THEODORE I.

AD. 642-649.

 

Emperors. Constantine III, 25 May 641. Constans II (Constantine IV), sole ruler from before Sept. 642-668.

King. ROTHARI, 636-642.

Exarchs. Isaac, 625-644. Theodore Calliopas, 644-6. Plato, 646-9.

 

After a short vacancy of the Holy See, Theodore, a Greek and native of Jerusalem, and son of a bishop Theodore, was consecrated November 24, 642. Pagi conjectures that the exarch confirmed the election so promptly because Theodore was a Greek. At any rate, he confirmed the election of a good man—a man who was “a lover of the poor, generous, kind to all, and very merciful”. Heir of John’s faith as well as of his See, his pontificate was one long struggle with Monothelism. In fact there is hardly an action of his known which was not connected with that heresy.

About a year before Theodore became Pope, there had been a change of patriarchs at Constantinople. Pyrrhus was said to have been concerned in the death of Constantine III, and had fled or had been expelled from the city (October 641), as obnoxious to the party in power on political but apparently not for dogmatical reasons. In the same month, as though the See were vacant, Paul was elected patriarch—a man who, as it afterwards transpired, was as little orthodox as Pyrrhus.

As soon as he ascended the throne of the Fisherman, Theodore wrote to the Emperor Constans II, inasmuch as God had been pleased to entrust to him (the Pope) in Church affairs “the management of matters which touch your Piety”. While congratulating him on nominating orthodox bishops to the various Sees, he blames him for not taking canonical proceedings against Pyrrhus to deprive him of his dignity. He exhorts him to abolish the Ecthesis and to try and reclaim Pyrrhus and his followers, who have seduced the more unwary among the bishops to embrace the Ecthesis and thereby put themselves in opposition with the “common consent of the bishops who profess the true faith and sincere devotion to the Apostolic See”. He is astonished that the emperor has not already issued a decree against the heresy. And while he would bespeak the imperial favor for the bishops who have consecrated Paul, he would have had them anathematize Pyrrhus, and is not pleased that so far from speaking of him as deposed, they even call him a religious man. For if Pyrrhus was not deserving of anathema, then why was he driven from his See? If it be answered, from hatred, he would point out that the ill-will of men must not be suffered to override the rights of the clergy. In turn, if a bishop be justly deposed by the proper authority, no other power can reinstate him. With all this, it is not his intention to support the consecration and appointment of Paul for fear of some fraud. For he has some ground to fear that Paul has caused dissensions among those subject to his jurisdiction, and has even endeavored to stir up feeling against him (the Pope). But in us “there is none of that cockle which the enemy hath sown among men”.

The Pope was evidently suspicious of the good faith, if not of the orthodoxy, of both the emperor and his new patriarch. That he was not satisfied with the way in which Paul had been elected he also showed by refusing to recognize him as patriarch until certain conditions had been complied with. In his synodical letter, indeed, to the Pope, Paul had so written as to lead Theodore to suppose he was orthodox at least. Here we cannot but note how frequently it happens with heretics that they use all their talents in trying to conceal their doctrines under a show of orthodox language. With all their professed regard for truth, a regard which they put forward as the reason which forces them away from communion with the Catholic Church, they at times do their very best to hide what they profess as truth, a proceeding the sincerity of which can scarcely be granted.

In his reply, then, to Paul’s synodical epistle, Theodore rejoices that it shows that Paul has drawn the clear waters of his faith from the fountains of the Savior, but wonders how it is that Paul has not yet caused to be taken down the Ecthesis of Pyrrhus which is opposed to his (the Pope’s) apostolic faith, and which his predecessor (John IV) and the emperor had alike condemned. It cannot be that Paul receives the Ecthesis, or he would have told him (the Pope) so in his synodical letter. The Pope also wonders why the bishops who consecrated Paul alluded to Pyrrhus as most holy, and is astonished that they aver that he had renounced the See of Constantinople on account of his unpopularity. “Thrown into doubt by this assertion, we have decided not to receive your synodical letter (i.e., not to acknowledge you as patriarch) for a time, until Pyrrhus be deprived of his See. Tumult and unpopularity cannot deprive a man of his episcopal rank. A canonical sentence ought to have been passed on him that your consecration might be unassailable. It is written : A woman if her husband be dead is freed from the law of her husband. Therefore whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress if she be with another man (Rom. VII. 2, 3). They two shall be in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church (Ephes. V. 31, 32). Un­worthy though I be, I fill His place in the Church. Accordingly as Pyrrhus still lives, and has not been convicted of a canonical fault, precautions must be taken against a schism. A council must be held against him. We have instructed Sericus, the archdeacon, and Martin, the deacon and apocrisiarius, who are to take our place in this matter, to inquire into the fault of Pyrrhus along with you”. The Pope adds that, in the event of Paul’s anticipating any trouble from the partisans of Pyrrhus, an order may be obtained from the emperor, in accordance with earnest representations that he (the Pope) has made the emperor, that Pyrrhus may be sent to Rome to be tried by a council there.

To the bishops who had ordained Paul, the Pope also wrote. While rejoicing in his (Paul’s) ordination, i.e., in his being made a bishop, he exhorts them to see to the canonical deposition of Pyrrhus, so that Paul’s right to be bishop of Constantinople may not be called in question. He also sent to the imperial city a declaration of faith condemning Pyrrhus and the Ecthesis.

The letter of the emperor to the Pope, discovered by Cardinal Mai, shows that the council he insisted on was duly held; but on the subject of the condemnation Pyrrhus not a word is said. There was evidently no sincerity in either emperor or patriarch. The substance of the emperor’s letter to Theodore, which is as respectful as possible, is as follows: Acknowledging the receipt of the Pope’s letter, which he regards as worthy of him on account of its declarations concerning the faith, Constans praises him for desiring that no novelty should be introduced into the Church, He has drunk of the pure waters by which the Pope has quenched the thirst of his soul. Not to fall into the mistakes of his predecessors (whom the enemy of souls had seduced from the faith erected on that rock against which the gates of hell will never prevail), he caused the Pope's letter to be “read in this large assembly in the presence of Paul, patriarch of this our God-protected Constantinople”. To it all expressed their adhesion. “Your brother Paul has sent your Paternity—in the customary manner among bishops—an encyclical in conformity with what you had laid down”. “Throughout the whole of our empire we have ourselves decreed” that no novelties be introduced into the Church beyond what had been taught by the apostles and by councils, and “beyond what your Paternity, Holy Father, has written”. And if anything against the true faith has been done by the authority of any emperor in former times or “a short time before the death of the pious Constantine of happy memory— this we abolish”. His wish is for the pacific increase of the Church and “perseverance in the doctrine of your Paternity”.

Whether or not this specious letter satisfied Theodore, and whether or not the encyclical of Paul (which is lost) induced him to accept the situation, we do not know. But he could not, of course, be kept long in ignorance of the Monothelite views of Paul. His apocrisiarii may have sent him information of the real belief of the Byzantine patriarch. At any rate it is certain that a letter came (643) to him from Sergius, the metropolitan of Cyprus, apprising him of it. This document is headed, “To our most holy and most blessed Lord, the father of fathers and universal Pope Theodore, Sergius the lowly, health in the Lord”.

The letter opens with a very strong expression of the pre-eminent position of the Holy See in the Church, and begs that the clouds of ignorance may be driven away by the light of its wisdom. It goes on to say that up to the present they, the metropolitan and his suffragans in Cyprus, have kept quiet about the heretical doings in the imperial city, but now, relying on the protection of the Pope, they cannot and will not do so any more, as the ‘cockle’ seed of error is being sowed over all the world.

There also appeared at Rome about this time Stephen of Dora, whose story also served to shed a flood of light on the doings of Paul. In connection with this bishop there occurred perhaps the most dramatic incident in the whole of the Monothelite controversy. From a document presented by Stephen himself to the Lateran Council (649), we learn that when St. Sophronius, the first distinguished opponent of the 'one-will' heresy in the East, found that neither by word nor writing could he prevail against that error, he took Stephen, the first of his suffragans, to Mount Calvary, and there adjured him, by the account he would have to give to Him who died thereon, not to be found wanting to His faith. “And as I cannot go myself on account of the invasion of the Saracens, do you, as quickly as possible, go from the ends of the earth to the limits thereof, until you come to the Apostolic See, where are the foundations of orthodox teaching. Cease not to unfold to the holy men there what is being taught here, and cease not begging till they condemn the new errors”. Deeply impressed with this solemn scene, and with the exhortations of the Catholic bishops and people of the East, Stephen thrice managed, despite the efforts of the heretics to prevent him, to reach Rome. He first came to Rome in the time of Pope Honorius, then in that of Pope Theodore, and lastly in that of Pope Martin. He came to tell Theodore how Sergius of Joppa seized the patriarchal chair of Jerusalem after the death of St. Sophronius, and how those whom Sergius had ordained, feeling the insecurity of their position, endeavored to maintain it, by giving their adhesion to the heresy, supported by Paul of Constantinople. The Pope thereupon nominated Stephen his legate in Palestine, and gave him power to depose those who had been nominated by Sergius, unless they expressed their sorrow in writing, and promised also in writing to observe the teachings of the fathers and the councils. Stephen executed the Pope’s commission, and returned to Rome in the pontificate of Pope Martin, and presented to him the acts of submission of such as repented of their conduct.

The dispute between St. Maximus and Pyrihus in Africa, 645

Meanwhile, before Theodore acted on the information thus received, there took place (645) in Africa the famous dispute between the abbot St. Maximus and the patriarch Pyrrhus, who had finally betaken himself to Africa after his flight from Constantinople. The result of the discussion was that Pyrrhus acknowledged himself worsted by St. Maximus, who was in this controversy another Athanasius, and expressed a wish “to visit the Pope and give him a statement regarding his error”. Pyrrhus, accordingly, in company with St Maximus, went to Rome, and, “before all the clergy and people, made a profession of faith, in which he condemned all that he or his predecessors had done or written against our immaculate faith” (645). The Pope treated Pyrrhus with the greatest kindness and respect, and allowed him an income for his proper maintenance whilst in Rome.

However, when he left Rome and came under Monothelite’s influence at Ravenna, Pyrrhus, as Anastasius notes, “returned like a dog to the vomit”, and again 647-648 professed the one-will. The Pope, naturally indignant, convened a synod in St. Peter’s, and excommunicated and deposed the relapsed heretic. Theophanes, in his Chronicle, tells us that Pope Theodore, “standing by the tomb of St. Peter, the Corypheus of the Apostles, ordered a chalice to be brought to him; and, taking thence a drop of Christ’s vivifying blood, mingled it with the ink, and then with his own hand wrote out the sentence of excommunication and deposition against Pyrrhus and his associates”. By many this sensational story is doubted, and for the reason that it rests altogether on the evidence of Theophanes, who was not born till over a hundred years after the events we are narrating, and who is “extremely ill-informed as to transactions in Western Europe”. Under the circumstances the doubt is certainly justifiable.

Meanwhile the famous ‘dispute’ had roused the Catholics of Africa, and one council after another, in Numidia, Byzacena, Mauritania, and Carthage, condemned Monothelism, and sent letters to the emperor, praying him to put an end to the scandal caused by the new errors; to the patriarch Paul and to the Pope. These letters are to be found quoted among the acts of the Lateran synod under Pope Martin. In the name of their three synods the three primates of Numidia, Byzacena and Mauritania sent a synodal letter to Theodore, ‘’the bishop of bishops. No one, they say, is ignorant that your apostolic throne has in an especial manner been chosen to examine the sacred dogmas of the Church, and that the earliest canons have decided that nothing, no matter in however remote provinces, be looked into or received without being brought to the notice of the apostolic throne, in order that it may be confirmed by its authority, and that the other Churches may draw the truth from it as from a fountain and the faith remain incorrupt. Hence, with regard to the doctrinal difficulties that have sprung up at Constantinople, they have up to the present preserved silence, expecting they would be cleared away by the apostolic See. However, as the evil is increasing, they have written to Paul to exhort him to reject the Ecthesis, and they beg the Pope to forward their letter by his apocrisiarii. “If”, they add in conclusion, “Paul will not return to the orthodox faith, let the authority of your apostolic See cut him off from the body of the Church, that it may become purer when its rotten member has been amputated”.

This letter was supported by another from Victor, Bishop of Carthage, quite to the same effect in every point.

Urged by these numerous representations, the Pope wrote to Paul and begged him by his apocrisiarii also to return to orthodoxy. In vain. Paul replied, with great affectation of humility, that having no wish to give ‘tit for tat’, he has hitherto kept silence, but that now the time has come for him to do as the apocrisiarii wish him, viz., to explain his views on the One Will of Our Lord and to send them to the Pope. Under the pretence of following the Fathers in general, and Sergius and Pope Honorius in particular, he professes most absolutely that there is only One Will in the one person Jesus Christ.

Having thus, as the Lateran Council (649) observed, approved the Ecthesis in writing, Paul caused the Emperor Constans to issue the ‘Type’. By this decree he meant to strike a blow at the Church none the less severe because indirect. The ‘Type’ ordered the Ecthesis to be taken down, and forbade anyone in future to speak of either one or two wills or operations in Our Lord. Of course this edict was not attended to by the Catholics. They saw perfectly well that it either meant to support ‘indifferentism’ on an important matter, or to render it impossible to speak of Our Lord’s human nature otherwise than as a mere block like the gods of old, which, as the Psalmist mocks, had eyes and saw not, ears and heard not. “We are witnessing a deliberate attempt by successive patriarchs of Constantinople”, writes Mr. Allies, in the seventh volume of his Formation of Christendom, p. 67, “to alter the faith of the Church as it had been laid down at the Council of Chalcedon. And not this only, but to make the mouth of their emperor the instrument for disseminating their heresy, and to use the whole material power of that emperor to overthrow the defence of that faith by the Roman See, the superior authority of which, at the same time, neither emperor nor patriarch denied. This attempt continues during forty years from the death of Pope Honorius in 638, and .... it was the purely spiritual power of the successor of St. Peter .... which preserved the life of the Church, and foiled the Byzantine oppressor, together with the underplay of the Byzantine patriarch”.

The ‘Type’ was promptly condemned by the whole West, and, as Pagi remarks, like its predecessor the Exthesis, it did not please even the Monothelites. When this last act of Paul was brought before the notice of the Pope, he felt that he could delay no longer, and declared Paul deposed from the patriarchal See.

Although the protection of the emperor freed Paul from any fear of actually losing his See, he was so enraged at the sentence passed against him by the Pope, that, in defiance of the law of nations, that holds the persons of ambassadors sacred, he sacked the private chapel that was reserved for the use of the Pope’s apocrisiarii, and heaped all kinds of indignities upon them, and began to persecute them and others by imprisonment, exile and the scourge. To these penalties those rendered themselves liable, by the very terms of the ‘Type’, who refused submission to its dictates.

Theodore did not live to see the lengths to which the Monothelites were prepared to go in trying to propagate their errors. He died in the month of May 649, and was buried in St. Peter’s. In the twelfth century Peter Mallius was able to read his epitaph, but he only transcribed the beginning of it.

The pontificate of Theodore is remarkable for this, that in it we have the first recorded instance of a translation of the bodies of the saints into the interior of Rome. The author of his biography tells us that the bodies of SS. Primus and Felicianus were translated from a catacomb on the Via Nomentana and placed in the basilica of St. Stephen, the protomartyr— the circular basilica on the Coelian. The chapel of these martyrs in this basilica still contains the mosaic work with which it was adorned by Theodore. But the inscription has gone.

 

ST. MARTIN I.