the heresy.[1] The Legates presided at the council, the Emperor was present at many sessions without interfering in the discussion.[2] The Legates read out Agatho's letter, and the Fathers say to Constantine: "The supreme Prince of the Apostles agreed with us, we had his follower and the successor of his see as our ally explaining the divine mystery in his letter. That ancient City of Rome sent you a profession of faith written by God, and the daylight of the faith shone from the West. We saw parchment and writing, but Peter spoke through Agatho."[3] They write to the Pope that he "stands on the firm Rock of Faith."[4] They ask for his confirmation: "We have, in company with you, clearly taught the Orthodox faith, and we ask your Holiness to sign it with your venerable rescript."[5] Meanwhile Agatho died and Leo II (682–683) followed him. Leo examined the Acts and confirmed them all, except that he distinctly refused to acknowledge the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic. He, too, condemned him, but only because "he had not crushed out the flame of heresy at once, as behoved his Apostolic authority, but rather fostered it by his negligence."[6] So the statement made by the council that Honorius was a heretic, not having been confirmed by Rome, affects us Catholics as little as the Canons of Constantinople I.[7]
The seventh general council in 787, at Nicæa (Nicænum II), condemned Iconoclasm. The Empress Irene (Regent for her son Constantine VI, 797–802) and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasius (784–806), both wrote in the first place to Pope Adrian I (772–795) about summoning a general synod. Adrian answered in two long letters. He rejoices at their Orthodox disposition and at their wish to put an end to the heresy that has so long cut them off from the Communion of the Roman See. He writes a long defence of holy images from the Bible and
- ↑ Hard. iii. 1074.
- ↑ Mansi, l.c.
- ↑ Hard. iii. 1422, seq.
- ↑ Mansi, xi. 683.
- ↑ Hard. iii. 1631–1633.
- ↑ Mansi, xi. 1050, M.P.L. xcvii, 414.
- ↑ The famous Honorius question does not sufficiently concern the Eastern Churches to warrant a longer discussion of it here. Apart from the statement made by this council, it is quite certain that he did not define Monothelitism ex cathedra. Cf., for instance, Jungmann: Dissert. hist. ii. pp. 385, seq.
