From “Theodore of Mopsuestia’s third book against the impious Apollinarius,” as found in the Acta of the fourth session of the Second Council of Constantinople (553):
31. (XXV/XXVI) Likewise
by the same Theodore from Book I on the incarnation, interpreting the
profession of Peter in which he said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the
Living God’:
[55] Therefore just as
Nathanael is not showing to have had knowledge of His godhead by this
profession—Jews and Samaritans in having this hope were as far as it is
possible from a knowledge of God the word--, so too Martha is not proved by her
profession to have had knowledge of his Godhead at that time, and nor clearly
is the blessed Peter. For up to this point it was sufficient for those
receiving this revelation at that time to accept something special and superior
about him that exceeded the imagination of other men; but after the
resurrection they were then led to knowledge by the Spirit and received a perfect
knowledge of the revelation, with the result that they knew that something
special, beyond other men, had come to him from God, not merely as an honour as
in the case of other men but through union with God the Word, through which he
shares with him in every honour after his ascension into heaven. (Richard
Price, The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553, 2 vols. [Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, 2009, 2012], 1:248)
Vigilius, in the First Constitutum,
repeated the following, and then added a rebuttal with an anathema attached:
(111) In the
above-written twenty-sixth chapter Peter is denied to have recognized the
divinity of Christ before his resurrection, and is said to have received a notional
understanding beyond other men, and again a duality of sons is introduced, when
it says that the man shared in God the Word after he ascended into heaven. Who
therefore holds, teaches, believes or preaches this accordingly, and does not
understand that there is one and the same Christ our Lord, Son of God and son
of man, while the difference between the natures united in him remains, let him
be anathema. (Ibid., 2:169)