put forth by the former Emperor Heraclius against the orthodox faith, defining, by way of adjustment, one will in Christ our G.o.d, and one operation to be venerated; also all those things which were impiously written or done by them; and those who received it, or any of those things which were written or done for it; and along with these, furthermore, the wicked _Typos_, which, on the persuasion of the aforesaid Paul, was recently issued by our most serene prince Constans against the Catholic Church, inasmuch as it equally denies and excludes from discussion the two natural wills and operations, a divine and a human, which are piously taught by the holy Fathers to be in Christ, our G.o.d, and also our Saviour, and also the one will and operation, which by the heretics is impiously venerated in Him, and therefore declaring that with the holy Fathers also the wicked heretics are unjustly freed from all rebuke and condemnation, to the destruction of the definitions of the Catholic Church and its rule of faith let him be condemned.
(_d_) Sixth General Council, Constantinople, A. D. 681, _Definition of Faith_. Mansi, XI, 636 _ff._
The concluding, more strictly dogmatic portion of this symbol is to be found in Greek in Hahn, 150, and in Latin and Greek in Denziger, nn. 289, _ff._ See also PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV.
The holy, great, and ec.u.menical synod a.s.sembled by the grace of G.o.d and the religious decree of the most religious, faithful, and mighty Emperor Constantine, in this G.o.d-preserved and royal city of Constantinople, New Rome, in the hall of the imperial palace called Trullus, has decreed as follows:
The only begotten Son and Word of G.o.d the Father, who was made man, like unto us in all things, without sin, Christ our true G.o.d, has declared expressly in the words of the Gospel: I am the light of the world; he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life [John 8:12]; and again: My peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you [John 14:27]. Our most gracious Emperor, the champion of orthodoxy and opponent of evil doctrine, being reverentially led by this divinely uttered doctrine of peace, and having a.s.sembled this our holy and ec.u.menical synod, has united the judgment of the whole Church. Wherefore this our holy and ec.u.menical synod, having driven away the impious error which has prevailed for a certain time until now, and following closely the straight path of the holy and approved Fathers, has piously given its a.s.sent to the five holy and ec.u.menical synodsthat is to say, to that of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers a.s.sembled at Nica against the insane Arius; and the next at Constantinople of the one hundred and fifty G.o.d-inspired men against Macedonius, the adversary of the Spirit, and the impious Apollinaris; and also the first at Ephesus of two hundred venerable men a.s.sembled against Nestorius, the Judaizer; and that in Chalcedon of six hundred and thirty G.o.d-inspired Fathers against Eutyches and Dioscurus, hated of G.o.d; and in addition to these the last, that is the fifth, holy synod a.s.sembled in this place against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the twelve chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the epistle which was said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persianwithout alteration this synod renews in all points the ancient decrees of religion, chasing away the impious doctrines of irreligion. And this our holy and ec.u.menical synod, inspired of G.o.d, has set its seal to the creed of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, and again religiously confirmed by the one hundred and fifty, which also the other holy synods gladly received and ratified for the removal of every soul-destroying heresy.
Then follow:
The Nicene Creed of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers.
_We believe_, etc.
The Creed of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers a.s.sembled at Constantinople. _We believe_, etc., but without the _filioque_.
The holy and ec.u.menical synod further says that this pious and orthodox creed of the divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who in the beginning availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for the accomplishment of his willthat is to say, Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan; Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were prelates of this royal city; and also Honorius, who was pope of Old Rome; Cyrus, bishop of Alexandria, Marcarius, lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen, his disciplehas not ceased with their declaration of orthodoxy by this our G.o.d-a.s.sembled and holy synod; for according to the sentence spoken of G.o.d: Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them [Matt. 18:20], the present(292) holy and ec.u.menical synod, faithfully receiving and saluting with uplifted hands also the suggestion which by the most holy and blessed Pope Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, was sent to our most pious and faithful Emperor Constantine, which rejected by name those who taught or preached one will and operation in the dispensation of the incarnation of Christ(293) our very G.o.d, has likewise adopted that other synodal suggestion which was sent by the council held under the same most holy Pope, composed of one hundred and twenty-five bishops beloved of G.o.d,(294) to his G.o.d-instructed tranquillity [_i.e._, the Emperor], as consonant to the holy Council of Chalcedon and the _Tome_ of the most holy and blessed Leo, Pope of the same Old Rome, which was directed to the holy Flavian, which also the council called the pillar of a right faith; and also agrees with the synodical letters written by the blessed Cyril against the impious Nestorius and addressed to the Oriental bishops.
Following(295) the five holy and ec.u.menical synods and the most holy and approved Fathers, with one voice defining that our Lord Jesus Christ must be confessed to be our very G.o.d, one of the holy and consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, perfect in deity and the same perfect in humanity, truly G.o.d and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with His Father as to His G.o.dhead, and consubstantial with us as to His manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin [Heb. 4:15]; begotten of His Father before the ages according to His G.o.dhead, but in these last days for us men and for our salvation begotten of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, strictly and in truth Theotokos, according to the flesh; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, in two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, inseparably, indivisibly to be recognized; the peculiarities of neither nature lost by the union, but rather the properties of each nature preserved, concurring in one person,(296) and in one subsistence,(297) not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same only begotten Son, the Word of G.o.d,(298) the Lord Jesus Christ, according as the prophets of old have taught, and as Jesus Christ Himself hath taught, and the creed of the holy Fathers hath delivered to us;(299) we likewise declare that in Him are two natural wills or willings and two natural operations indivisibly, unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two natural wills are not contrary one to the other (which G.o.d forbid), as the impious heretics say, but His human will follows, not as resisting or reluctant, but rather therefore as subject to His divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the will of the flesh should be moved, but be subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as His flesh is called and is the flesh of G.o.d the Word, so also the natural will of His flesh is called and is the proper will of G.o.d the Word, as He Himself says: I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of the Father which sent Me, [John 6:38], wherein he calls His own will the will of the flesh, inasmuch as His flesh was also His own. For as His most holy and immaculately animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified [?e??e?sa], but continued in its own state and nature, so also His human will, although deified, was not taken away, but rather was preserved according to the saying of Gregory the Theologian:(300) His will, namely that of the Saviour, is not contrary to G.o.d, but altogether deified.
We glorify two natural operations, indivisibly, unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly, in the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our true G.o.d, that is to say, a divine operation and a human operation, according to the divine preacher Leo, who most distinctly says as follows: For each form does in communion with the other what pertains to it, namely the Word doing what pertains to the Word, and the flesh what pertains to the flesh.(301) For we will not admit one natural operation of G.o.d and of the creature, that we may not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited for those things which have been made. We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same person, but of one or of the other nature of which He is, and in which He has His existence, as the admirable Cyril said.
Preserving in all respects, therefore, the unconfusedness and indivisibility, we express all in brief phrase: Believing that our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity also after the incarnation, is our true G.o.d, we say that His two natures shone forth in His one subsistence [hypostasis], in which were both the miracles and the suffering throughout the whole incarnate life,(302) not in appearance merely but in reality, the difference as to nature being recognized in one and the same subsistence; for, although joined together, each nature wills and operates the things proper to it.(303) For this reason we glorify two natural(304) wills and operations concurring most fitly in Him for the salvation of the human race.
Since these things have been formulated by us with all diligence and care, we decree that to no one shall it be permitted to bring forward or write or to compose or to think or to teach otherwise. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith or to propose, or to teach, or to hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth from the heathen or the Jews or from any heresy any different symbol, or to introduce a new mode of expression to subvert these things which have now been determined by us, all these, if they be bishops or clergy, shall be deposed, the bishops from the episcopate, the clergy from the clerical office; but if they be monks or laymen, they shall be anathematized.
(_e_) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 681, _Sessio_ XIII. Mansi, XI, 1050. _Cf._ Mirbt, n. 188.
The condemnation of the Monotheletes, including Honorius of Rome.
The condemnation of Honorius has become a _cause clbre_, especially in connection with the doctrine of papal infallibility.
It should be observed, however, that the doctrine of papal infallibility, as defined at the Vatican Council, A. D. 1870 (_cf._ Mirbt, n. 509), requires that only when the Pope speaks _ex cathedra_ is he infallible, and it has not been shown that any opinion whatever held by Honorius was an _ex cathedra_ definition of faith and morals according to the Vatican Council. The matter is therefore a mere question of fact and may be treated apart from the Vatican dogma. It should be borne in mind, further, that the Sixth General Council was approved by Pope Leo II, A. D. 682 (_cf._ Mirbt, n. 189), who included Honorius by name among those whose condemnation was approved. That he did so approve it is also stated in the _Liber Pontificalis_ (_cf._ Mirbt, n. 190), and according to the _Liber Diurnus_, the official book of formul used in the papal business, the Pope took an oath recognizing among others the Sixth General Council, and condemning Honorius among other heretics (_cf._ Mirbt, n. 191). That Honorius was actually a heretic is still another matter; for it seems not at all unlikely that he misunderstood the point at issue and his language is quite unscientific. The text of the letters of Honorius may be found in Kirch, nn. 949-965, and in Hefele in a translation, 296, 298. On the condemnation of Honorius, see Hefele, 324.
The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise made to your highness,(305) the doctrinal letter written by Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal G.o.d-preserved city, to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis, and to Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, and finding that the doc.u.ments are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the definitions of the holy councils, and to all the approved Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics, we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.
But the names of those men whom we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of G.o.d, namely, that of Sergius, sometime bishop of this G.o.d-preserved royal city, who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this G.o.d-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore, sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice-blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and G.o.d-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we declare are subject to anathema. And with these we decree that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of G.o.d and anathematized Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine.
We have also examined the synodal letter(306) of Sophronius, of holy memory, sometime patriarch of the holy city of our G.o.d, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with apostolic teachings, and with the teachings of the holy and approved Fathers.
Therefore, we have received it as orthodox and salutary to the holy and Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the holy churches.
108. Rome, Constantinople, and the Lombard State Church in the Seventh Century
The Sixth General Council was the last great diplomatic triumph of Rome in the East in matters of faith, though two centuries after, in the matter of Photius, Rome played a brilliant part in the internal affairs of the Eastern Church. Immediately after the council of 681, it was felt that the West, of which the Greeks had grown very jealous, had triumphed over the East, especially as several of the leading patriarchs had been condemned.
Monotheletism, furthermore, was too strongly intrenched in the East to be removed by a single conciliar action. It was felt necessary to take action to confirm the results of Constantinople in 681. The fifth and sixth general councils had been occupied entirely with doctrinal matters and had not issued any disciplinary canons. A new council might be gathered to complete the work of the Sixth General Council, not only to reaffirm it, but in connection with some much-needed legislation to retort upon the West by condemning some Roman practices. In this way the Second Trullan Council, or Concilium Quinis.e.xtum, came about in 692. The Roman see, in the meanwhile, although it had triumphed at Constantinople in 681, did not enjoy an independent political position in Italy. It was still under the Roman Emperor at Constantinople, as had been most painfully perceived in the treatment of Martin I by Constans. Although the Pope had his apocrisiarius, or nuncio, at Constantinople, he came into immediate contact with the exarch of Ravenna, the Emperors representative in Italy.
In Italy, furthermore, the Arian heresy long persisted among the Lombards, although greater toleration was shown the Catholic Church.
Additional source material: The canons of the Quinis.e.xt Council may be found complete in Percival, _Seven Ec.u.menical Councils_, PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV.
(_a_) Concilium Quinis.e.xtum, A. D. 692, _Canons_. Bruns, I, 34, _ff._
This council was commonly regarded as the continuation of the Sixth General Council, and has been received in the East, not as a separate council, but as a part of the sixth. The West has never accepted this opinion and has only to a limited extent admitted the authority of its canons, though some have been current in the West because, like much conciliar action, they were re-enactments of older canons. Occasionally some of the canons have been cited by popes as belonging to the Sixth Council. The canons given here are, for the most part, those which were in some point in opposition to the Roman practice.
Canon 1. _Renewal of the Condemnations of the Sixth Council._
We, by divine grace at the beginning of our decrees, define that the faith set forth by the G.o.d-chosen Apostles, who themselves had both seen the Word and were ministers of the Word, shall be preserved without any innovation, unchanged and inviolate. Moreover the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed Fathers, etc.
[Here follows a detailed statement of the first five general councils.]
Also we agree to guard untouched the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod, which first a.s.sembled in this royal city in the time of Constantine, our Emperor, of blessed memory, which faith received still greater confirmation from the fact that the pious Emperor ratified with his own signet what was written, for the security of every future age. And again we confess that we should guard the faith unaltered and openly acknowledged; that in the Economy of the incarnation of our one Lord Jesus Christ, the true G.o.d, there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations; and have condemned by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one Lord, our G.o.d, Jesus Christ, there is but one will and operation, that is to say, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who were bishops of this G.o.d-preserved city, Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch, Stephen who was his disciple, and the insane Polychronius, depriving them henceforth of the communion of the body of Christ our G.o.d.
Canon 2. _On the Sources of Canon Law._
This canon opposed Rome in two respects: it accepted eighty-five Apostolic Canons, whereas Rome received but fifty; it drew up a list of councils and of Fathers whose writings should have authority as canons, and omitted the important Western councils, except Carthage, and all the papal decrees. With this canon should be compared the decretal of Gelasius, _De Libris Recipiendis, v.
supra_, 92.
It has also seemed good to this holy synod that the eighty-five canons received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles, should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders. And since in these canons we are bidden to receive the _Const.i.tutions of the Holy Apostles_ by Clement, in which, in old time, certain spurious matter entirely contrary to piety was introduced by heterodox persons for the polluting of the Church, which obscures to us the elegance and beauty of the divine decrees; we, therefore, for the edification and security of the most Christian flock, reject properly such const.i.tutions; by no means admitting the offspring of heretical error, and cleaving to the pure and perfect doctrine of the Apostles. But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the three hundred and eighteen G.o.d-fearing Fathers a.s.sembled at Nica, and those at Ancyra; further, those at Neo-Csarea and at Gangra, and besides these those at Antioch in Syria [A. D. 341], those too at Laodicea in Phrygia, and likewise those of the one hundred and fifty a.s.sembled in this G.o.d-preserved imperial city and of the two hundred, who a.s.sembled for the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and of the six hundred and thirty holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon; in like manner those of Sardica and those of Carthage; those also who a.s.sembled in this G.o.d-preserved imperial city under Nectarius [A. D. 394], and under Theophilus, archbishop of Alexandria; likewise too the canons(307) of Dionysius, formerly archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, and of Peter, archbishop of Alexandria, and martyr; of Gregory the Wonder-worker, archbishop of Neo-Csarea; of Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria; of Basil, archbishop of Csarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, bishop of Nyssa; of Gregory the Theologian;(308) of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy, archbishop of Alexandria; of the first Theophilus, archbishop of the same metropolis of Alexandria; of Gennadius, patriarch of the G.o.d-preserved imperial city; moreover the canons set forth by Cyprian, archbishop of the country of the Africans, and martyr, and by the synod under him,(309) which have been kept in the country of the aforesaid bishops and only according to the custom delivered down to them. And that no one be allowed to transgress the aforesaid canons, or to receive other canons besides them, supposit.i.tiously set forth by some who have attempted to make a traffic of the truth. But should any one be convicted of innovating upon them, or attempting to overturn any of the aforementioned canons, he shall be condemned to receive the penalty which the canon imposes and so to be cured of his transgressions.