ST. BENEDICT II

AD. 684-685.

 

EMPEROR. POGONATUS, 668-685.

KING. PERCTARIT, 672-688.               

EXARCH. THEODORE, 677-687.

 

After another long interval—over eleven months—Benedict II, a Roman, the son of one John, was consecrated June 26, 684. He had served the Church from his infancy, and both as a youth and a priest, says his biographer, had shown himself worthy of his name. For in him abounded the grace of heavenly ‘benediction’. Like his predecessor he was skilled in the sacred Scriptures and in music. He was also a lover of poverty, humble and gentle, patient and generous. What matter for regret that the pontiffs of this period, with the charming characters which history has handed them down as possessing, should have reigned for such short periods, and that the records of their deeds should occupy such little space in the world’s history!

Mention has already been made of the formalities which preceded the consecration of a pope in the days when imperial confirmation, direct, or indirect through the exarch, had to be awaited before the consecration could take place. The formulas used for the dispatch of the necessary business in connection with the affair were given at the same time.

The ‘liberation’ decree of Constantine the Bearded necessitated the drawing up of fresh formulas. It was, of course, necessary to send information to the emperor as to the result of the papal elections, even if his consent to the papal consecration had now no longer to be asked. Hence in the Liber Diurnus we find another set of forms (82-85) in connection with the election of a new pope. In the construction of the new forms the old ones were not unnaturally brought into requisition. Consequently many portions of the new productions are like the old ones. There is, however, this important difference between the two sets. There is no request for confirmation in the new forms. Many of the phrases of these new forms point to the conclusion that they were drawn up for Benedict II. The Sixth General Council (681) is alluded to as recently over; and Constantine (IV) the Bearded (d. September 685) is still spoken of in them as alive. We may suppose that these formulas were in use to proclaim the election of the new pope till the compact of 817 between the Papacy and the new empire in the West.

The first of the formulas is described as Decretum Pontificis. It is the decree of election which, duly signed by N., humble priest of the Holy Roman Church, and all the clergy, nobility and soldiery (or honorable citizens), was deposited in the archives of the Lateran. After a preamble about the goodness of God in turning their sorrow for the death of their late pastor into joy for the new one He has given them, the decree records how, after long prayers for heavenly guidance, all met together, and, on account of his merits, unanimously elected the deacon (Benedict).

Before his consecration the new Pope-elect made a public profession of faith—Indiculum Pontificis, formula 83. He declared that even to death would he guard the faith given by Jesus Christ, and handed down to him by the successors of St. Peter. He professed his adhesion to the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation, and the other doctrines of God’s Church, as they have been unfolded by the ecumenical councils, the constitutions of the popes, and the writings of the approved fathers of the Church. With the other general councils he acknowledged the sixth, lately called together by his predecessor Agatho, under the Emperor Constantine “of pious memory”. Particularly would he stand by the decrees of his pre­decessors; preserve the discipline, rites and goods of the Church, and never alter the tradition he had received from those who had gone before him. The profession was signed with his own hand by the Pope-elect.

When consecrated, the new Pope announced (form. 84) his accession “to the whole people of God, his most reverend brethren and most well-beloved children”. He would beg the prayers of all to assist his unworthiness, would guard the faith (which is professed at considerable length), and condemn those whom the councils had condemned, viz., Sergius, Paul, etc., “along with Honorius, who gave encouragement to their profane doctrines”. A copy of this public profession of his faith, also signed by the Pope’s own hand, was deposited in the confession of St. Peter.

The last of the formulas in question (85) takes the form of a homily addressed by the Pope to the faithful assembled in St. Peter’s on the day of his consecration. After an exhortation to Christian peace, it concludes with a profession of faith, like those of the preceding formulas, and with prayers for the prosperity of the empire.

As no Spanish bishops had been present at the Roman council under Pope Agatho, we saw how earnest Pope St. faith of  Leo II was to inform them of the definitions of the Sixth General Council, and to secure their adhesion to them. St. Benedict followed in his footsteps, and one of his first acts, though only “a priest, and in God’s name the elect of the Holy See”, was to send a letter to the notary Peter, urging him to fulfill to the best of his ability the commands of St. Leo, “and procure with all zeal the subscriptions of the bishops to the decisions of the Council”. Whether or not in consequence of greater activity on Peter’s part King Ervig summoned the fourteenth council of Toledo (November 684). The council discussed the business for which, in accordance with the papal letters, they had been assembled. Monothelism was condemned. St. Julian, the Archbishop of Toledo, who presided at the council, drew up in its name and sent to the Pope an “Apology” of their faith. It was sent to Rome by the notary Peter, and consisted of four parts. The document itself is now lost. Benedict was not satisfied with some of the phrases used by the Spanish bishops in their “Apology”. He did not care for the expression: “will begot will”, or that there were “three substances in Christ” and he accordingly sent back the “Apology” for revision. At another council of Toledo (the fifteenth), at which both bishops and nobles took part, and which met May 11, 688, the Spanish bishops defended the expressions the Pope had complained of. They explained them in an orthodox sense, and urged that similar phrases were used by the fathers. And, nettled apparently at being considered heterodox even in language, they concluded their defence of their first “Apology” with the tart remark that they would not dispute with any who chose to dissent from their doctrine, founded as it was on that of the fathers; and that if their doctrine seemed objectionable to ignorant rivals, it would seem, they modestly add, “sublime” to lovers of truth! However, St. Julian drew up a second Apology and sent it to Rome in charge of some very learned men. This was accepted as orthodox by Pope Sergius.

This Pope seems to have had as good an understanding with Constantine the Bearded as his predecessors. He obtained  a decree from that just prince that the Pope-elect might be consecrated at once, without having to wait for any imperial confirmation.

It has already been noted that the question with regard to the confirmation of papal elections by emperor or exarch is a most complicated one. The meaning of this decree of 684 or 5 is, as previously stated, disputed. According to some, in doing away with confirmation by the emperor it substituted that by the exarch, while others contend that by it all necessity of applying to any secular authority for confirmation was abrogated. Certainly that is the more obvious meaning of the decree, and is the one maintained by those who hold that the exarch had confirmed papal elections before the year 684. The supporters of this view, however, have further to suppose either that this decree was modified almost immediately after its publication, or that, when in the Book of the Popes there is mention in the life of Conon (687) of a customary deputation to the exarch after Conon's election, it is only meant that thereby official notice of the accession of the new Pope was given to the imperial government. While, therefore, it is clear that the decree of Constantine effected some change in the existing custom as to imperial confirmation of papal elections, the reader must decide for himself what he supposes that custom to have been.

Whether we consider the princes who arrogate to themselves this right of confirming the election of the popes or the candidates for the sacred office of supreme pastor of Christendom, it must be confessed that, generally speaking, the interference of the secular power in these elections can only be fraught with evil; and this, if only on the general principle of the detrimental effect produced on any business or corporate body when outside influence can be brought to bear unduly on its concerns or deliberations. The door is at once opened to bribery and corruption of all sorts. Certainly the history of the Church has proved this abundantly. When secular influence in the papal elections has been greatest, the rulers of the Church have been the most indifferent. The Papacy was never at a lower ebb than it was in the tenth century, and the interference of the powerful in papal affairs never greater.

Constantine gave the Pope another proof of his regard for him. He would have the Pope adopt his two sons, Justinian and Heraclius. This he effected by sending locks of their hair to the Pope, who received them in State accompanied by the clergy and the army, ie., the commanders of the army. In the early Middle Ages, it was the custom that those who first cut the hair of children, or to whom such first-cut tresses were sent, adopted the said children. Muratori thinks that this act would also signify the submission and obedience which kings professed towards the successors of St. Peter, after the manner of slaves, whose hair used to be cut. And he quotes the famous Anastasius, who tells of a king of the Bulgarians, in his devotion to the Holy See, with his own hand cutting off his hair and handing it to the legates of the Pope, saying : “Know ye, nobles and people of Bulgaria, that from this day forth I am the servant, after God, of Blessed Peter and his vicar!”.

Death of Macarius, ex-bishop of Antioch, 685

It may be remembered that Pope St Leo II failed to make any impression on Macarius of Antioch and his heterodox views. On the death of Theophanes (685?), who was appointed to fill the See of Antioch in place of Macarius, Benedict made an effort to induce the heretical bishop to subscribe to the orthodox faith, with a view of having him restored to his See. For forty days the Pope caused Macarius to be visited by one of his special advisers. But Macarius died, as he had lived, in obstinate heresy.

A brief list of this Pope’s church restorations may be read in the Liber Pontificalis. He was very good to the clergy. The Book of the Popes notes three classes who received the last dying gifts of the Pope, viz., the various orders of the secular clergy, the monasteries which were deaconries and the mansionarii or lay sacristans. From the letters of Gregory the Great, it is clear that there were deaconries not only in Rome but in other cities as well, and that their object was to distribute corn and other necessaries of life to the needy and to look after the poor generally. Evidently some at least of the deaconries were monasteries, and some of them were presided over by monks. The one who presided over the deaconry was known as its dispensator; and so the recent (1900-1) excavations in the forum have brought to light an inscription of one Theodotus, primicerius defensorurn, and dispensator of the deaconry of St. Maria Antiqua. Whether or not there was at this period more than one deaconry to each region is not known. Under Hadrian I (772-795) two more were added to the sixteen he found already in existence, scattered, in irregular proportion, throughout the different regions.

After then, in accordance with custom, bestowing various favors on the clergy on Easter Day, March 26, of 685, he fell ill, and died a short time after. He was buried (May 8, 685)2 in St. Peter's.

His epitaph ran as follows (Duchesne, L. P., i. 365).

 

Magna tuis, Benedicte pater, monumenta relinquis

Virtutum titulos, O decus atque dolor!

Fulguris in specimen mentis splendore coruscas

Plura sed exiguo tempore coepta fluunt.

Cuncta sacerdotum praestantia munia comples

Et quo quisque bono claruit unus habes.

Quippe quod a parvo meritis radiantibus auctus

Jure patrum solium pontificale foves.

Non hoc ambitio rapti tibi praestat honoris

Indolis est fructus quam comitatur honos.

Et quia sollerter Christi regis agmina pastor

Percipe salvati praemia celsa gregis.

 

The jure patrum would seem to imply that it was after passing regularly through the various degrees of the clerical state that he at length reached the rank of supreme pontiff.

 

JOHN V.