Every Orthodox Christian reads the “Creed” in the morning rule. But how often do we think about thanks to whom this brief and dogmatically precise statement of the Orthodox faith has come to us? Who, risking their lives, defended this God-given teaching from wrong human wisdom? On February 5, the Orthodox Church celebrates the memory of the holy fathers of the VI Ecumenical Council. The rector of the church in honor of the Intercession of the Mother of God, priest Sergius Sivoplyasov, will tell our students about its history
The conciliar decision was known even before the creation of time; this is confirmed by the eternal council of the Holy Trinity. Let us create man in Our image and in Our likeness (Gen. 1:26). At this council, a decision was made about the Incarnation of the Son of God and the salvation of mankind.
In the Christian Church, the conciliar solution of problems dates back to the beginning of its foundation. In 51, the first Council was convened, called the Apostolic Council. The apostles who came together decided on the need to fulfill the Jewish law for Christians.
Ecumenical Councils are meetings of primates and representatives of all Local Churches, convened to overthrow heresies and establish the truths of doctrine, to establish rules that are binding throughout the Church, and to resolve issues of church-wide importance. The Ecumenical Council is the only supreme authority in the Orthodox Church on issues of doctrine and legislation and, due to the action of the Holy Spirit through it and in it, has the property of infallibility. The definitions and rules of the Ecumenical Council extend to all Local Churches and to all times.
Two natures and two wills
There have been seven Ecumenical Councils in the history of the Orthodox Church. They believe that they began with the passing into history of the times of persecution of the first Christians and with the accession of Christianity as the dominant religion of Byzantium. Ecumenical Councils were convened only for very important reasons. Thus, the first two Councils were convened in connection with trinitarian disputes, that is, disputes about the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. The four subsequent Councils were marked by Christological disputes; accordingly, they discussed Christ, His Face, and His nature. The Seventh Ecumenical Council was dedicated to the iconoclastic dispute.
The VI Ecumenical Council was convened in Constantinople. The reason for the convocation was the heresy of the Monothelites. The Monothelites were logical followers of the Monophysite heresy. However, if the founder of the Monophysite heresy, Archimandrite Eutyches, taught about one nature of Christ, Divine, denying that the Savior was a man, then Monothelitism spoke about one will of God in Christ with two natures. This heresy is called the heresy of one-willed people who recognize in the person of Christ, in His two natures, divine and human, one will and one action, as if each nature did not have its own special action and desire characteristic of it. Those who profess the teachings of the Monothelites blaspheme Christ, recognizing Him as imperfect in both natures.
This heresy was especially supported and spread by the Patriarch of Alexandria Cyrus, who convened a Local Council and commanded that this is the way to believe. In addition, Cyrus expressed his thoughts about Christ in a less well-known heretical modification - monoenergism, preaching one divine energy in the God-man Jesus Christ. This heresy is, as it were, intermediate between Monophysitism and Monothelitism. Regarding the heresy of monothelitism, Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople followed Cyrus, also convening a Local Council and establishing monothelitism at it. Pyrrhus, who replaced Sergius at the patriarchal see, was also an adherent of monothelitism. Even Emperor Heraclius himself, through Sergius and Cyrus, was seduced and fell into this heresy. Many Christians suffered then by not accepting the heresy.
Defenders of the Right Faith
The heresy was opposed by Saint Pope Martin, Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem. The latter convened a Local Council, at which he cursed the heresy of the self-willed people. Saint Sophronius sent out lists of the resolutions of his Council everywhere. At the VI Ecumenical Council, the resolutions of this Council were read out, which were approved by the holy fathers and accepted as true believers.
Prior to this, Patriarch Sophrony persuaded Patriarchs Cyrus and Sergius to abandon the heretical teaching. Then Patriarch Sergius issued a document in which he forbade speaking at all about the will in Christ, be it one or two. This document was called psiphos, which means "authoritative opinion." Sophronius did not accept psiphos. By that time, in 634, he was installed at the Jerusalem See in place of the deceased Patriarch Modest.
In 638, Patriarch Sergius writes an ekphesis (exposition), which affirms one will and one energy in Christ. In response to ekphesis, Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem wrote a district conciliar letter, expressing his disagreement with the doctrine of one will. Proving the presence of two wills in Christ, Sophronius argued that in Him each nature acts naturally, in its own essence, and that only from these actions do we recognize the difference between natures: the presence of one energy or will deprives this difference of any meaning, turning it into a pure abstraction.
Sophrony was a brave and independent man, ready to fight to the end for the purity of Orthodoxy. However, he died in 638, before the triumph of Orthodox teaching. During his life, Saint Sophronius wrote many words, teachings, hymns and lives of some saints, for example the Venerable Mary of Egypt, that were useful to the Church. He is recognized as one of the first-class dogmatic theologians.
Because of ekphesis, more and more Orthodox believers were embarrassed. The Monk Maximus the Confessor, seeing that the heresy had also affected the “royal chambers,” abandoned his service at the royal court, where he was revered as the wisest of the royal nobles, and retired to a monastery.
Later, Patriarch Pyrrhus himself came to the Monk Maximus, who, having fled from his throne, preached Monothelitism throughout all cities. The Monk Maximus proved Pyrrhus wrong, convincing him to abandon his heresy. Later, however, Pyrrhus again joined the heresy, convinced by the heretic Olympius, who was close to the king.
After Patriarch Pyrrhus left his throne, the heretical Patriarch Paul ascended to him. Emperor Constans II, at the instigation of the patriarch, wrote a heretical district message - typos, in which all conversations were prohibited, both about energies and about wills.
Pope Martin I opposed this heretical belief. After ascending the papal throne in 649, he immediately convened a Council in the Lateran. At this Council, the Monothelite teaching and the heretical documents associated with it were unanimously condemned: “the most godless ekphesis” and “vile typos.”
The emperor and the entire court of Constantinople decided to suppress Western opposition. Pope Martin was accused of political and religious crimes. The Exarch of Ravenna arrived at the Lateran Palace, declared the pope deposed and, having arrested him, brought him under escort to Constantinople. Martin, by this time already old and very ill, was abused during the journey. He personally appeared before the church court, revealing extraordinary courage and steadfastness in faith. He was defrocked, tortured and sentenced to death, which was commuted to exile. The completely tortured elder was taken to the Crimean Chersonese, where he soon died. Pope Martin I is canonized by both the Latin and Eastern Churches, which honor his memory as a confessor and martyr.
Reverend Maximus also participated in the council in Laterna, and, like Pope Martin, he was tried. Since he was a simple monk, he was tortured separately, but the same charges were brought against him as against the pope - theological and political. A shorthand record of his case has reached us. When the monk was accused of being, an ordinary monk, rebelling against the opinion of all the patriarchs, Maxim replied that even if an Angel from heaven preached heresy, he, Maxim, would still defend the truth. Responding to the proposal to agree with the typos, at least in the name of the unity of Byzantium and Rome, he stated: “I am not thinking about the unity or separation of the Romans and Greeks, but about not deviating from the right faith.” He challenged the Caesaropapist behavior of the Byzantine emperors Heraclius and Constans II, saying that “it is not the business of kings, but the business of priests, to examine and determine the saving dogmas of the Catholic Church.”
The Monk Maximus was exiled to Thrace, from where he continued to write against Monothelitism and stir up minds. In 662 he was brought back to Constantinople, anathema was pronounced against him, Pope Martin and Patriarch Sophronius, and they tortured him again, cutting off his tongue and right hand. Then the Monk Maxim was expelled a second time, this time to the Caucasus, where he soon died, without waiting for the triumph of Orthodoxy at the VI Ecumenical Council.
VI Ecumenical Council
The Pravoslavie.Ru website continues to publish fragments of a new book by church historian and canonist Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, “History of Pre-Christian and Christian Europe.”
Sixth Ecumenical Council. Fresco On September 10, 680, Emperor Constantine IV issued a sacra in the name of the capital Patriarch George about the convening of the Council, which opened “during the reign of the divinely crowned and most serene Flavian sovereigns, the most pious Constantine, the divinely appointed great sovereign, permanent Augustus and autocrat, in the twenty-seventh year of his reign and on the thirteenth consulate of his godly meekness, also by his God-protected brothers Heraclius and Tiberius, in the twenty-second year, on the seventh day of the month of November, ninth indiction”[1], that is, November 7, 680, in the Trullo Chamber of the Imperial Palace. The Latin name of the chamber, in trullo, refers to its vaulted ceiling. Emperor Constantine presided over the first 11 sessions of the Council. In the presidium on the right side of the imperial throne were Patriarchs George of Constantinople, Macarius of Antioch and Apocrisiary of the Alexandrian Throne, Hieromonk Peter. On the left side of the emperor sat the papal legates - Presbyters Theodore and George and Deacon John, as well as the locum tenens of the Jerusalem throne, Presbyter Theodore. In the middle of the chamber, on a lectern, lay the Gospel.
At the first meeting 43 bishops were present, and then the number of participants in the Council grew. The last act bears 174 signatures of bishops or clergy representing them. Theophan the Confessor in his Chronicle writes about the “Sixth Ecumenical Council of two hundred and eighty-nine bishops” - but this is undoubtedly an exaggeration of the number of conciliar fathers. The council lasted more than 10 months: from November 7, 680 to September 16, 681. During this time, 18 meetings were held. Starting from the 12th meeting, they were presided over by dignitaries appointed by the emperor - patricians.
Already at the first meeting, a heated theological discussion ensued. Representatives of the pope, turning to the emperor, said: “Since about 46 years ago, who at various times were the primate of this reigning, God-protected city of yours, that is, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter, also Cyrus, who was once the primate of Alexandria, and Theodore , who was the bishop of a city called Paran, and some others who followed them, introduced some new expressions that were contrary to the Orthodox faith, and caused troubles in the Universal Church, confessing and teaching that in the economy of the incarnation of the one from the Holy Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ is one will and one action, and many times our Apostolic See, loyal to you, rejected this teaching, then begged and has not yet managed to turn them away from such a slanderous opinion: then we ask your God-crowned power, let the representatives of the most holy Church of Constantinople tell where this innovation came from.”[2 ].
The Emperor asked the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch to give an explanation. The challenge posed by the papal legates was taken up by Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, and as it turned out, he still adhered to Monothelite Christology: “We did not make any innovations in teaching, but as we received from the Ecumenical Councils and the holy respected fathers, also from the primates of this holy city, Sergius , Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter, also from Honorius, the former pope of ancient Rome, and Cyrus, the former pope of Alexandria, that is, about will and action”[3]. To confirm the conformity of the Monothelite teaching with Tradition, Patriarch Macarius asked to bring to the chamber the acts of previous Councils. By order of the Emperor Chartophylax, Deacon George brought books of conciliar acts from the patriarchal library, and the Antioch cleric Hieromonk Stefan read out one passage from the acts of the Third Ecumenical Council - a quotation from the letter of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Emperor Theodosius II, which said that through the Lord Jesus Christ “kings reign and the strong do the truth, as the Scripture says, for His will is omnipotent”[4], after which Macarius said: “Behold, sir, I have proven that in Christ there is one will”[5]. In response to such a flimsy “proof,” papal representatives explained that “Holy Cyril wrote these words, bearing in mind His divine and omnipotent nature, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit”[6].
Individual expressions taken out of context were, of course, not enough to draw theological conclusions on their basis. Therefore, at the direction of the emperor, the acts of the Council of Ephesus were read in full, and at the second conciliar meeting, held on November 10, the acts of the Council of Chalcedon were read. When reading the tomos of Pope Leo, representatives of the Roman Church paid special attention to the words that “both natures, in mutual communication, reveal actions inherent in their nature”[7], finding in them paternal testimony about two actions in Christ, but Patriarch Macarius, addressing the emperor, said: “I, sir, do not profess two actions and I do not think that Leo of blessed memory spoke of two actions in these words.” This was followed by a dialogue between the emperor and him: “Do you think that he professed one action?” - “I’m not talking about number, but, following Saint Dionysius, I call His action godly...” - “How do you understand godly action?” – “I don’t reason”[8]. The reading of the council's acts was resumed and continued until the end of the meeting.
At the third meeting, held on November 13, the acts of the V Ecumenical Council were announced. At the same time, forgeries were revealed: “the word of Mina, of blessed memory, Archbishop of Constantinople, to Vigilius ... the Pope of Rome, that in Christ there is one will” [9], turned out to be a falsification, included in the acts of the Fifth Council under the Monothelitian patriarchs: Patriarch Mina died 6 years before the Council, convened under Patriarch Eutyches. The falsity of this document was also exposed by the fact that the sheets containing this “Word” were not numbered. By order of the emperor, these sheets were removed from the acts of the V Ecumenical Council. During their later study by a special commission, the messages of Pope Vigilius, retroactively included in the Acts, addressed to Emperor Justinian and Augustus Theodora, with the mention of one action in Christ, turned out to be fakes. The reading of these epistles was interrupted by the remark of the papal legates that Vigilius had never professed one action.
Sixth Ecumenical Council (miniature of the Chronicle of Constantine Manasia)
At the next meeting, on November 15, the Greek translation of the message of Pope Agathon and the Roman Council, addressed to Emperor Constantine and his co-rulers Augustus Heraclius and Tiberius, was read out. The 5th meeting of the Council took place after a 20-day break - on December 7. At it, a scroll of extracts from the works of the holy fathers, “teaching,” as he asserted, “one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is also the will of the Father and the Holy Spirit,” was read out, presented by Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, which is also the will of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Then the proceedings of the Council were interrupted for more than two months. At the meeting held on February 12, 681, the reading of the sayings of the fathers collected by Patriarch Macarius and his assistants, which, in his conviction, contained the teaching of one will in Christ, continued. After listening to them, the pope's envoys declared: “By the evidence presented, the God-loving Macarius, Archbishop of Antioch, Stephen, his disciple, Peter, the God-loving Bishop of Nicomedia, and Solomon, the God-loving Bishop of Clanaea, did not at all prove one will and one action in the economy of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ... They they presented as evidence of one will in the economy of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ those who relate to the doctrine of one will of the Trinity; and those testimonies that go to the point and relate to the economy of the incarnation... they distorted both in meaning and in expressions”[11]. Therefore, the papal legates asked to compare the presented extracts with the scrolls of the original texts of the fathers, stored in the patriarchal library. The next day, February 13, the legates themselves presented a collection of patristic testimonies about two wills and two actions in Christ.
The 8th act of the Council took place on March 7. It was decisive. At it, Patriarch George of Constantinople, who had previously spoken out in support of his Antiochian brother, declared his agreement with the confession of the Diaphelitian teaching set out in the message of Pope Agathon to Emperor Constantine. Following him, other bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople declared their adherence to the doctrine of two wills in Christ. Then the emperor turned to Patriarch Macarius: “What do you think about the economy of our Lord Jesus Christ?”[12]. In response, Macarius, undaunted by the fact that his former like-minded people had changed their beliefs, again identified himself with the Monothelite teaching: “We... confess our Lord Jesus Christ alone in a new image, without bodily desires and human thoughts, because, having one desire to accept all these passions, He... had the same power to endure all of them... and in this we agree with the teaching of both the five holy Councils and the godly Honorius, Sergius, Paul, Peter and others... confessing in our Lord Jesus Christ one hypostatic His desire and divine action. We...confess that God the Word became man and performed both the divine, not as God, and the human, not as man, but performed some new godly act.” At the direction of the emperor, the written confession of Macarius was delivered to the chamber and read out. In it, he added to the anathematization of heresiarchs and heretics previously condemned by the Ecumenical Councils “who joined them, not worthy of the name, Maximus and his wicked disciples; this pagan (Saint Maxim the Confessor - V.Ts.) taught Manichaeism and rejecting the body of Christ our God; (we anathematize) and his wicked teaching, which our most blessed fathers rejected before us; I mean Honorius, Sergius and Cyrus and the teachers and heads of churches who came after them.”[13] Then Macarius mentioned among the opponents of Maximus' teaching the great-grandfather of Emperor Constantine IV Heraclius. In response to the emperor’s proposal to confess faith in “two natural desires and two natural actions”[14] in Christ, Macarius declared: “I will not say that there are two natural desires and two natural actions in the economy of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they cut me down into small pieces and thrown into the sea.”[15]. After listening to Macarius, the fathers of the Council compared the extracts he had made from the works of the fathers with their original texts, and as a result, “omissions were identified, made, according to Patriarch Macarius’s own statement, for the purpose of substantiating monothelitism”[16].
At the meeting on March 8, the comparison of the selection of patristic quotations made by Macarius and his assistants with the original texts of the fathers continued, revealing the presence of forgeries and malicious omissions in it. Patriarch Macarius and his disciple monk Stephen were charged, on the basis of which a conciliar verdict was passed: “Since it has clearly been discovered that you were concerned about the perversion of divine dogmas and distorted the teaching of the saints and respected fathers, but rather accepted the opinion of heretics and followed what they taught to the destruction of the Orthodox people; then we determine that you will be deprived of all hierarchical dignity and service”[17]. There were acclamations: “Many years to the Emperor! Many years to come to the Orthodox Emperor! There's the heretic! Evil summers for the new Eutyches! Evil summers for the new Apollinaris! There’s the heretic!”[18]. And Macarius’ disciple Stefan, as the “Acts” of the Council reports, “was pushed out and thrown out”[19].
At the 10th meeting, March 18, the reading of patristic testimonies continued, and the texts of the anathematized heretics were read out, in which monothelitic ideas were revealed that compromised the defenders of the doctrine of the one will in Christ by their closeness or identity with their judgments. In conclusion, the bishops, clerics and monks, who had previously made monothelitic statements, announced their confessions, in which they declared their complete agreement with the Diaphelitian teaching contained in the message of St. Pope Agathon and the Roman Council.
Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem On March 20, the meeting of the Council began with the reading of a letter from Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, which was recognized as Orthodox. Then they began to read out the works of Macarius and his disciple Stephen, who had already been condemned by the Council, interrupted by the council decree: “Stop reading these soul-harming works”[20]. To prove the mutual unanimity of heretical evidence, it was decided to “extract from these writings... obvious blasphemies”[21]. Closing the meeting, Emperor Constantine announced that he would not be able to attend the next meetings, when “the largest and most important part of the present matter has already been completed”[22], due to being busy with “the affairs of our Christ-loving state”[23], commanding the patricians Constantine and Anastasius and the consulars Polyeuctus and Peter, present at the Council, to represent the emperor at it. Thus, they were assigned chairmanship responsibilities.
At the 12th meeting, March 22, the reading of documents related to the first phase of the disputes excited by the emergence of heresy continued. Before the closing of the meeting, the dignitaries representing the emperor turned to the fathers of the Council: “Our most pious and divinely appointed sovereign and great emperor, imitating in every case the love of God who crowned him and awaiting the conversion of Macarius, asks through us, his unworthy servants, your most holy and ecumenical Council , whether he will be restored to his throne if he converts after his deposition by your holy Council”[24]. The answer was categorical: “The divine rule by no means allows Macarius, who has grown old in the dogmas of wickedness, to sit on the teaching throne... Therefore, our holy Council... will by no means accept this Macarius... deposed and anathematized by the conciliar to the holy throne, and also asks to remove him from the boundaries of this God-protected and the reigning city together with its like-minded people”[25]. The imperial dignitaries accepted this decree for execution, after which the representatives of the Antiochian Patriarchate present at the Council elected a successor to the deposed Macarius, and the new Patriarch of Antioch, Theophan, participated in the meeting of the Council on April 5.
At the 13th meeting, on March 28, the Council passed a resolution regarding the previously deceased heresiarchs. Their writings were recognized as “alien to the apostolic teaching and definitions of the holy Councils and all the glorious holy fathers” and “spiritually harmful”[26]. The adopted resolution further stated: “We reject their wicked dogmas, and their names were condemned to be excluded from the holy Church of God, namely the names: Sergius, the former primate of this God-protected and reigning city, who began correspondence about this wicked dogma, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter... then Theodore, Bishop of Parano... In addition, we find it necessary, together with them, to expel from the holy Church of God and anathematize Honorius, the former pope of ancient Rome, because from his letters to Sergius we were convinced that he fully shared his opinion and confirmed his wicked teaching.”[27].
The condemnation of Honorius did not cause any protests at the Council, nor any opposition at all from the papal legates, who, obviously, had no idea about papal infallibility - the exotic “dogma” of the First Vatican Council. The envoys of Saint Agathon sought only to ensure that the Council formulated the Orthodox teaching about two wills and two actions in Christ, which was served both by the presentation of the dogma itself in the council oros, and by the condemnation of false teaching, which distorts this dogma, together with the anathematization of the heresiarchs themselves, including the one who occupied at one time the Roman throne of Honorius.
The case of the conciliar anathematization of Honorius - a gap in the defense of the doctrine of papal infallibility
Since then, the case of the conciliar anathematization of Pope Honorius has represented the most vulnerable gap in the defense of the doctrine of papal infallibility, from which the thesis follows with logical inevitability that not one of the legitimate bishops of Rome could have made a mistake in the official presentation of the doctrine. To defend this curious idea requires a fair amount of dialectical audacity. It was, in particular, discovered by the famous apologist for papal infallibility from Uniate circles - P.-P. John. The views of Pope Honorius, he claims, were Orthodox, but expressed in unsuccessful language, which served as a weapon for the Monothelites against the defenders of the Orthodox doctrine of two wills in Christ, for which Honorius was condemned by the Council; Therefore, the popes are the successors of Honorius and recognized his anathematization. “The condemnation of Honorius,” writes P.-P. John, - in fact, did not in the least diminish the authority of the throne of Peter in matters of faith.”[28] However, this circumstance proves the opposite of what the inventive canonist wants to prove. If, before the condemnation of Honorius, the popes had claimed doctrinal infallibility, and the Church had recognized their claims as legitimate, then the condemnation of Honorius either could not have taken place at all, or by its condemnation of the pope, the Council would have rejected the previously recognized claims. In fact, the Roman See at that time did not yet lay claim to infallibility, and therefore, condemning one of the bishops who occupied it, just as at other Councils other bishops were condemned, including the primates of the first thrones, the Council, in the words of P.-P. . John, “did not diminish the authority of the throne of Peter.” And neither Saint Agathon nor his successors, who were overly scrupulous in matters concerning the prerogatives of the Roman throne, were embarrassed by the condemnation of Honorius.
The Roman see at that time did not yet lay claim to infallibility.
On April 5, the Council heard the acts of the previous Council, and as a result, malicious interpolations were discovered in them - texts that contained expressions favorable to the doctrine of one will in Christ. The analysis of the documents under consideration ended with the declaration of “anathema to the so-called word of Mina to Vigilius and ... the books of Vigilius to Justinian and Theodora of blessed memory, which turned out to be forged”[29]. This was followed by exclamations: “Anathema to all counterfeiters of the acts of the Holy and Ecumenical Fifth Council. Anathema to those who preached orally and set forth in writing, who preach or will preach one will and one action in the economy of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ... To the Holy Four Councils, eternal memory. Eternal memory to the Holy Fifth Council. Long live the Emperor. Long live the great Emperor Constantine. Long live the peacemaker emperor. Many years to the guardian of Orthodoxy. Son of God, give him life. Son of God, give him victories.” At the end of the meeting, at the suggestion of Bishop Theodore of Trimythous, the word of St. Athanasius of Alexandria was read out: “At the Gospel saying Now my soul is troubled (John 12:27)”[30], in which the holy father speaks of the Lord: “Although He is God, but in the flesh, and according to the flesh fulfills obedience, and triumphs over the will of the flesh by the will of the Divine... The will of the flesh had to be defeated, to submit to the will of the divine”[31]. In the word of St. Athanasius, the Council found clear patristic evidence of the Church’s confession of the doctrine of two wills in Christ: divine and human.
On April 14, in the St. Sophia Cathedral of the capital, the Easter liturgy according to the Western rite was performed by the papal legate, Bishop of Porta Rome.
On April 26, a great original, Hieromonk Polychrony, was invited to the cathedral chamber. A zealous fanatical Monothelite, confident in his rightness, he ardently preached heresy and probably gained many supporters. Due to the scale of the danger that he brought with him, it was decided to invite him to the Council. When he was brought into the cathedral chamber and demanded to state his faith, he boldly answered: “I will give a statement of my faith on the tomb of a dead man with the invocation of the Son of God to raise him; if he does not stand up, then here is the Council and the Emperor: let them do whatever they please with me.”[32] And the Council went to meet him halfway, accepting his outlandish condition, after which Polychronius submitted a certain letter. It was announced: “I, Polychronius, greet and worship the meekest and most divinely crowned great emperor Constantine... And I saw many men in white robes, and in the middle - a man... who told me... hurry up, tell Emperor Constantine so that he does not invent a new faith "[33]. A characteristic detail that speaks of the narrowness of the historical vision of the fanatic - in his view, new or old is measured by the scale of his living memory: the Monothelite creed, which dominated the empire during his childhood, and it was during the reign of Heraclius, is the “old faith”, defended which he became; The essence of the matter does not change from the intervention of a visionary or hallucinatory element into the situation. “And when I walked from Iraklia to Chrysopolis,” the letter continued, “and stopped under the scorching sun... I saw a terrible man, very shining. He stood against me, saying: whoever does not profess one will and godly action is not a Christian. I said: the wise Emperor Constantine also predicted this: one will and one action. He said: “Very good and pleasing to God.”[34]
Polychronius placed the charter on the corpse, but the miracle did not work, the deceased did not resurrect
Having heard the charter of Polychronius, the fathers of the Council left the Trullo Chamber into the courtyard, where the dead man was brought on a stretcher. Many people gathered at the site of the promised miracle. Polychronius placed his charter on the corpse, but despite the fact that he “waited for several hours and whispered to him”[35], the miracle did not work; the dead man did not resurrect. Exclamations were heard: “Anathema to the new Simon, anathema to Polychronius, the seducer of the people.”[36] When the participants of the Council returned to the Trullo Chamber, Polychronius was asked to confess faith in two natural wills and two natural actions in Christ, in the hope that, having experienced the fiasco, he understood from what source the confidence in his rightness was instilled in him, but he did not change his convictions and said: “As it says in the charter that I submitted and laid on the dead man, so I believe in one will and godly action, and I don’t say anything else.”[37] The Council decided to deprive him of his dignity and monasticism, after which “the Holy Council exclaimed: “Anathema to the heretic Polychronius and those who philosophize with him; Anathema to Macarius, Stephen and Polychronius. The Trinity deposed three”[38].
After the action organized by Polychronius, there was a long break in the actions of the cathedral, and the next meeting took place only on August 9. Striving for the utmost persuasiveness of its decrees for those who doubt and waver, which prompted the council fathers to provide the unfortunate Polychronius with the opportunity to reveal his powerlessness and his madness and thereby expose the inconsistency of the teaching he professed, the Council agreed to listen to a certain presbyter Constantine of Apamea, who, recognizing the presence of two natures in Christ , at the same time preached that the human will was present in Him only before Calvary, and on the cross “the Lord left and pulled it off from Himself along with blood and flesh” [39], and he expounded this teaching that he disseminated at the Council. At the same time, he insisted on his unanimity with the deposed Patriarch Macarius of Antioch. The reaction of the Council to this confession was to shout: “This is the teaching of the Manichaeans; This is the faith of Apollinaris. Anathema to him and his dogmas; anathema to the new Manichaeus... anathema to all heretics.”[40] The deposed Constantine was removed from the Trullo Chamber, and the conciliar meeting ended with many years to the “Orthodox Emperor... peacemaker... new Marcian... new Theodosius... new Justinian... guardian of Orthodoxy"[41], as well as Pope Agathon, Patriarchs George and Theophan, the Orthodox Council and the Synclite, and personal anathemas to the heretics: the deceased Theodore of Farran, Sergius, Cyrus, Honorius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, Macarius and the living Macarius, Stephen, Polychronius and “Anergy, who was bishop of Perga”[42].
The 17th meeting took place on September 11. His transcript survives only in a Latin translation. At this meeting, the results of what was done at the Council were summed up and a draft of a conciliar definition of religion was developed.
Saint Agathon, Pope of Rome
The final 18th act of the VI Ecumenical Council took place on September 16th. It was again presided over by Emperor Constantine IV, who appeared in the cathedral chamber. At this meeting, a dogmatic definition was adopted - oros, in which the creeds of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils were repeated separately, excerpts from the oros of the IV and V Councils and a new definition of faith, which drew a line under the disputes about one or two wills in Christ: “We preach, according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, that in Him there are two natural desires or wills, inseparably, immutably, inseparably, unfused (the classical Chalcedonian formula regarding the two natures in Christ is reproduced, consisting of four negative definitions, in this oros - in relation to the two wills - V. Ts. ), and the two natural wills are not opposite, as the wicked heretics said, let it not be, but His human will yields, does not contradict or oppose, but submits to His divine and omnipotent will... We affirm that in one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, two natural actions are inseparable, unchangeable, inseparable, unfused, that is, divine action and human action”[43]. The Council threatens those who dare to preach a different teaching: bishops and clergy with deposition, and monks and laity with anathema.
The first to sign the oros were three papal legates: the Roman presbyters Theodore and George and the deacon John, who represented St. Agathon at the Council. Behind them are the signatures of Patriarch George of Constantinople, locum tenens of the parriarchal throne of Alexandria, Presbyter Peter, newly elected Patriarch of Antioch Theophan, locum tens of the Jerusalem throne, Presbyter George. The next signature belongs to the Thessalonian Bishop John, and then follow the signatures of other participants in the Council: bishops or the presbyters who replaced them. Below all of them is the signature of the emperor - “Constantine, in Christ the emperor and autocrat of Rome”[44].
At the end of the meeting, the emperor spoke a word in which he expressed the wish that “all the churches of God with one mouth and one heart would send up a song to our merciful God, correctly understanding the word of His truth, and the pride of all heretical conceit would be completely destroyed by His goodness.”[45] In response to this speech, a welcoming speech was read out to the emperor on behalf of the Council. The council also sent a message to Pope Agathon outlining the council's decisions.
Adherents of heresy faced not only church bans, but also punitive sanctions
At the end of the conciliar acts, an imperial edict was posted in the atrium of the Church of St. Sophia, which, according to established tradition, gave conciliar decisions the status of state law, so that adherents of heresy were threatened not only with church bans, but also with punitive sanctions: for officials - confiscation of property and “deprivation of belt"[46], that is, dismissal from service, and for private individuals - expulsion "from this reigning city and in general from every city of ours"[47].
The acts of the VI Ecumenical Council have features that distinguish it from previous Councils: almost the majority of its acts consist of authoritative texts, conciliar and patristic, which were read out at its meetings. The discussion was conducted, heretical judgments were heard, but the answer to them was not so much the arguments of the Orthodox participants in the Council, but rather the evidence drawn from the works of the fathers. Another feature that characterizes the Council is the exceptionally high respect it showed for the Bishop of Rome, Saint Agathon. Even the tomos of Pope Leo the Great at the IV Ecumenical Council was not perceived in Chalcedon with such reverence and obedience as the message of St. Agathon and the Roman Council of 125 Fathers, which preceded the Ecumenical Council. But from this circumstance it would be hasty to conclude that the VI Ecumenical Council recognized the special doctrinal authority of the Roman See. Such an assumption is destroyed by the fact that the fathers of the Council, as well as the legates of St. Agathon, were not at all embarrassed by the anathematization of Pope Honorius. No one at the Council, not even the papal legates and Western bishops who participated in it, said a word in defense of the heresiarch, no one tried to exclude his name from the number of posthumously condemned by the Council the main culprits in the spread of the Monothelite heresy. According to the tradition that has developed since the time of the first Ecumenical Councils, the emperors who patronized heretics and shared their errors were not condemned - neither Heraclius nor Constantius, just as the Second Ecumenical Council refrained from anathematizing the emperors Constantius or Valens, who adhered to Arian beliefs.
Giving a final description of the Council, A.V. Kartashev noted, not without reproach: “The Council generously pleased the emperor with compliments for his support of Orthodoxy. But he completely kept silent about the two pillars of Orthodoxy and the martyrs, whose strength and example, of course, inspired the fathers of the Council. Neither Pope Martin nor Maxim the Confessor are mentioned in the extensive materials of the Council by a single word! This is again for the sake of politics, because it was officially believed that Saints Martin and Maximus suffered not for their faith, but as political criminals (!!). Thus, political pressure weighed heavily on the Ecumenical Councils”[48]. The Fathers of the Council could, of course, mention both confessors, but the Council really had no grounds for a special consideration of their case: Saints Martin and Maxim were not subject to church condemnation, and therefore there was no need for their church rehabilitation. They were both formally convicted on political charges, and the review of their cases could not, in the nature of things, fall within the competence of the Church Council, but the conciliar anathematization of the heresiarchs, including those of them who were guilty of the massacre of confessors of Orthodoxy, opened the way to their later glorification as saints.
Even before the departure of the papal legates to Rome, belated news came from there about the death of Saint Agathon, who died on January 10, 681. Leo II became his successor. On December 13, Emperor Constantine sent him a message outlining the course of the council's actions and council decisions. In a response letter drawn up already in 682, Pope Leo approved all the decisions of the Council, including the anathematization of his predecessor in the Roman See, Honorius: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, namely Theodore, Bishop of Parano, Cyrus, Bishop of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul , Peter, more likely to be swindlers than to be the primates of the Church of Constantinople, also Honorius, who did not enlighten this apostolic church with the teaching of the apostolic tradition, but tried with vile betrayal to discredit the immaculate faith, and all those who died in their error. In the same way, we deny and anathematize the imitators and their accomplices who ever were or are now, namely Macarius, the former seducer of the Church of Antioch, together with the disciple of his error, or better yet the teacher - Stephen, together with them Polychronius, truly the new Simeon, who , amusing himself with the fantasy of heretical ugliness, promised to resurrect the deceased, and when his empty audacity was not fulfilled, he turned out to be a liar before everyone.”[49] The pope’s message ends with a pathetic appeal: “May heavenly grace preserve the pious power of the sovereign and subjugate the necks of all nations to him”[50].
