St. Maximus the Confessor and the role of the pope in the seventh century

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by Catholic Dude

I don't buy the theory that Maximus tolerated heresy for the sake of survival. At the very trial where they cut off his hand and tongue and exiled he openly professed communion with Rome saying Rome defends the Faith.

Maximus took an attitude almost unheard of today in many circles - interpret another's words with the most charitable manner, meaning granting the benefit of the doubt before accusing of heresy. Similar wording or not, what ultimately mattered to Maximus was intent. He stood by Honorius, even addressing the questionable language and saying there was an orthodox interpretation. Nobody is saying Honorius chose the best language, but that's a far cry from Maximus tolerating a crypto-monothelite simply because he had to compromise with evil to spare his own life.

Your summary simply doesn't do justice to the final documents we have to examine as evidence.

I did not suggest that Maximus was attempting to compromise with evil in order to save his life. Having has Rome as a constant ally against monothelitism, it is likely that he would have given Honorius the benefit of the doubt. But I am suggesting that his argument goes beyond giving Honorius the benefit of the doubt. What they were attempting to pull on Maximus was an appeal to authority as the Roman see, being more insulated from the raging theological battles in the East, was always viewed as a valuable neutral party to consult in times of disagreement.

For Maximus, it was crucial that he not admit that Honorius' position on the wills and energies of Christ supported the monothelite position, because that would have guaranteed that he would be unsuccessful in showing the truth of his position. As we know, his attempt failed to achieve immediate results, although he ultimately succeeded in witnessing to the truth (may his memory be eternal). The council, on the other hand, did not have either reason to give Honorius the benefit of the doubt or reason to discredit any appeal to Honorius' individual authority as a bishop of Rome

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by DavidFilmer

Pope Honirius reigned from 625 to 638. St. Maximus was ordered to submit to the Bishop of Constantinople in 662 (24 years later), during the reign of Pope Vitalian - who was anything but a monothelitist (and, more than any individual, is responsible for suppressing the heresy). Maximus' refusal to submit in Constantinople was perfectly aligned with Rome (although the Church STILL had not taught anything officially - that did not happen until 3-Constantinople).

You raise a good point about the chronology of this tangled episode. But was not Pope Vitalian in communion with the patriarch of Constantinople?

From comment #25 of the combox discussion here:

Would this be a possible Roman Catholic solution to your question?

Mr Newman could argue something like: Pope Vitalian, who was the Pope reconciled with Patriarch Peter, was not condemned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council for doing so. Patriarch Peter was condemned for heresy and so Pope Vitalian was strictly wrong in going into communion with him. However, because Pope Vitalian was not condemned then this act could been seen as a mistake of deception or something of which he later repented. Thus, because it was a mistake, St Maximus was not under obligation to obey the command to enter communion with Patriarch Peter since he knew the situation more clearly. This did not mean that he had refused communion with Rome but only the mistaken command to join communion with Patriarch Peter. So, St Maximus was not denying the need to be in communion with Rome but only disobeying a command which he knew to be wrong, and in which it is allowable for a Pope to be mistaken. His rhetoric about the whole universe could be said to be an overstatement to emphasise the heresy of Patriarch Peter without being intended as an ecclesiological statement about the necessity of communion with Rome.

This argument could provide the justification for St Maximus in that he was right to disobey and he is consistent with Catholic principles because he was not directly denying the need for communion with Rome only that of a heretical Patriarch and the fact that Rome went into communion with him was indeed wrong but not something that excommunicated Rome itself because St Maximus know that it lies within the economia given to Bishops in case of mistakes. That St Maximus was right is confirmed by the fact that Pope Vitalian was not condemned and so his mistake was within the economia of episcopal actions and also that this did not affect the orthodoxy of Old Rome itself.

And from comment #26 of the same thread:

That won’t work either. Even if Maximus was duped, the problem of his grounds for refusing communion with Rome is still a problem. What grounds were those? They weren’t the grounds that you give, since Maximus seems to accept as fact that Rome bothced it. So the line that he knew better is contrary to known facts. Second, Vitalian was still in communion with heretics, which is a problem all by itself. Besides, Maximus refuses communion with Rome along with Constantinople. If what you suggest were the case,either he thinks communion with heretics makes you one too, in which case Rome is still in a heterodox position or Maximus was still wrong to not commune with Rome. Either way, this is not a solution available to Catholics as far as I can see. Further, the command seemingly carries with it papal authority and so we have to ask, what is Maxmius’ trump card for disobeying papal authority, more papal authority? is this the kind of response he gives? No. How is it that papal authority here can be mistaken as you suggest on Catholic principles on a matter of faith, when it is commanding someone to recant on a matter of faith? That isn’t merely a procedural matter or an error in economia.

Further, his overstatement as you gloss it won’t help either, since it could hardly be an overstatement if it left out Rome.

The qustion is not if Maximus thinks communion with Rome is necessary when things are honkey dory. The question is whether Maximus thinks it is so under those circumstances. Does he?

To deny communion with Peter is at that point to deny communion with Rome since they are, as a point of fact in communion with each other. Further, if there was a procedural mistake on Rome’s part and not a dogmatic one, why isn’t it the case that Maximus appeals to this? He doesn’t in his replies but rather takes it to be a dogmatic error. And Maximus doesn’t seem to think in his replies that Rome is operating under something less than its maximal authority, whatever that may be, and so he seems to implicitly agree with those in opposition to him that this is a manifestation of that authority. Otherwise his replies to them concerning Rome make no sense. If Rome authority were more than this, in terms of potential exercise, then Maximus could just say, popes can error when operating at this lower level of authority and so I think this one has. But he doesn’t say that, does he? Why go nuclear when conventional weapons work just fine?

The fact that Vitalian was not condemned is irrelevant. It is not exculpatory anymore than Theodoret’s lack of condemnation at Chalcedon implied he was Orthodox. He wasn’t. the council just didn’t take up that issue since it had plenty on its plate. The same is true for the Sixth Council. And the same is true for the previous imperial and ecclesiastical figures at the Seventh Council as well.

Now if it is Vitalian who is issuing an order for Maximus to recant, he is doing so on pain of death. That is an error far more than merely an economic error of communing with the Monothelities. And it would show that Vitalan’s position was a lot less theologically and politically ambiguous as supposed. That would be sufficient to materially place him among the ranks of Pyrrus and Sergius, it would also justify the belief of the imperial and ecclesial authorities with whom Maximus is arguing that Rome in fact backed their position and not his.

For these and other reasons, this line of thinking is a dead end. It is simply not how Maximus responds even if it were factualy correct and there are good reasons I think for thinking it is not factually correct.

BTW, What happened to point (3)?

There were originally four points, but I collapsed two of them into one, then forgot to revise the numbers accordingly.

Yes. Modern Popes can still be heretics. The problem is when they attempt to teach their heresy as Catholic doctrine - which, thankfully, has never happened.

I understand that Catholic doctrine holds the pope to be preserved from theological error only when teaching in an official, not personal, capacity. I was actually asking whether an ecumenical council--according to Catholic standards today--could anathematize a previous pope.

The really tricky question is: What if a reigning Pope holds heretical beliefs and makes these beliefs publicly known (not as doctrine). That seems like a good topic for a new thread.

That's an excellent question; I'll be following closely that new thread.

[DavidFilmer]

Originally Posted by Trebor135

You raise a good point about the chronology of this tangled episode. But was not Pope Vitalian in communion with the patriarch of Constantinople?

Yes, but (the ironically-named) Patriarch Peter (and his various predecessors who also adhered to monothelitism) could not be regarded as heretics at the time, as the Church had never officially taught one way or another. We call Patriarch Peter and Pope Honorius "heretics" in hindsight, but neither believed anything that was contrary to the established Doctrine of the Church at the time, and neither could be factually termed "heretics" by their contemporary peers (the unjust condemnation of St. Maximus notwithstanding). Communion between the Churches was strained by the controversy, but there was no basis for excommunication by either the Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Constantinople, so the Sees remained in communion despite this controversy.

[Catholic Dude]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

The council, on the other hand, did not have either reason to give Honorius the benefit of the doubt or reason to discredit any appeal to Honorius' individual authority as a bishop of Rome

The council was focused on the scandal of the wording and the failure to detect and condemn the heresy on Honorius' part. He was not condemned as a card-carrying monothelite, and in fact Pope St Agatho's masterful letter to the council doesn't mention Honorius at all and claims the Roman See has never fallen into error. The Council accepted this Letter of Pope Agatho with joy.