CONSTANTINOPLE
310
CONSTANTINOPLE
Liber contra Midianum: and Episl. fulei cath. — all in P. L.,
LXVII, 527 sqq.; and the Carthaginian deacon Fulgentius
Febrandos, EpM. ad Pelagium el Analol. in P. L., LXVII,
921 sqq- See Punkes, Papst VigiUn- nh'I ./. * Dnikapiielstreit
(Munich, 1861); Vincenzi, In S. <;-.» A / .' Ongen. scripla
cl dodr. nova recensio, cum. appcnl •/■ "rd \',irum. concilii
(Rome, 1865): Duchesne. Vigih ft /•././.;. m h', riie des qucsl.
hist. (Louvain. 1884), XXXVI, SBU, wilh reply of Chamabd,
ibid., XXXVII, 540, and the counter-reply of Duchesne, ibid.,
579; LtvEQUE, Etude sur le pape Vigilc (Amiens, 1887);
Knecht, Die Religionspolitik Kaiser Justinians I. (Wurzburg,
1896): DiEKAMP, Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten im VI. Jahr'
hundert (Munster, 1899).
III. The Third Council op Const.^ntinople (Sixth General Council) wa.s summoned in 678 by Em- peror Constantine Pogonatu.s, with a view of re.storing between East and West the religious harmony that had been troubled by the Monothelistic controversies, and particularly by the violence of his predecessor Constans II, whose imperial edict, known as the "Ty- pus" (648-49) was a practical suppression of the or- thodox truth. Owing to the desire of Pope Agatho to obtain the adhesion of his Western brethren, the papal legates did not arrive at Constantinople until late in 680. The council, attended in the beginning by 100 bishops, later by 174, was opened 7 Nov., 680, in a domed hall (trullus) of the imperial palace and was presided over by the (three) papal legates who brought to the council a long dogmatic letter of Pope Agatho and another of similar import from a Roman synod held in the spring of 680. They were read in the sec- ond session. Both letters, the pope's in particular, insist on the faith of the Apostolic See as the living and stainless tradition of the Apostles of Christ , assured by the promises of Christ, witnessed by all the popes in their capacity of successors to the Petrine privilege of confirming the brethren, and therefore finally authori- tative for the Universal Church.
The greater part of the eighteen sessions was de- voted to an examination of the Scriptural and patris- tic passages bearing on the question of one or two wills, one or two operations, in Christ. George, Patri- arch of Constantinople, soon yielded to the evidence of the orthodox teaching concerning the two wills and two operations in Christ, but Macarius of Antioch, "almost the only certain representative of Monothel- ism since the nine propositions of Cyrus of Alexan- dria" (Chapman), resisted to the end, and was finally anathematized and deposed for "not consenting to the tenor of the orthodox letters sent by Agatho the most holy pope of Rome", i. e., that in each of the two na- tures (human and Divine) of Christ there is a perfect operation and a perfect will, against which the Mono- thelites had taught that there was but one operation and one will (/xia iv4pyua. OeavdpLK-/i) quite in conso- nance with the Monophysite confusion of the two na- tures in Christ. In the thirteenth session (28 March, 681) after anathematizing the chief Monothelite here- tics mentioned in the aforesaid letter of Pope Agatho, i. e. Sergius of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and Theo- dore of Pharan, the council added: "And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of Elder Rome, be with them cast out of the Holy (Jhurch of God, and be anathematized with them, be- cause we have fovmd by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things and confirmed his wicked dogmas." A similar condemnation of Pope Honorius occurs in the dogmatic decree of the final session (16 Sept., 681), which was signed by the legates and the emperor. Reference is here made to the fa- mous letter of Honorius to Sergius of Constantinople about 634, around which has arisen (especially before and during the Vatican Council) so large a controver- sial literature. It had been invoked three times in previous sessions of the council in question by the stubborn Monothelite Macarius of Antioch, and had been pviblicly read in the twelfth session together with the letter of Sergivis to which it replied. On that oc- casion a second U'tter of Honorius to Sergius was also
read, of which only a fragment has survived. (For
the question of this pope's orthodoxy, see Honorius
I; Infallibility; Monothelites.)
There has been in tlie past, owing to GalUcanism and the opponents of papal infallibility, much con- troversy concerning the proper sense of this council's condemnation of Pope Honorius, the theory (Baro- nius, Damberger) of a falsification of the Acts being now quite abandoned (Hefele, III, 299-313). Some have maintained, with Pennacchi, that he was indeed condenmed as a heretic, but that the Oriental bishops of the council misunderstood the thoroughly orthodox (and dogmatic) letter of Honorius; others, with He- fele, that the council condemned the heretically sounding expressions of the pope (though his doctrine was really orthodox); others finally, with Chapman (see below), that he was condemned "because he did not, as he should have done, declare authoritatively the Petrine tradition of the Roman Church. To that tradition he had made no appeal but had merely ap- proved and enlarged upon the half-hearted compro- mise of Sergius. . . . Neither the pope nor the coun- cil consider that Honorius had compromised the purity of the Roman tradition, for he had never claimed to represent it. Therefore, just as to-day we judge the letters of Pope Honorius by the Vatican definition and deny them to be ex cathedrd, because they do not de- fine any doctrine and impose it upon the whole Church, so the Cliristians of the seventh century judged the same letters by the custom of their day, and saw that they did not claim what papal letters were wont to claim, viz., to speak with the mouth of Peter in the name of Roman tradition" (Chapman).
The letter of the council to Pope Leo, asking, after the traditional manner, for confiniiation of its Acts, while including again the name of Honorius among the condemned Monothelites, lays a remarkable stress on the magisterial office of the Roman Church, as, in gen- eral, the documents of the Sixth General Council fa- vour strongly the inerrancy of the See of Peter. " The Council", says Dom Chapman, "accepts the letter in which the Pope defined the faith. It deposes those who refused to accept it. It asks [the pope] to con- firm its decisions. "The Bishops and Emperor declare that they have seen the letter to contain the doctrine of the Fathers. Agatho speaks with the voice of Pe- ter himself ; from Rome the law had gone forth as out of Sion; Peter had kept the faith unaltered." Pope Agatho died during the council and was succeeded by Leo II, who confirmed (683) the decrees against Mono- thelism, and expressed himself even more harshly than the council towards the memory of Honorius (Hefele, Chapman), though he laid stress chiefly on the neglect of that pope to set forth the traditional teaching of the Apostolic See, whose spotless faith he treasonably tried to overthrow (or, as the Greek may be trans- lated, permitted to be overthrown).
The .Vets of the Council are in the eleventh volume of Mansi, Coll. Cone. The most complete presentation of its history is in Hefele, Concitiengeschichle (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1877), III. 249-313. see also the Enghsh tr. (Edinburgh, 1876 — ), and for the later bibliography the French tr. of Leclercq (Paris 1907); ScHNEF.MAN, Sludim iiber die Ilonoriusfrage (Frei- burg, 1864); Pennacchi, De Honorii I Rom. Ponlif. causi in Cone. VI (Rome, 1870>; Hehgenrother-Kirsch, Kirchen- otsch. (4th ed., Freiburg. 1904), I, 633-38; Marshall, Hon- on'ii.-! and Libirius in Am. Cath Quarterly Rer. (Philadelphia, 1S91\ XIX, 82-92; BOTTALLA, Pope Honorius before the Tribu- nal of R,„x,.i! „n.l llisloni (London, 1864); Dollinger (Old C:itlinli, 1, F.,l,h X I. i: I lino the Popes in the Middle Ages, Ameri- c;in f\ .if the l'.,!.:f[,,biln (New York, 1S72), 223-48; Chap-. MAN. Thr C,,n,l, mnaUon of Pope Honorius in Dublin Review for' 1UU7. and reprinted by the London Cath. Truth Society, 1907; tiRISAK in Kirchcnlez., VI, 230 sqq. For the e.ttensiv Honorius literature, see Chevauer, Bio-bihl., s.v.
IV. The Fourth Council of Constantinoplb (Eighth General Council) was opened, 5 Oct., 869, in the ('athedral of Saint Sophia, under the presidency of the legates of Adrian II. During the preceding de- cade grave irregularities had occurred at Constanti- nople, among them the deposition of the Patriarch
