749. In the Eighth Session of
the Synod the Emperor asked the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch, who
at their own request had received copies of the said reports to read, to state
whether they and their Synods agreed with the sense of the reports sent by Agatho,
most holy Pope of Rome, and his Synod. George of Constantinople replied as
follows : 'Having inspected, O pious Lord, the full force of the reports sent
to your most pious person by Agatho, most holy Pope of Rome, and his Synod, and
having examined the writings of the holy and approved Fathers which are kept in
my venerable Patriarchal house, I have found all the testimonies of the holy
and approved Fathers which are contained in the said reports, to be correct and
in no way disagreeing with the holy and approved Fathers, and I agree with them
and so confess and believe.' The Bishops, who were subject to the Patriarchs,
one after the other made similar declarations.
750. The Fathers of the Council
examined the letter, and when they found that its teaching was consonant with
that of 'the holy and approved Fathers,' then, and not till then, they
expressed their agreement with it; that is, they did not hold those decrees
binding on the whole Church ex sese. Hence, in accordance with this, in the
decree which they ultimately put forth in the Eighteenth Session of the Synod, they
declared that 'the Holy and (Ecumenical Council received' it and the synodal
letter of the Western Bishops, 'since the two letters agree with the holy synod
of Chalcedon, the Tome of the holy Leo to Flavian, and with the synodal letters
of Cyril against Nestorius and the Bishops of the East.' Notice that they here
put 'the Tome' of St. Leo on the same level with the two letters of St. Cyril.
It is quite clear from their statement that had the result of their examination
been that they had found that the letter of Agatho was not in agreement with
the doctrinal statements which had the authority of Œcumenical Councils with which
they compared it, they would necessarily have rejected it. The whole treatment
of the letter is as inconsistent with Papalism as was the treatment of 'the
Tome' of St. Leo by the Fourth Synod.
751. Again, this Synod decreed
'that Honorius, the late Pope of Elder Rome, should be cast out of the holy
Church of God and be anathematised ... because we have found from the letter
written by him to Sergius that he followed the mind of the latter in all things
and authoritatively confirmed his impious dogmas'-κατά πάντα τη εκείνου γνώμη εξακολουθήσαντα καί τά αύτοϋ άσεβη κυρώσαντα δόγματα. The Fathers of the Council evidently
did not hold that ' Peter spoke through Honorius' in the Papalist sense,
consequently they could not have regarded Agatho, his successor, as holding a
different position jure divino from that held by Honorius. Edward Denny, Papalism:
A Treatise on the Claims of the Papacy as Set Forth in the Encyclical Satis
Cognitum [London: Rivingtons, 1912], 379-80)
On
the identical treatment of Pope Agatho's letter and Macarius by the Sixth Synod
1269. Macarius, the patriarch of
Antioch, was a Monothelite, and in the first Session of the Sixth Synod he
declared, in answer to the Emperor, that 'He had not invented these new
expressions' (of the one energy and one will in the Incarnate Lord Jesus
Christ), 'but had only taught what we have received by tradition from the holy
(Ecumenical Synods, the holy Fathers, from Sergius and his successors, and from
Pope Honorius and from Cyrus of Alexandria, in regard to the will and energy,
and we are ready to prove this.' Then followed an exhaustive inquiry, in the
course of which, at the fifth Session, Macarius handed in two volumes of
Patristic testimonies for the Monothelite doctrine, and, at the sixth Session,
a further volume of like evidence, which were read to the Synod." There
was afterwards read at the seventh Session a collection of genuine testimonies
of the Fathers on the doctrine in question, taken from copies of the Fathers in
the Patriarchal House at Constantinople by the Roman legates, and of passages
of heretics who, agreeing with Macarius, taught one will and operation. At the
eighth Session, at the request of the Emperor, as President, George, the
Patriarch of Constantinople, declared that he had compared the Patristic
passages adduced therein with copies in his own Patriarchal House, and found
that they fully agreed. The Emperor, at the request of the Synod, called on
Macarius to give a more definite explanation of his faith. Macarius put forth a
confession of faith which was read to the Synod, entitled in the Acts of the
Synod, 'Ecthesis or Confession of Faith of the Heresiarch Macarius.' Macarius,
in answer to the repeated interrogations of the Emperor, rejected most
decidedly the doctrine of two natural wills and energies, and the Emperor
ordered the collection of the Patristic passages presented by him to be read.
The reading was continued in the ninth Session. Macarius was proved to have
falsified his Patristic authorities and to have adhered to the statements of
heretics, and finally the Synod gave sentence, and he was condemned and deposed
'from all priestly dignity and function.' The Synod exclaiming : 'He has
manifestly declared himself a heretic; anathema to the new Dioscurus; he
deserves to be deprived of the Episcopate-that he should be deprived of his
Pall.'
The conclusion to be drawn from these proceedings, and
those in the case of Agatho's letter, is that the Synod adopted the same method
of treatment in both cases. In the words of Mgr. Maret : 'It is as clear as the
day that the acceptance of the letter of Pope St. Agatho by the Sixth Council
was the fruit of a free judicial examination. This liberty of examination shows
itself there yet more signally than at Ephesus and Chalcedon. It is not a minority,
it is a great majority, almost the totality of the Bishops, who, before
adhering to the doctrine of Agatho, demands to examine, not only the citation,
but the sense and whole contents of the Apostolic letter. Could the intention
of not accepting a decision without cognisance of the case be possibly
expressed more precisely than did the Patriarch George? The Episcopal
examination lasted three weeks, and the difference of the results of this
examination is a new proof of its freedom. The result of the examination of
George and his Bishops was the acceptance of the letter of Agatho. The result
of the examination of Macarius was its rejection. It will never be shown that
the examinations of both Patriarchs were not of the same nature, equally free.
They differed only in their consequences. Although belonging to the Monothelite
party before the Council, George, inspired by the love of truth alone,
recognised his error. Macarius, the most obstinate of men, persisted in his.' (ibid.,
677-78)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
