11 thoughts on “Dialogue on Pope St. Agatho’s Letter to Emperor Constantine IV: Is it Evidence For or Against Papal Infallibility? (Download Document)”
I think the point “St. Dostoyevsky” made about Const +681 approving yet correcting the letter of St. Sophronius is persuasive. It seems that, in the minds of the council fathers, the letters they were admitting to evidence were free to be corrected at points, which they did by dissenting from Sophronius’ acceptance of Sergius. Clearly, by condemning Honorius, the Council reveals that it did not assent to the entirety of St. Agatho’s letter, despite indeed saying that Peter had spoken through him and such. The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this, in my mind, is that they were saying this of Agatho’s confession of the orthodox faith, and simply didn’t want to cause a new controversy over ecclesiology, and so were content to correct Agatho’s letter passively.
Personally, I also think the question of whether or not heretics can be anathematized post-humorously is more than a disciplinary question. Const II seems to have treated this as a theological issue concerning the extent of the church’s “binding and loosing” power. As such, I don’t think one can denounce this practice as easily as one denounces the Casero-Papism of Const. II, given a theological rationale was never given and approved for that. And it wasn’t just Const. II that seems to have dogmatized the church’s authority to post-humorously excommunicate, but the rest of the Ecumenical Councils seem to have taken it as a given that the church had the authority to do this. I bring this up because, although I agree RCs can endure Honorius being a heretic, if this question truly was theological, then it seems Vigilius made a truly dogmatic error by denying the church’s authority to excommunicate the dead.
I think “St. Dostoyevsky” brings up some good points. That is why I thought it was worth sharing. However, I would say that I slightly disagree with you on this particular point. The letter of St. Sophronius was read for the sole purpose of determining whether he was orthodox and was cleared of heresy himself. That has a slightly different function than Agatho. The context of Rome’s participation in Constantinople in 680 had nothing to do with Rome’s own initiative. The Emperor Constantine IV wanted to unite the Churches which had fallen to Monotheletism to the Apostolic See, and so he requested representatives from Pope Agatho to come to the East with a Tome of Union, something which was produced at the Roman Synod (680) with Western bishops, and which was delivered to Constantinople as a binding document. Agatho’s letter to the Emperor also included references to Lateran 649, which itself carried unmistakable claims to the Scriptural and Traditional doctrine of St. Peter’s prerogatives living in the heir to his chair in Rome. Moreover, the Papal legates took a clear place of presidency at the Council, reading aloud (and then translating into Greek) Agatho’s letter.
This letter, as I was telling Dostoyevsky, doesn’t simply contain references to heretics as honorable Saints. In tandem with Rome’s traditional doctrine, Agatho was simply writing out what was axiomatic for the Popes, namely, that the teaching ministry of the Apostolic See is divinely protected in light of its being possessed of the continuing prerogatives of St. Peter given to him by Christ, until the end of time. It also held claims to the previous 5 Councils being “led” by the superior authority of the Apostolic See on the grounds of the same Petrinological foundation. This is something that is commonly rejected by most Eastern Orthodox today, regardless if one could find an “Eastern Orthodox Petrine Primacy” configuration that makes it compatible.
In any case, the ecclesial claims of Agatho’s letters are, as I said in my recent presentation on Intellectual Catholicism, were not contested by the Council (681). In fact, as I said to Dostoyevsky, the Council did not respond with a mere acceptance of it either. Rather, the Council said the document was at once divinely written from heaven and wholly acceptable to the fathers assembled. I admit they anathematize Honorius, but even they leave this to the Apostolic See to confirm (which Pope St. Leo II did on Petrine supremacist terms, ironically enough). Also, observe the way in which they describe Agatho’s tome in the conciliar letter back to the Rome as well as to the Emperor. They carry on with the Petrine claims.
Lastly, let’s just say that the Greek bishops did not internally accept the Petro-ecclesiology of Agatho’s letter and just felt that they should not contest it at that moment in time. That just means that the observations of men like Fr. Wilhelm De Vries, Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, and Fr. Alexander Schmemann are correct. Namely, that the Papal claims, all which implicitly anticipate the codification of Pastor Aeternus, were explicitly revealed during the times of union (between East and West), during the most authoritatively sensitive times (in ecumenical councils), and equally uncontested by the Greeks who stood by and observed. Tantamount, it is, to sitting by and watching a heresy work its course into the church.
On the matter of posthumous condemnation – I am not sure C’ple II was claiming jurisdiction over the dead as it was the ability to discern whether their last breath was an God-forsaken mode.
First of all it’s crazy to think that I ended up being put on your blog Erick, its a privilege to be on here. I believe that here would be a better place to carry on the discussion rather than on Youtube.
“In any case, the ecclesial claims of Agatho’s letters are, as I said in my recent presentation on Intellectual Catholicism, were not contested by the Council (681).”
I think that you are half-right on this issue. Yes, the council fathers never directly quote from Agatho’s letter and raise complaints about it, that much is true; but, I would say that the council fathers did disagree with points of Agatho’s letter, and rather than make an open point regarding it and risk dividing the council, they instead manifest their disagreement in condemning Honorius, whose orthodoxy comes under the ecclesial claims of Agatho’s letter.
“In fact, as I said to Dostoyevsky, the Council did not respond with a mere acceptance of it either. Rather, the Council said the document was at once divinely written from heaven and wholly acceptable to the fathers assembled.”
The problem is that if the letter was “wholly acceptable” then we would not not see Honorius condemned, since as Agatho states in his letters, the divine protection of Peter extends to all of his successor in Rome, Honorius included. Of course the council didn’t hold to this perspective in damning Honorius. It sounds as if you are saying that the Council Fathers, held to doublethink, that all the predecessors of Agatho were orthodox, and that at the same time Honorius was a heretic. It is somehow a declaration of God that Honorius was orthodox, and yet he is a heretic.
“I admit they anathematize Honorius, but even they leave this to the Apostolic See to confirm (which Pope St. Leo II did on Petrine supremacist terms, ironically enough)”
I think the idea of them asking the pope to “confirm” the decision is not one of say, a minister giving a law to a king to approve, who can immediately veto it if he doesn’t like it. Instead, this “confirmation” is rather like one in which 90% of the House and Senate vote in favour of a bill; the bill is sent to the president to ratify, but the laws is that the president cannot not ratify it, but is instead bound to accept its decision. The council fathers, despite saying the Pope is to confirm it, also says the Emperor is to “confirm” it. Furthermore, in its letter to the Pope , informs him that its decision is not able to be revoked: “we all agree both in heart and tongue, and hand, and have put forth, by the assistance of the life-giving Spirit, a definition, clean from all error, certain, and infallible.”
“Also, observe the way in which they describe Agatho’s tome in the conciliar letter back to the Rome as well as to the Emperor. They carry on with the Petrine claims.”
I would say it is a reach to say that they agreed with the Petrine claims simply because they invoked Rome’s Petrine heritage. It is one thing to say that Peter and spoken through Agatho and God has spoken through him and another to suggest that the Church of Rome is incapable of erring (something which the council never expressly says). It seems more likely to me that these phrases speak on the general sense of Agatho’s letter, not to every idea contained within.
For example, the final session of the council was devoted to examining the claims of a Monothelite monk named Polychronius. He claimed that God appeared to him and gave him a letter expressing monothelitism, and that this letter would raise the dead. Rather than proclaim to him, as would be expected if they agreed with Vatican I, that “Peter has spoken from Agatho” and “God has spoken through Rome,” they actually take the time to go through with this claim, and stand for hours watching Polychronius in vain attempt to resurrect the dead. Why go through with this if the matter ahd already been definitively settled?
“Namely, that the Papal claims, all which implicitly anticipate the codification of Pastor Aeternus, were explicitly revealed during the times of union (between East and West), during the most authoritatively sensitive times (in ecumenical councils), and equally uncontested by the Greeks who stood by and observed.”
The problem with this is that it assumes that the Council Fathers held to the *exact* same view as the Pope of Rome had on this issue. It is more than likely that they didn’t take the words of Agatho literally and interpreted them in the same way contemporary Roman Catholics do today. They could say that Peter spoke from Agatho, without implying that every word written in the letter was divinely inspired.
Furthermore, the question can be raised as to how schismatics by Rome’s standards today (not in communion with the Pope) ended up being considered orthodox people in the Ecumenical Councils (People like Theophilus of Alexandria; Patriarchs Thomas II, John V, Constantine I). The Councils never jumped forward and said “These people died outside of Rome’s communion, therefore they are schismatics.” Another example, the Definition of Faith given by the Council, the same one that the council Fathers said was “infallible and inspired by the Holy Spirit” stated that the creeds of Constantinople 381 and Nicaea 325 were “sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith,” in other words, the Filioque addition is wrong since it very much states that these council fathers, inspired by the Spirit, erred in saying that the Creed without the Filioque was as stated above.
Overall, I think the issue with your analysis is that you do take everything too literally. Yes, there is a flaw in asserting that everything is flattery and hyperbole, but it is also equally wrong to state that everything must be literal. If it was, then I do not see how contemporary Roman Catholicism can claim to be following the Sixth EC.
Of course, no problem at all. I thought the same thing. Discussion would be easier to read here. Thanks for commenting and continuing the discussion. This is why I wrote my book. To continue my own journey. I plan to read later this evening or tomorrow and try to get you back what I think of your comments. God bless
You wrote: “I think that you are half-right on this issue. Yes, the council fathers never directly quote from Agatho’s letter and raise complaints about it, that much is true; but, I would say that the council fathers did disagree with points of Agatho’s letter, and rather than make an open point regarding it and risk dividing the council, they instead manifest their disagreement in condemning Honorius, whose orthodoxy comes under the ecclesial claims of Agatho’s letter.”
You are correct that the Bishops in Council did not raise a single objection to the claims of Pope Agatho. That is extremely significant. Moreover, the claims of Agatho are not reducible to the perpetual infallibility of each and every one of Agatho’s predecessors. There is a full-bodied teaching about what was done in Christ with St. Peter on behalf of his lineal succession in the Apostolic See of Rome. There is no good reason to equalize a perfect counterfactual between Agatho’s predecessor Honorius erring in faith and the full-bodied Petrine claims of Agatho. If the parameters were equalized in this way, then you would have more of a persuasive point. And just think of it this way, if the Papacy is truly a gross error in faith. If it is true that Jesus did not single out Peter, commission him with supreme authority (to lead councils, fathers, and the whole Church, as Agatho said), and if this supreme authority truly does not pass down to the lineal succession of Peter in Rome until the end of time, then it is nothing short of negligence to allow such a thing to pass into the text of a Council, even if it was for the purpose of not risking further division. Heck, the differences in ecclesiology itself is worth the division if Rome was wrong in her ecclesial doctrine. There was a division in Christology, was there not? Why wouldn’t there be in ecclesiology? It seems to me this point is far too belitted. And this is part of the issue raised by Fr. Schmemann. The papal claims were there, not contested officially, and communion never broke.
You wrote: “The problem is that if the letter was “wholly acceptable” then we would not not see Honorius condemned, since as Agatho states in his letters, the divine protection of Peter extends to all of his successor in Rome, Honorius included. Of course the council didn’t hold to this perspective in damning Honorius. It sounds as if you are saying that the Council Fathers, held to doublethink, that all the predecessors of Agatho were orthodox, and that at the same time Honorius was a heretic. It is somehow a declaration of God that Honorius was orthodox, and yet he is a heretic.”
Well, this is why I said the council leaves us with a conundrum, or a surface level contradiction, with no explicit way to reconcile it. That’s not uncommon. Scripture itself has a number of surface level contradictions, but we accept the explanations that reconcile these. What we have is X and something that seems to subtract from X. Where X is Rome is everlastingly infallible by divine promise and then that which subtracts is the Honorius situation. The former is a theological & metaphysical claim, and the Honorius event is a matter of alleged fact. Do they necessarily contradict? At least on one particular point, namely, that Agatho said all his predecessors taught the truth under the divine protection of St. Peter. Does this then undermine the entire Petrine claim altogether? Can the Papacy still exist in the terms with which Agatho claims while also seeing one of the occupants of Peter’s throne as a heretic? I believe we can. It would seem so. What we learn from the wider history of the 1st millennium is that neither the Popes of Rome nor the universal Church took it to mean that the Papacy is a non-thing, something of mythological Petrine heritage only concretely supported by canons. The Papal claims continued, and the Council bishops themselves not only remark as to the “Petrine heritage” of Rome. Just see the infallibility-implications of the Hadrianic epistles to the Emperors in 785, read aloud and included into the Acts of Nicaea (787), not to mention the claims in the Acts of Constantinople IX (879-880).
You wrote: “I think the idea of them asking the pope to “confirm” the decision is not one of say, a minister giving a law to a king to approve, who can immediately veto it if he doesn’t like it. Instead, this “confirmation” is rather like one in which 90% of the House and Senate vote in favour of a bill; the bill is sent to the president to ratify, but the laws is that the president cannot not ratify it, but is instead bound to accept its decision. The council fathers, despite saying the Pope is to confirm it, also says the Emperor is to “confirm” it. Furthermore, in its letter to the Pope , informs him that its decision is not able to be revoked: “we all agree both in heart and tongue, and hand, and have put forth, by the assistance of the life-giving Spirit, a definition, clean from all error, certain, and infallible.””
I understand this is your interpretation, but we see this isn’t how it was understood even by the Greeks. Think of St. Anatolius who said the decrees of Chalcedon were in the hands of Pope Leo. St. Gelasius said each and every synod must require the assent of the Roman See, not because of some purely canonical procedure, but because the authority to do so was given by Christ to St. Peter, and thus St. Peter’s successor. It just so happens that Pope Agatho, likewise, claims that all the prior Councils had folowed the Petrine supremacy of the Roman See. This, too, was not objected to by the Council in 681.
You wrote: “I would say it is a reach to say that they agreed with the Petrine claims simply because they invoked Rome’s Petrine heritage.”
But that’s just it – they did not merely invoke Rome’s Petrine heritage. They said that St. Peter worked through Agatho in precisely the way that Agatho said Peter protects the Roman See. Again, it hits the point of unresolved conundrum because of the Honorius bit. That is not resolved simply by saying that they likely did not internally believe what Agatho said. That is, for all intents and purposes, very likely to be the case. But what counts in a Council is what is put into letter and confession by episcopal-senatorial acclamation. And they did not revoke those parts of Agatho’s letter, and so it gets put into the bloodstream of conciliar confession.
You wrote: “For example, the final session of the council was devoted to examining the claims of a Monothelite monk named Polychronius […] ”
I am sure there were folks who did not think it was definitively settled. But there is also the tactic of letting a fool show himself a fool.
You wrote: “The problem with this is that it assumes that the Council Fathers held to the *exact* same view as the Pope of Rome had on this issue […]”
Well, not really. If you recall, in my book, I even say it is possible many did not have the same understanding as Rome. But that really doesn’t play that big of a role here, for what matters is what was put into the text of the Acts and what was given conciliar acclamation. I’m sure some Greeks probably had different interpretations. But the fact of the matter is the Papal claims are not conformable to Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology today, and so those options are not on the table. I bring this up especially in my “Comprehensive Historical Analysis.”
You wrote: “Overall, I think the issue with your analysis is that you do take everything too literally. Yes, there is a flaw in asserting that everything is flattery and hyperbole, but it is also equally wrong to state that everything must be literal. If it was, then I do not see how contemporary Roman Catholicism can claim to be following the Sixth EC.”
Well, not every single word is literal, but the message is clear. Just like there is non-literal language about the immaculate Theotokos, does not mean they did not believe she was actually immaculate. Same for Christ, the angels, the apostles, and the church fathers. Lots of literary devices that go off the handle. But that doesn’t take away from the clear message that they were indispensible. There are a ton of sources to show that they literally believed the Papal claims throughout the centuries. There is almost too much evidence. The issue comes in when we see the few instances where Papal infallibility or supremacy completely rejected.
Canon 6 of Nicea disproves the papacy, showing it had a mere regional privlige as a metropolatan just like Alexandria.
It’s been a long time since I replied to this discussion but I want to get back at it by talking about some points, although not strictly in a chronological order.
“You are correct that the Bishops in Council did not raise a single objection to the claims of Pope Agatho. That is extremely significant.”
Well I would say that they *did*, by going against Agatho’s claim that all his predecessors were orthodox. It is just that they did not *plainly* and in a openly contradictory manner voice their disapproval. Actions speak louder than words. The fact that they condemned Honorius shows this point. Why did they not then openly proclaim that the Pope was wrong on this point? Well, anyone who reads the acts and sees them call Honorius a heretic knows that they disagreed with the Pope on this point, but why tear open a wound beyond necessity? There is no reason to embarrass Rome further when the mere fact of Honorius condemnation is an embarrassment in and of itself; there is no need to kick someone when they are down or pour salt in a wound; the council fathers would have certainly known how much pride Rome had in its track record or orthodox bishops, so they took care as not to exalt or glory in the shortcoming of a brother bishop.
“Moreover, the claims of Agatho are not reducible to the perpetual infallibility of each and every one of Agatho’s predecessors. There is a full-bodied teaching about what was done in Christ with St. Peter on behalf of his lineal succession in the Apostolic See of Rome. There is no good reason to equalize a perfect counterfactual between Agatho’s predecessor Honorius erring in faith and the full-bodied Petrine claims of Agatho. If the parameters were equalized in this way, then you would have more of a persuasive point.”
The problem is that this assumes that there is a distinction to be made between the See and the holder of the See. For example, if popes are able to proclaim that Constantinople fell into heresy due to heretical incumbents, then via the same measure if Rome had heretical bishops then it also by the same logic fell into heresy. Therefore the grandiose claim that Rome has never erred and never could err is thrown into jeopardy by the heresy of its holder. One is reminded of one of the reasons why Pope Gregory refused the title ecumenical to be applied to any one bishop, himself included, and that was because in his mind, if this bishop were to fall into heresy, then the whole church would fall into heresy.
“And just think of it this way, if the Papacy is truly a gross error in faith. If it is true that Jesus did not single out Peter, commission him with supreme authority (to lead councils, fathers, and the whole Church, as Agatho said), and if this supreme authority truly does not pass down to the lineal succession of Peter in Rome until the end of time, then it is nothing short of negligence to allow such a thing to pass into the text of a Council, even if it was for the purpose of not risking further division.”
Yet we find in Ecumenical Councils things that openly go against Roman Catholicism, that by your own logic is negligent that it passed into the texts of the councils. The two most blatent examples are Caesaropapism and the denial of the filioque. I mentioned it earlier but you have not responded to the fact that the ecumenical councils openly proclaim that the Creed of Constantinople is perfect and so the filioque addition is clearly against the ecumenical councils. Furthermore, Caesaropapism is rife in the councils, so why would such a dangerous (by Roman Catholic standards) idea be left in the councils? The councils taught that the Emperor was an essential part of the Christian faith, and as Richard Price pointed out, it was he who was the supreme on earth, not the Pope.
“I am sure there were folks who did not think it was definitively settled. But there is also the tactic of letting a fool show himself a fool.”
It is more likely to be the former. If the claims of Roman Catholicism are correct, then this man by this point wasn’t even a Christian and so his voice would be of no consequence and can be easily dismissed of as lunacy or worse. Furthermore, the council took the time to procure a body, halt the proceedings, extend its already lengthy and prolonged stay in the capital, and then witness for hours a man attempt to resurrect a corpse. It is simply way more feasible that they took his claims that monothelitism could be proven by miracle seriously. In addition, why would the bishops seek to publically shame and humiliate a potentially senile old man? It seems to be excessive cruelty.
Therefore, according to the acts, the Council itself was willing to put the declaration of Peter/Agatho to the test and see if it could be revoked by the direct working of God. Such is the view presented by the acts, which in your understanding, should have been excised from the recorded acta.
“But what counts in a Council is what is put into letter and confession by episcopal-senatorial acclamation. And they did not revoke those parts of Agatho’s letter, and so it gets put into the bloodstream of conciliar confession.”
Actually, what counts is the understanding of the council fathers. If the council fathers understood the parts of Agatho’s letter in a different manner, to how a Roman Catholic today understands them, such as flattery and hyperbolic language, then the Roman Catholic is in the wrong. I think that going by the condemnation of Honorius and the councils defiance of a Pope’s decree (that all his predecessors were orthodox), we are left with the conclusion that the council accepted the letter in total, but accepted certain portions as literal and dogmatic (such as on the two wills) and other portions as hyperbolic.
Furthermore, if we are to go by the Ecumenical Councils say then we are bound to:
1) Accept all the canons of Trullo as proceeding from the 6th Ecumenical Council, canons which are rejected by Roman Catholics. Note also canon 13, which clearly states that Rome has *not* been perfectly following apostolic tradition, if Trullo is a continuation of the 6th council, which the 7th council manifestly and openly asserts that it is, then the 6th council therefore goes again against Pope Agatho and say that Rome has not perfectly preserved the traditions of the apostles.
II) The vital position of emperors in the Church. One example being how the letter of the Three Oriental Patriarchs, read out and approved at Nicaea 787, quotes Justinian’s decree that the Imperial office is a “Great gift from God.” Rejecting the Imperial office is therefore a rejection of God’s gifts.
III) The creed of Constantinople as being perfect with regards to the Trinity, therefore, the filioque is impermissible.
IV) That the orders of the Pope can be ignored and set aside. Pope Hadrian’s letter to the Emperors, if it were read out in its full original to the council, declares that anyone who calls Tarasios “Ecumenical” has “no part in the orthodox faith and is a rebel against our holy catholic and apostolic church.” (Price, Nicaea, p. 172) Yet read how many of the bishops at the end of session two after this letter has been read out continue to call Tarasios “Ecumenical Patriarch ” with no censure or condemnation! (Price, Nicaea, pp. 183-195) Furthemore, read how at the end of session three the bishops in turn again call Tarasios “Ecumenical Patriarch” with no repercussions or condemnations! (Price, Nicaea, pp. 228-233) Look furthermore at the demands for the jurisdiction of Illyricum is completely set aside and ignored by the council of Nicaea.
V) That one can be a schismatic from Rome and be counted as among the holy fathers of the Church. This is shown by Theophilus of Alexandria, a pope of Alexandria who persistently disobeyed the Pope and died out of his communion is hailed as among the holy fathers at Ephesus 431 and Constantinople 553.
These are just five things that the Ecumenical Councils teach and that Roman Catholics today uniformally reject. All these are vastly more conformable to Eastern Orthodoxy than Roman Catholicism.
One question I have before I answer the points you’ve raised is what part of the Papal claims in Pope St. Agatho’s letter do you believe were accepted by the Council? Because, as I read Agatho’s claims, every single line where the Christ-Peter duo is brought up, it is extensive with the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff over the universal Church. And so it would seem to me that you, as an Orthodox, would have to say that pretty much every Christ-Peter claim of the letter is unreal. Is that the case?
I would say that whatever papal claims that are made in Agatho’s letter were not interpreted by the fathers of the council in a manner that aligns with Vatican I, or they were just rejected. I mean, one of the times of the Christ-Peter duo is brought up by Agatho is the invocation of Luke 22:31-32, which according to Agatho, means “that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of [Agatho’s] littleness, have always confidently done this very thing” i.e. keep the faith unsillied. Yet it is plain the council did not hold to this view giving that Honorius very much failed to do that very thing Agatho said could not happen due to the promise of Christ.
But there are claims to Papal supremacy and a divinely instituted primacy in the Roman episcopate. In one place, the command from Christ to Peter, “Feed my Sheep” is interpreted by Agatho as the specific pastoral assignment that Peter and his singular successors would govern the universal church with divine authority. He states that the previous Councils were all led by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, as a consequence. Both the universal Church and the Empire were underneath this spiritual care and motherhood. Here we have a certain kind of ecclesiology that is acclaimed to have been authored by the God-man himself, Jesus Christ.
So these metaphysical, theological, and ecclesiogical claims are not reduced to the claim , “all my predecessors never erred in faith” (something far stronger than what Vatican 1 claimed), and a claim which gets chipped at with the anathema against Honorius. Since these were claims about what Christ, and therefore God, did with Peter and the Apostles for all time, they are terribly difficult to read as unreal. But let’s consider your theory, namely, that the Greek bishops, altogether mentioning nothing to oppose Agatho’s papal claims, completely subtract from Agatho’s doctrine of the perpetual infallibility of the Roman Pontiffs from Peter to Agatho by their anathema to Honorius. Let’s just, for the sake of argument, situate the board like that. Would it not have been more fitting (never-mind the unfittingness of their tolerating the heresy of papal infallibility in the hearts and minds of the Roman people) for them to have responded to Agatho’s letter without ECHOING IN CLEARER TERMS WHAT AGATHO HIMSELF CLAIMED?? In other words, if it were the case that the Greek bishops silently shook their heads at all the Peter-pomp of Agatho, and internally knew that such dreams were mere fantasy, then we would not see such Greek bishops dressing THEIR OWN description of what Agatho did in the very terms of Agatho’s Peter-pomp!
And yet, how did the Greek bishops describe Agatho’s letter??? Let’s just give a quick look at their understanding.
To the Emperor (not the Pope), the Greek bishops write the following:
The Emperor Constantine IV, who is a venerated Saints in Eastern Orthodoxy, wrote to the Pope, this is how he described the delivery and consumption of Agatho’s letter:
I think Fr. John Chapman, in blessed memory, had it right when he wrote:
“The real question is rather: Did the Council ratify merely the dogmatic decision of Agatho, or did it accept his whole letter, including the reiterated statements of Roman inerrancy and the right of the Pope to declare the faith, and the duty of all to accept the faith of Rome? As the Council made NO DISTINCTIONS, raised no protest, and did exactly what the Pope demanded, we should a priori presume that it [the Council] agreed with all St. Agatho’s pretensions… But we are not left to a priori considerations. A series of documents emanating from the Council and the Emperor exhibits the views of the Council on this subject with entire clearness. They echo the words of Agatho as to the unfailing faith of Rome. They repeat after him that he spoke with the voice of Peter. They represent the whole work of the Council as consisting merely in accepting his letter.” (The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, 20)
How strange, odd, and obtuse would it have been for the Greek bishops to have internally shook their heads at all those major claims of Agatho on the divine primacy of the Roman Pontiff, only then to have adopted the very same view to describe what Agatho did when he wrote his tome?
That is a strike against your position.
Moreover, how strange, odd, and obtuse would it have been for the Greek bishops to have known that the ecclesiology of Pope Agatho was just as erroneous (and therefore heterodox) as contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy sees Vatican 1 and for them not to have rose in protest?? You hold that Ecumenical Councils cannot err in faith, right ? Well, there is your error. The claims of Agatho, which you reject today. In fact, that’s a worthwhile point to make. Had you been representative of the minds of the Greek bishops at the council, would you have simply tolerated the claims to a divinely established Roman inerrancy?? Since you do not tolerate this today, my best assumption, and to the credit of your best consistency, you would honestly rise up and made a deal that such a claim to what Jesus did with Peter and his successors is WRONG. And yet, the Greek bishops not only say that it was not wrong, but they say the letter of Agatho was, from top to bottom, a heavenly document written by Peter Himself having no errors whatsoever!
I wanted to respond to something you said that I thought was extremely significant for this discussion. You had said that what counts in an Ecumenical Council is not what is written into the texts of the Acts but rather what exists in the hearts and minds of the bishops. This is absolutely wrong. In any legal realm, what matters is what is written. That goes for Scripture, Tradition, ecclesiastical rules, canons, or decrees. What the persons feel about them is intended to be entirely beside that. And therefore I would say that the uncontested claims of Agatho remain in the ink without subtraction, leaving the Eastern Orthodox hierarchs of today to swallow the fact that they tolerated the papal claims into the text of where it counts in an Ecumenical Council.
The only other get away is to suggest that the Papal claims of Agatho and the Papal claims of the Greek bishops are all unreal. But I wouldn’t even entertain this since it is such an unlikely claim. It would do devastations to other literature that might be flowery, poetic, or hyperbolic but nonetheless real. For example, the hymns or descriptions of the Virgin Mary or Christ might be taken to mean less than what is said if we are able to simply say the Papal language of Agatho and the 6th council was simply unreal.
Erick Ybarra 
I think the point “St. Dostoyevsky” made about Const +681 approving yet correcting the letter of St. Sophronius is persuasive. It seems that, in the minds of the council fathers, the letters they were admitting to evidence were free to be corrected at points, which they did by dissenting from Sophronius’ acceptance of Sergius. Clearly, by condemning Honorius, the Council reveals that it did not assent to the entirety of St. Agatho’s letter, despite indeed saying that Peter had spoken through him and such. The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this, in my mind, is that they were saying this of Agatho’s confession of the orthodox faith, and simply didn’t want to cause a new controversy over ecclesiology, and so were content to correct Agatho’s letter passively.
Personally, I also think the question of whether or not heretics can be anathematized post-humorously is more than a disciplinary question. Const II seems to have treated this as a theological issue concerning the extent of the church’s “binding and loosing” power. As such, I don’t think one can denounce this practice as easily as one denounces the Casero-Papism of Const. II, given a theological rationale was never given and approved for that. And it wasn’t just Const. II that seems to have dogmatized the church’s authority to post-humorously excommunicate, but the rest of the Ecumenical Councils seem to have taken it as a given that the church had the authority to do this. I bring this up because, although I agree RCs can endure Honorius being a heretic, if this question truly was theological, then it seems Vigilius made a truly dogmatic error by denying the church’s authority to excommunicate the dead.
I think “St. Dostoyevsky” brings up some good points. That is why I thought it was worth sharing. However, I would say that I slightly disagree with you on this particular point. The letter of St. Sophronius was read for the sole purpose of determining whether he was orthodox and was cleared of heresy himself. That has a slightly different function than Agatho. The context of Rome’s participation in Constantinople in 680 had nothing to do with Rome’s own initiative. The Emperor Constantine IV wanted to unite the Churches which had fallen to Monotheletism to the Apostolic See, and so he requested representatives from Pope Agatho to come to the East with a Tome of Union, something which was produced at the Roman Synod (680) with Western bishops, and which was delivered to Constantinople as a binding document. Agatho’s letter to the Emperor also included references to Lateran 649, which itself carried unmistakable claims to the Scriptural and Traditional doctrine of St. Peter’s prerogatives living in the heir to his chair in Rome. Moreover, the Papal legates took a clear place of presidency at the Council, reading aloud (and then translating into Greek) Agatho’s letter.
This letter, as I was telling Dostoyevsky, doesn’t simply contain references to heretics as honorable Saints. In tandem with Rome’s traditional doctrine, Agatho was simply writing out what was axiomatic for the Popes, namely, that the teaching ministry of the Apostolic See is divinely protected in light of its being possessed of the continuing prerogatives of St. Peter given to him by Christ, until the end of time. It also held claims to the previous 5 Councils being “led” by the superior authority of the Apostolic See on the grounds of the same Petrinological foundation. This is something that is commonly rejected by most Eastern Orthodox today, regardless if one could find an “Eastern Orthodox Petrine Primacy” configuration that makes it compatible.
In any case, the ecclesial claims of Agatho’s letters are, as I said in my recent presentation on Intellectual Catholicism, were not contested by the Council (681). In fact, as I said to Dostoyevsky, the Council did not respond with a mere acceptance of it either. Rather, the Council said the document was at once divinely written from heaven and wholly acceptable to the fathers assembled. I admit they anathematize Honorius, but even they leave this to the Apostolic See to confirm (which Pope St. Leo II did on Petrine supremacist terms, ironically enough). Also, observe the way in which they describe Agatho’s tome in the conciliar letter back to the Rome as well as to the Emperor. They carry on with the Petrine claims.
Lastly, let’s just say that the Greek bishops did not internally accept the Petro-ecclesiology of Agatho’s letter and just felt that they should not contest it at that moment in time. That just means that the observations of men like Fr. Wilhelm De Vries, Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, and Fr. Alexander Schmemann are correct. Namely, that the Papal claims, all which implicitly anticipate the codification of Pastor Aeternus, were explicitly revealed during the times of union (between East and West), during the most authoritatively sensitive times (in ecumenical councils), and equally uncontested by the Greeks who stood by and observed. Tantamount, it is, to sitting by and watching a heresy work its course into the church.
On the matter of posthumous condemnation – I am not sure C’ple II was claiming jurisdiction over the dead as it was the ability to discern whether their last breath was an God-forsaken mode.
First of all it’s crazy to think that I ended up being put on your blog Erick, its a privilege to be on here. I believe that here would be a better place to carry on the discussion rather than on Youtube.
“In any case, the ecclesial claims of Agatho’s letters are, as I said in my recent presentation on Intellectual Catholicism, were not contested by the Council (681).”
I think that you are half-right on this issue. Yes, the council fathers never directly quote from Agatho’s letter and raise complaints about it, that much is true; but, I would say that the council fathers did disagree with points of Agatho’s letter, and rather than make an open point regarding it and risk dividing the council, they instead manifest their disagreement in condemning Honorius, whose orthodoxy comes under the ecclesial claims of Agatho’s letter.
“In fact, as I said to Dostoyevsky, the Council did not respond with a mere acceptance of it either. Rather, the Council said the document was at once divinely written from heaven and wholly acceptable to the fathers assembled.”
The problem is that if the letter was “wholly acceptable” then we would not not see Honorius condemned, since as Agatho states in his letters, the divine protection of Peter extends to all of his successor in Rome, Honorius included. Of course the council didn’t hold to this perspective in damning Honorius. It sounds as if you are saying that the Council Fathers, held to doublethink, that all the predecessors of Agatho were orthodox, and that at the same time Honorius was a heretic. It is somehow a declaration of God that Honorius was orthodox, and yet he is a heretic.
“I admit they anathematize Honorius, but even they leave this to the Apostolic See to confirm (which Pope St. Leo II did on Petrine supremacist terms, ironically enough)”
I think the idea of them asking the pope to “confirm” the decision is not one of say, a minister giving a law to a king to approve, who can immediately veto it if he doesn’t like it. Instead, this “confirmation” is rather like one in which 90% of the House and Senate vote in favour of a bill; the bill is sent to the president to ratify, but the laws is that the president cannot not ratify it, but is instead bound to accept its decision. The council fathers, despite saying the Pope is to confirm it, also says the Emperor is to “confirm” it. Furthermore, in its letter to the Pope , informs him that its decision is not able to be revoked: “we all agree both in heart and tongue, and hand, and have put forth, by the assistance of the life-giving Spirit, a definition, clean from all error, certain, and infallible.”
“Also, observe the way in which they describe Agatho’s tome in the conciliar letter back to the Rome as well as to the Emperor. They carry on with the Petrine claims.”
I would say it is a reach to say that they agreed with the Petrine claims simply because they invoked Rome’s Petrine heritage. It is one thing to say that Peter and spoken through Agatho and God has spoken through him and another to suggest that the Church of Rome is incapable of erring (something which the council never expressly says). It seems more likely to me that these phrases speak on the general sense of Agatho’s letter, not to every idea contained within.
For example, the final session of the council was devoted to examining the claims of a Monothelite monk named Polychronius. He claimed that God appeared to him and gave him a letter expressing monothelitism, and that this letter would raise the dead. Rather than proclaim to him, as would be expected if they agreed with Vatican I, that “Peter has spoken from Agatho” and “God has spoken through Rome,” they actually take the time to go through with this claim, and stand for hours watching Polychronius in vain attempt to resurrect the dead. Why go through with this if the matter ahd already been definitively settled?
“Namely, that the Papal claims, all which implicitly anticipate the codification of Pastor Aeternus, were explicitly revealed during the times of union (between East and West), during the most authoritatively sensitive times (in ecumenical councils), and equally uncontested by the Greeks who stood by and observed.”
The problem with this is that it assumes that the Council Fathers held to the *exact* same view as the Pope of Rome had on this issue. It is more than likely that they didn’t take the words of Agatho literally and interpreted them in the same way contemporary Roman Catholics do today. They could say that Peter spoke from Agatho, without implying that every word written in the letter was divinely inspired.
Furthermore, the question can be raised as to how schismatics by Rome’s standards today (not in communion with the Pope) ended up being considered orthodox people in the Ecumenical Councils (People like Theophilus of Alexandria; Patriarchs Thomas II, John V, Constantine I). The Councils never jumped forward and said “These people died outside of Rome’s communion, therefore they are schismatics.” Another example, the Definition of Faith given by the Council, the same one that the council Fathers said was “infallible and inspired by the Holy Spirit” stated that the creeds of Constantinople 381 and Nicaea 325 were “sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith,” in other words, the Filioque addition is wrong since it very much states that these council fathers, inspired by the Spirit, erred in saying that the Creed without the Filioque was as stated above.
Overall, I think the issue with your analysis is that you do take everything too literally. Yes, there is a flaw in asserting that everything is flattery and hyperbole, but it is also equally wrong to state that everything must be literal. If it was, then I do not see how contemporary Roman Catholicism can claim to be following the Sixth EC.
Of course, no problem at all. I thought the same thing. Discussion would be easier to read here. Thanks for commenting and continuing the discussion. This is why I wrote my book. To continue my own journey. I plan to read later this evening or tomorrow and try to get you back what I think of your comments. God bless
You wrote: “I think that you are half-right on this issue. Yes, the council fathers never directly quote from Agatho’s letter and raise complaints about it, that much is true; but, I would say that the council fathers did disagree with points of Agatho’s letter, and rather than make an open point regarding it and risk dividing the council, they instead manifest their disagreement in condemning Honorius, whose orthodoxy comes under the ecclesial claims of Agatho’s letter.”
You are correct that the Bishops in Council did not raise a single objection to the claims of Pope Agatho. That is extremely significant. Moreover, the claims of Agatho are not reducible to the perpetual infallibility of each and every one of Agatho’s predecessors. There is a full-bodied teaching about what was done in Christ with St. Peter on behalf of his lineal succession in the Apostolic See of Rome. There is no good reason to equalize a perfect counterfactual between Agatho’s predecessor Honorius erring in faith and the full-bodied Petrine claims of Agatho. If the parameters were equalized in this way, then you would have more of a persuasive point. And just think of it this way, if the Papacy is truly a gross error in faith. If it is true that Jesus did not single out Peter, commission him with supreme authority (to lead councils, fathers, and the whole Church, as Agatho said), and if this supreme authority truly does not pass down to the lineal succession of Peter in Rome until the end of time, then it is nothing short of negligence to allow such a thing to pass into the text of a Council, even if it was for the purpose of not risking further division. Heck, the differences in ecclesiology itself is worth the division if Rome was wrong in her ecclesial doctrine. There was a division in Christology, was there not? Why wouldn’t there be in ecclesiology? It seems to me this point is far too belitted. And this is part of the issue raised by Fr. Schmemann. The papal claims were there, not contested officially, and communion never broke.
You wrote: “The problem is that if the letter was “wholly acceptable” then we would not not see Honorius condemned, since as Agatho states in his letters, the divine protection of Peter extends to all of his successor in Rome, Honorius included. Of course the council didn’t hold to this perspective in damning Honorius. It sounds as if you are saying that the Council Fathers, held to doublethink, that all the predecessors of Agatho were orthodox, and that at the same time Honorius was a heretic. It is somehow a declaration of God that Honorius was orthodox, and yet he is a heretic.”
Well, this is why I said the council leaves us with a conundrum, or a surface level contradiction, with no explicit way to reconcile it. That’s not uncommon. Scripture itself has a number of surface level contradictions, but we accept the explanations that reconcile these. What we have is X and something that seems to subtract from X. Where X is Rome is everlastingly infallible by divine promise and then that which subtracts is the Honorius situation. The former is a theological & metaphysical claim, and the Honorius event is a matter of alleged fact. Do they necessarily contradict? At least on one particular point, namely, that Agatho said all his predecessors taught the truth under the divine protection of St. Peter. Does this then undermine the entire Petrine claim altogether? Can the Papacy still exist in the terms with which Agatho claims while also seeing one of the occupants of Peter’s throne as a heretic? I believe we can. It would seem so. What we learn from the wider history of the 1st millennium is that neither the Popes of Rome nor the universal Church took it to mean that the Papacy is a non-thing, something of mythological Petrine heritage only concretely supported by canons. The Papal claims continued, and the Council bishops themselves not only remark as to the “Petrine heritage” of Rome. Just see the infallibility-implications of the Hadrianic epistles to the Emperors in 785, read aloud and included into the Acts of Nicaea (787), not to mention the claims in the Acts of Constantinople IX (879-880).
You wrote: “I think the idea of them asking the pope to “confirm” the decision is not one of say, a minister giving a law to a king to approve, who can immediately veto it if he doesn’t like it. Instead, this “confirmation” is rather like one in which 90% of the House and Senate vote in favour of a bill; the bill is sent to the president to ratify, but the laws is that the president cannot not ratify it, but is instead bound to accept its decision. The council fathers, despite saying the Pope is to confirm it, also says the Emperor is to “confirm” it. Furthermore, in its letter to the Pope , informs him that its decision is not able to be revoked: “we all agree both in heart and tongue, and hand, and have put forth, by the assistance of the life-giving Spirit, a definition, clean from all error, certain, and infallible.””
I understand this is your interpretation, but we see this isn’t how it was understood even by the Greeks. Think of St. Anatolius who said the decrees of Chalcedon were in the hands of Pope Leo. St. Gelasius said each and every synod must require the assent of the Roman See, not because of some purely canonical procedure, but because the authority to do so was given by Christ to St. Peter, and thus St. Peter’s successor. It just so happens that Pope Agatho, likewise, claims that all the prior Councils had folowed the Petrine supremacy of the Roman See. This, too, was not objected to by the Council in 681.
You wrote: “I would say it is a reach to say that they agreed with the Petrine claims simply because they invoked Rome’s Petrine heritage.”
But that’s just it – they did not merely invoke Rome’s Petrine heritage. They said that St. Peter worked through Agatho in precisely the way that Agatho said Peter protects the Roman See. Again, it hits the point of unresolved conundrum because of the Honorius bit. That is not resolved simply by saying that they likely did not internally believe what Agatho said. That is, for all intents and purposes, very likely to be the case. But what counts in a Council is what is put into letter and confession by episcopal-senatorial acclamation. And they did not revoke those parts of Agatho’s letter, and so it gets put into the bloodstream of conciliar confession.
You wrote: “For example, the final session of the council was devoted to examining the claims of a Monothelite monk named Polychronius […] ”
I am sure there were folks who did not think it was definitively settled. But there is also the tactic of letting a fool show himself a fool.
You wrote: “The problem with this is that it assumes that the Council Fathers held to the *exact* same view as the Pope of Rome had on this issue […]”
Well, not really. If you recall, in my book, I even say it is possible many did not have the same understanding as Rome. But that really doesn’t play that big of a role here, for what matters is what was put into the text of the Acts and what was given conciliar acclamation. I’m sure some Greeks probably had different interpretations. But the fact of the matter is the Papal claims are not conformable to Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology today, and so those options are not on the table. I bring this up especially in my “Comprehensive Historical Analysis.”
You wrote: “Overall, I think the issue with your analysis is that you do take everything too literally. Yes, there is a flaw in asserting that everything is flattery and hyperbole, but it is also equally wrong to state that everything must be literal. If it was, then I do not see how contemporary Roman Catholicism can claim to be following the Sixth EC.”
Well, not every single word is literal, but the message is clear. Just like there is non-literal language about the immaculate Theotokos, does not mean they did not believe she was actually immaculate. Same for Christ, the angels, the apostles, and the church fathers. Lots of literary devices that go off the handle. But that doesn’t take away from the clear message that they were indispensible. There are a ton of sources to show that they literally believed the Papal claims throughout the centuries. There is almost too much evidence. The issue comes in when we see the few instances where Papal infallibility or supremacy completely rejected.
Canon 6 of Nicea disproves the papacy, showing it had a mere regional privlige as a metropolatan just like Alexandria.
If you knew the context, you would not think so
It’s been a long time since I replied to this discussion but I want to get back at it by talking about some points, although not strictly in a chronological order.
“You are correct that the Bishops in Council did not raise a single objection to the claims of Pope Agatho. That is extremely significant.”
Well I would say that they *did*, by going against Agatho’s claim that all his predecessors were orthodox. It is just that they did not *plainly* and in a openly contradictory manner voice their disapproval. Actions speak louder than words. The fact that they condemned Honorius shows this point. Why did they not then openly proclaim that the Pope was wrong on this point? Well, anyone who reads the acts and sees them call Honorius a heretic knows that they disagreed with the Pope on this point, but why tear open a wound beyond necessity? There is no reason to embarrass Rome further when the mere fact of Honorius condemnation is an embarrassment in and of itself; there is no need to kick someone when they are down or pour salt in a wound; the council fathers would have certainly known how much pride Rome had in its track record or orthodox bishops, so they took care as not to exalt or glory in the shortcoming of a brother bishop.
“Moreover, the claims of Agatho are not reducible to the perpetual infallibility of each and every one of Agatho’s predecessors. There is a full-bodied teaching about what was done in Christ with St. Peter on behalf of his lineal succession in the Apostolic See of Rome. There is no good reason to equalize a perfect counterfactual between Agatho’s predecessor Honorius erring in faith and the full-bodied Petrine claims of Agatho. If the parameters were equalized in this way, then you would have more of a persuasive point.”
The problem is that this assumes that there is a distinction to be made between the See and the holder of the See. For example, if popes are able to proclaim that Constantinople fell into heresy due to heretical incumbents, then via the same measure if Rome had heretical bishops then it also by the same logic fell into heresy. Therefore the grandiose claim that Rome has never erred and never could err is thrown into jeopardy by the heresy of its holder. One is reminded of one of the reasons why Pope Gregory refused the title ecumenical to be applied to any one bishop, himself included, and that was because in his mind, if this bishop were to fall into heresy, then the whole church would fall into heresy.
“And just think of it this way, if the Papacy is truly a gross error in faith. If it is true that Jesus did not single out Peter, commission him with supreme authority (to lead councils, fathers, and the whole Church, as Agatho said), and if this supreme authority truly does not pass down to the lineal succession of Peter in Rome until the end of time, then it is nothing short of negligence to allow such a thing to pass into the text of a Council, even if it was for the purpose of not risking further division.”
Yet we find in Ecumenical Councils things that openly go against Roman Catholicism, that by your own logic is negligent that it passed into the texts of the councils. The two most blatent examples are Caesaropapism and the denial of the filioque. I mentioned it earlier but you have not responded to the fact that the ecumenical councils openly proclaim that the Creed of Constantinople is perfect and so the filioque addition is clearly against the ecumenical councils. Furthermore, Caesaropapism is rife in the councils, so why would such a dangerous (by Roman Catholic standards) idea be left in the councils? The councils taught that the Emperor was an essential part of the Christian faith, and as Richard Price pointed out, it was he who was the supreme on earth, not the Pope.
“I am sure there were folks who did not think it was definitively settled. But there is also the tactic of letting a fool show himself a fool.”
It is more likely to be the former. If the claims of Roman Catholicism are correct, then this man by this point wasn’t even a Christian and so his voice would be of no consequence and can be easily dismissed of as lunacy or worse. Furthermore, the council took the time to procure a body, halt the proceedings, extend its already lengthy and prolonged stay in the capital, and then witness for hours a man attempt to resurrect a corpse. It is simply way more feasible that they took his claims that monothelitism could be proven by miracle seriously. In addition, why would the bishops seek to publically shame and humiliate a potentially senile old man? It seems to be excessive cruelty.
Therefore, according to the acts, the Council itself was willing to put the declaration of Peter/Agatho to the test and see if it could be revoked by the direct working of God. Such is the view presented by the acts, which in your understanding, should have been excised from the recorded acta.
“But what counts in a Council is what is put into letter and confession by episcopal-senatorial acclamation. And they did not revoke those parts of Agatho’s letter, and so it gets put into the bloodstream of conciliar confession.”
Actually, what counts is the understanding of the council fathers. If the council fathers understood the parts of Agatho’s letter in a different manner, to how a Roman Catholic today understands them, such as flattery and hyperbolic language, then the Roman Catholic is in the wrong. I think that going by the condemnation of Honorius and the councils defiance of a Pope’s decree (that all his predecessors were orthodox), we are left with the conclusion that the council accepted the letter in total, but accepted certain portions as literal and dogmatic (such as on the two wills) and other portions as hyperbolic.
Furthermore, if we are to go by the Ecumenical Councils say then we are bound to:
1) Accept all the canons of Trullo as proceeding from the 6th Ecumenical Council, canons which are rejected by Roman Catholics. Note also canon 13, which clearly states that Rome has *not* been perfectly following apostolic tradition, if Trullo is a continuation of the 6th council, which the 7th council manifestly and openly asserts that it is, then the 6th council therefore goes again against Pope Agatho and say that Rome has not perfectly preserved the traditions of the apostles.
II) The vital position of emperors in the Church. One example being how the letter of the Three Oriental Patriarchs, read out and approved at Nicaea 787, quotes Justinian’s decree that the Imperial office is a “Great gift from God.” Rejecting the Imperial office is therefore a rejection of God’s gifts.
III) The creed of Constantinople as being perfect with regards to the Trinity, therefore, the filioque is impermissible.
IV) That the orders of the Pope can be ignored and set aside. Pope Hadrian’s letter to the Emperors, if it were read out in its full original to the council, declares that anyone who calls Tarasios “Ecumenical” has “no part in the orthodox faith and is a rebel against our holy catholic and apostolic church.” (Price, Nicaea, p. 172) Yet read how many of the bishops at the end of session two after this letter has been read out continue to call Tarasios “Ecumenical Patriarch ” with no censure or condemnation! (Price, Nicaea, pp. 183-195) Furthemore, read how at the end of session three the bishops in turn again call Tarasios “Ecumenical Patriarch” with no repercussions or condemnations! (Price, Nicaea, pp. 228-233) Look furthermore at the demands for the jurisdiction of Illyricum is completely set aside and ignored by the council of Nicaea.
V) That one can be a schismatic from Rome and be counted as among the holy fathers of the Church. This is shown by Theophilus of Alexandria, a pope of Alexandria who persistently disobeyed the Pope and died out of his communion is hailed as among the holy fathers at Ephesus 431 and Constantinople 553.
These are just five things that the Ecumenical Councils teach and that Roman Catholics today uniformally reject. All these are vastly more conformable to Eastern Orthodoxy than Roman Catholicism.
Thanks for coming back to the discussion!
One question I have before I answer the points you’ve raised is what part of the Papal claims in Pope St. Agatho’s letter do you believe were accepted by the Council? Because, as I read Agatho’s claims, every single line where the Christ-Peter duo is brought up, it is extensive with the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff over the universal Church. And so it would seem to me that you, as an Orthodox, would have to say that pretty much every Christ-Peter claim of the letter is unreal. Is that the case?
I would say that whatever papal claims that are made in Agatho’s letter were not interpreted by the fathers of the council in a manner that aligns with Vatican I, or they were just rejected. I mean, one of the times of the Christ-Peter duo is brought up by Agatho is the invocation of Luke 22:31-32, which according to Agatho, means “that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of [Agatho’s] littleness, have always confidently done this very thing” i.e. keep the faith unsillied. Yet it is plain the council did not hold to this view giving that Honorius very much failed to do that very thing Agatho said could not happen due to the promise of Christ.
But there are claims to Papal supremacy and a divinely instituted primacy in the Roman episcopate. In one place, the command from Christ to Peter, “Feed my Sheep” is interpreted by Agatho as the specific pastoral assignment that Peter and his singular successors would govern the universal church with divine authority. He states that the previous Councils were all led by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, as a consequence. Both the universal Church and the Empire were underneath this spiritual care and motherhood. Here we have a certain kind of ecclesiology that is acclaimed to have been authored by the God-man himself, Jesus Christ.
So these metaphysical, theological, and ecclesiogical claims are not reduced to the claim , “all my predecessors never erred in faith” (something far stronger than what Vatican 1 claimed), and a claim which gets chipped at with the anathema against Honorius. Since these were claims about what Christ, and therefore God, did with Peter and the Apostles for all time, they are terribly difficult to read as unreal. But let’s consider your theory, namely, that the Greek bishops, altogether mentioning nothing to oppose Agatho’s papal claims, completely subtract from Agatho’s doctrine of the perpetual infallibility of the Roman Pontiffs from Peter to Agatho by their anathema to Honorius. Let’s just, for the sake of argument, situate the board like that. Would it not have been more fitting (never-mind the unfittingness of their tolerating the heresy of papal infallibility in the hearts and minds of the Roman people) for them to have responded to Agatho’s letter without ECHOING IN CLEARER TERMS WHAT AGATHO HIMSELF CLAIMED?? In other words, if it were the case that the Greek bishops silently shook their heads at all the Peter-pomp of Agatho, and internally knew that such dreams were mere fantasy, then we would not see such Greek bishops dressing THEIR OWN description of what Agatho did in the very terms of Agatho’s Peter-pomp!
And yet, how did the Greek bishops describe Agatho’s letter??? Let’s just give a quick look at their understanding.
To the Emperor (not the Pope), the Greek bishops write the following:
“𝐵𝑢𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑢𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑠” (𝑃𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟) “… 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑢𝑠 𝑤𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑑 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙞𝙧” (𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑅𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑃𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑓), “𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙚𝙭𝙝𝙞𝙗𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙪𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙮𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙮 𝙞𝙣 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑎 𝘿𝙄𝙑𝙄𝙉𝙀𝙇𝙔 𝙬𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙣 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑜𝑔𝑚𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑊𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡. 𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑛𝑒, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝐴𝑔𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑜 𝙋𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙠𝙚.”
To the Pope, they write:
“𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠” (𝑖.𝑒., 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦), “𝑎𝑠 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤, 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛𝑒. 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡, 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝐺𝑜𝑑, ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑝ℎ𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑛, 𝒎𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒚 𝒅𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒘𝒂𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒚 𝒃𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒅𝒐𝒙𝒚, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒘𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉.. 𝑊𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑛𝑒, 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑝𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑎𝑙 𝐶ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚 𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑡ℎ, 𝒂𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒘𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒅𝒘𝒆𝒍𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒑𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝑢𝑝𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝐾𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒐 𝒘𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒛𝒆 𝒂𝒔 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒆𝒇𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒍𝒆𝒔, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒃𝒚 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒘𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒑𝒖𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒇𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒚 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒚 𝒂𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒆…”
The Emperor Constantine IV, who is a venerated Saints in Eastern Orthodoxy, wrote to the Pope, this is how he described the delivery and consumption of Agatho’s letter:
“𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝐴𝑔𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑜, 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑖𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠, 𝑡𝑜 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑗𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑦𝑠… 𝑤𝑒 𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙, 𝑎𝑛𝑑𝒘𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒊𝒕 𝒂𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒂 𝒎𝒊𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒔𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒖𝒏𝒔𝒖𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒇𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉. 𝑊𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑜𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑠, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑦𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑠, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠, 𝑨𝑵𝑫 𝑭𝑰𝑵𝑫𝑰𝑵𝑮 𝑵𝑶𝑻𝑯𝑰𝑵𝑮 𝑶𝑼𝑻 𝑶𝑭 𝑯𝑨𝑹𝑴𝑶𝑵𝒀, 𝑤𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒖𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒅. 𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑦𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝒘𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒘 𝒊𝒕 𝒂𝒔 𝒊𝒕 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒓𝒖𝒍𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒄 𝒄𝒉𝒐𝒊𝒓, 𝑷𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒉𝒊𝒎𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇, 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟: 𝑇ℎ𝑜𝑢 𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺𝑜𝑑; 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑖𝑠 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑢𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡. 𝑾𝒆 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒍𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒚, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒕, 𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉 𝒊𝒕 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝑷𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒉𝒊𝒎𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒓𝒎𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒔𝒐𝒖𝒍…. 𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑏𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝐺𝑜𝑑, 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑤𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠. 𝑊ℎ𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑘𝑒𝑝𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑢𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑑. 𝑭𝒐𝒓 𝒉𝒐𝒘 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝑯𝒆 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒅𝒐 𝒔𝒐 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒌 𝒐𝒏 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝑯𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒅 𝑯𝒊𝒔 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒍, 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒎𝒃𝒖𝒔𝒉𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒔, 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒗𝒂𝒊𝒍 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕 𝒊𝒕. 𝑭𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒊𝒕, 𝒂𝒔 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒖𝒍𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒏, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒍𝒂𝒔𝒉𝒆𝒅 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒉, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒆𝒏𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝒉𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒃𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒎𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒐 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒛𝒆𝒏 𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒅𝒐𝒙𝒚. . 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑤𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑏𝑦 𝐺𝑜𝑑’𝑠 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑝, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑙𝑑…”
To the Roman Synod, Emperor Constantine IV wrote the following:
“𝑌𝑜𝑢 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑒𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟, 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ ℎ𝑖𝑚 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔. 𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑤𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑑 , 𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠, 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑦. 𝐼𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑, 𝑖𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑢𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑𝑜𝑥𝑦… 𝑊𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒. 𝐴𝑛𝑑, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑒 𝑤𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝒘𝒆 𝒂𝒅𝒎𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑨𝒈𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒐 𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒗𝒐𝒊𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝑷𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒓, 𝑭𝑶𝑹 𝑵𝑶𝑫𝑩𝑶𝑫𝒀 𝑫𝑰𝑺𝑨𝑮𝑹𝑬𝑬𝑫, 𝑺𝑨𝑽𝑬 𝑶𝑵𝑬 [𝑴𝒂𝒄𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒖𝒔]”
Well?
I think Fr. John Chapman, in blessed memory, had it right when he wrote:
“The real question is rather: Did the Council ratify merely the dogmatic decision of Agatho, or did it accept his whole letter, including the reiterated statements of Roman inerrancy and the right of the Pope to declare the faith, and the duty of all to accept the faith of Rome? As the Council made NO DISTINCTIONS, raised no protest, and did exactly what the Pope demanded, we should a priori presume that it [the Council] agreed with all St. Agatho’s pretensions… But we are not left to a priori considerations. A series of documents emanating from the Council and the Emperor exhibits the views of the Council on this subject with entire clearness. They echo the words of Agatho as to the unfailing faith of Rome. They repeat after him that he spoke with the voice of Peter. They represent the whole work of the Council as consisting merely in accepting his letter.” (The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, 20)
How strange, odd, and obtuse would it have been for the Greek bishops to have internally shook their heads at all those major claims of Agatho on the divine primacy of the Roman Pontiff, only then to have adopted the very same view to describe what Agatho did when he wrote his tome?
That is a strike against your position.
Moreover, how strange, odd, and obtuse would it have been for the Greek bishops to have known that the ecclesiology of Pope Agatho was just as erroneous (and therefore heterodox) as contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy sees Vatican 1 and for them not to have rose in protest?? You hold that Ecumenical Councils cannot err in faith, right ? Well, there is your error. The claims of Agatho, which you reject today. In fact, that’s a worthwhile point to make. Had you been representative of the minds of the Greek bishops at the council, would you have simply tolerated the claims to a divinely established Roman inerrancy?? Since you do not tolerate this today, my best assumption, and to the credit of your best consistency, you would honestly rise up and made a deal that such a claim to what Jesus did with Peter and his successors is WRONG. And yet, the Greek bishops not only say that it was not wrong, but they say the letter of Agatho was, from top to bottom, a heavenly document written by Peter Himself having no errors whatsoever!
I wanted to respond to something you said that I thought was extremely significant for this discussion. You had said that what counts in an Ecumenical Council is not what is written into the texts of the Acts but rather what exists in the hearts and minds of the bishops. This is absolutely wrong. In any legal realm, what matters is what is written. That goes for Scripture, Tradition, ecclesiastical rules, canons, or decrees. What the persons feel about them is intended to be entirely beside that. And therefore I would say that the uncontested claims of Agatho remain in the ink without subtraction, leaving the Eastern Orthodox hierarchs of today to swallow the fact that they tolerated the papal claims into the text of where it counts in an Ecumenical Council.
The only other get away is to suggest that the Papal claims of Agatho and the Papal claims of the Greek bishops are all unreal. But I wouldn’t even entertain this since it is such an unlikely claim. It would do devastations to other literature that might be flowery, poetic, or hyperbolic but nonetheless real. For example, the hymns or descriptions of the Virgin Mary or Christ might be taken to mean less than what is said if we are able to simply say the Papal language of Agatho and the 6th council was simply unreal.