Monothelitism

The Western Roman Empire and Eastern Byzantine Empire had many differences over the centuries. Some of the biggest differences were religious. One such was the Filioque controversy: did the Holy Spirit proceed from the father, or the Father and the Son? Another was the question of Monothelitism.

Monothelitism ("one will") had come up in the 600s in opposition to dyothelitism ("dual wills"), the doctrine that Jesus had two "wills": a divine aspect and a human aspect. Monothelitism was the opinion that he had one will, a single "energy."

The debates over this had started generations earlier. The Church had determined that Jesus was the Son of God, but exactly how a human could also be God was still being argued. The First Council of Nicaea had decreed that Jesus was fully divine, and any other thought was heretical (this was to combat Arianism; this is the council where Nicholas of Myra reportedly slapped Arius). By declaring that God's Son became a man, they opened the door to discussion (and debate) over how two different natures could combine in a human being.

The debates could be fierce, and fights broke out over them. Emperor Heraclius (610 - 641) suggested monothelitism in order to establish one unifying doctrine. Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius I wrote to Pope Honorius, arguing that the idea of two wills in Jesus could lead to the argument that his human and divine wills were opposed to each other. (Consider the scene in Gethsemane when Jesus asks if fate can be taken away.) Sergius wanted Honorius to agree that divisive arguments should be suppressed. Honorius went along at first, but arguments arose that monothelitism was inconsistent with orthodoxy.

When Constans II came to power in 641, the debate in the Eastern Mediterranean was still raging. Constans tried to suppress it by decree, which did not endear him to either faction. This decree, called the Type of Constans, made it illegal to discuss whether Christ had one or two natures or energies and the matter was to be forgotten. He was 17 years old at the time, and did not care much about religion.

When Pope Martin I wrote to him, telling him to condemn both monothelitism and his own decree, Constans had Martin arrested and brought to Constantinople for trial. Martin was exiled to Crimea. When Adrian of Canterbury—a monk and an acquaintance of Constans—was traveling through Gaul, he was detained by Frankish authorities (Ebroin, Mayor of the Palace) on suspicion of being there to create disruption. The only disruption I can imagine of which he might be accused is regarding monothelitism, which the Roman Catholic West opposed.

When Constans died, his son, Constantine IV, was asked to rule on the subject, but he refused, saying it should be determined by church synods. Several were held over the following years, and monothelitism was declared erroneous.

Before we leave Constans, however, I want to talk about the last years of his reign that did not have anything to do with religion, including his connections with China. See you next time.

Second Council of Lyon

When the East-West Schism was over 200 years old, Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Paleologos (1224 - 1282) asked Pope Gregory X to help reunite the two churches. The result was the Second Council of Lyon, the 14th time the Roman Catholic Church had called an ecumenical council. It was convened on 31 March 1272, and brought together 300 bishops, 60 abbots, and over a thousand other prelates or their representatives. (Even more showed up who were not on the invitation list, and they were asked to depart since it would be impossible to accommodate them all.)

Michael VIII sent an ambassador with members of the Greek Orthodox clergy and representatives of Abaqa Khan, current ruler of the Mongols whom Edward I of England had reached out to a few years earlier in order to promote an alliance. James I of Aragon attended, as did Bonaventure (seen here speaking in front of Pope Gregory by a 17th century Spanish painter, Zurbaran). Thomas Aquinas was invited, but died along the way. Other countries represented were Bohemia, England, France, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Scotland, Sweden, and a few others.

Meeting for six sessions between May and July, they discussed the conquest of the Holy Land and the unification of the Eastern and Western churches. Some other concerns were paying for a Crusade, excommunication of pirates and those who protected or traded with them (because they interfere with traveling to the Holy Land), and indulgences for those willing to go on Crusade.

The Council confirmed Rudolf I (1 May 1218 – 15 July 1291) as Holy Roman Emperor, ending a 20-year Interregnum.

The ambassador from Abaqa Khan reported that the relations with Europe begun under his father, Hulagu, continued, and that Latin Christians were exempt from taxes in exchange for prayers for the Khan. Hulagu also had committed to returning Jerusalem to the Franks, and Abaqa intended to continue his father's commands.

One of Gregory's "successes" was getting the Eastern Church's representatives to accept the West's addition of Filioque ("and the Son") to the Nicene Creed. This did not satisfy the bishops back home, however. Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople resigned in protest, and after Emperor Michael VIII died, his son and successor Andronicus II rejected the change.

Also, Gregory's hope for a new Crusade petered out after his death in 1276; the taxes gathered were re-distributed in Italy.

Now, about that Interregnum mentioned above...what was the problem? I'll explain that tomorrow.

The East-West Schism

Pope Leo IX's actions in 1054 (through his delegate Cardinal Humbert, actually) were the catalyst for the great East-West Schism between the Western and Eastern churches, but only because differences had been building for a long time.

Some of the difficulties between the two rose from cultural differences. The West was influenced by Roman law, while the East had Greek philosophy at its base, leading to much more vigorous intellectual debate about dogma and doctrine and misunderstandings between them and the West.

Also, the West considered itself superior from the start as the seat of Peter, and so did not discuss things with its Eastern counterpart before making changes like adding the phrase "and from the Son" to the Nicene Creed, established at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. This phrase, Filioque in Latin, created a huge controversy over whether the Son of God was co-equal with the Father as a source of the Holy Spirit. The 879–880 Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox, as opposed to the Fourth Council of Constantinople Roman that took place a decade earlier) rejected the phrase Filioque.

The Eastern Church also believed in what is now called eucharistic ecclesiology (or more recently holographic ecclesiology), the idea that each bishop is the successor of St. Peter, equal to all other bishops, and the head of his own diocese, and that all these churches constituted the whole Church. The Roman West followed universal ecclesiology, a more "feudal" system in which all bishops were beholden to the hierarchy above them, leading up to the pope. The Orthodox Church does not accept the idea of papal authority being supreme, believing in a more collaborative or collegial relationship between all dioceses.

Although the Fourth Council mentioned above affirmed the value of images of god and saints for veneration, the Eastern policy earlier had promoted iconoclasm, based on Moses' 3rd Commandment against "graven images." The West had never been opposed to such things, but there was a strong current against it in the East, which drew a line between veneration ("respect"), and worship of an image.

With these in the background, we come to Patriarch Michael I Cerularius, who adds to the differences his objection to the use of unleavened bread in the West for the Eucharist. The Eastern argument is that yeast causes bread to rise and that is a better symbol for the Resurrection. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus would have used at the Last Supper, being a Seder.

These were already points of contention in 1054, so when Pope Leo IX tried to tell Patriarch Michael to fall in line because the Donation of Constantine said he should, the East had had enough.

Of course, differences continued to be created, as both sides did their best to understand the world. One of them that started to appear a century after the East-West Schism started was the idea of Purgatory. I'll talk about that next time.

The Patriarch and the Pope

Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople was vaulted to his position (which he held at two different times, 858–866 and 877–886 CE) because of his brilliance as a religious scholar and his family connection to the current emperor, Michael III. He wasn't even a priest, but in less than a week was ordained and promoted so that he could "properly" become patriarch. This irregular appointment caused trouble among the local Eastern Orthodox Church as well as the Roman Catholic Church.

Shortly after his Christmas 858 elevation to patriarch, a local council was held in 859 to confirm his appointment formally (rather than risk the ire of the emperor). Supporters of his predecessor Ignatios, however, appealed to Rome for support. Ignatios had been removed and incarcerated solely on the will of the emperor, without trial. These "Ignatians" declared Photios' appointment as patriarch illegitimate.

Pope Nicholas I sent papal legates to Constantinople to conduct an inquiry. By the time they arrived, however, and with the 859 council's confirmation, Photios was firmly established in his role; trying to depose him and restore Ignatios would be difficult and disruptive in its own way. At a synod in Constantinople in 861 they re-affirmed Photios' appointment. Then the legates returned to Rome.

Upon their return, they discovered that Pope Nicholas had wanted an entirely different outcome. In an 863 synod in Rome Nicholas declared Photios deposed and Ignatios restored. Photios held his own synod in which he declared the pope excommunicated for the Filioque heresy. This synod also discussed who had authority over the recently converted Bulgarians, the Eastern Orthodox Church who did the work, or the Roman Church, which felt it had authority over all Christians?

Then in 867 Emperor Michael III was assassinated by a rival who became Emperor Basil I. Basil wanted an alliance with the West, so he sided with the pope, deposed Photios, and reinstated Ignatios. The Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869-870 condemned Photios, officially ending what was considered the "Photian Schism." This council did more than that, however, and deserves its own entry, which it will get next time.

East & West

Pope Gregory at the Second Council of Lyons

The Second Council of Lyons, mentioned yesterday, accomplished many things. It was called by Pope Gregory X partially to attempt a reconciliation between the Eastern and Western Churches—Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII (1223-1282) had requested this.

One of the items on the agenda was getting the two churches to agree to the same theology. The Filioque ["and the Son"] controversy was still an issue. The Greek text of the Nicene Creed was that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father." The Roman view was that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son." This divergence was firmly established in 325 by the first Nicene Council. The Greek delegation conceded to add the words "and the Son" to their version of the Creed. Sadly, Michael VIII's successor, Emperor Andronicus II (1259-1332), rejected the change.

The other East/West connection established at the Council was relations between Europe and the Mongol Empire of Abaqa Khan. A Crusade was planned, and the representatives of the Khan (one of whom went through a public baptism at Lyons) agreed to not hassle Christians during the war with Islam. Abaqa's father had once agreed to exempt Christians from taxes. Unfortunately, the Crusade never happened, and the grand gesture of cooperation did not take place.

So...improvements in East/West relations were attempted, but ultimately failed. The Council also was marred by other events. Thomas Aquinas wanted to attend, but died on the way. St. Bonaventure did attend, but died during the sessions..