The Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649

The Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649 by Richard Price

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R35N2RTBAZOF2X?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

The 7th century AD was a kind of fulcrum of history. After contending with Persia for nearly a thousand years, Persia finally scored its biggest victory since Cyrus the great and conquered Rome's possessions from Mesopotamia to Egypt. This great victory was overturned within twenty years by Heraclius, who really deserves the title of “the Great.” Then, after Rome had returned the status quo ante, Islam emerged out of nowhere to finally end the interminable Persian-Roman conflict by ending Persia and conquering the Roman Middle East finally.

And, yet, this period is largely a black hole in our historical consciousness.

The intellectual history of the period is equally interesting. The Christian world was divided on the issue of Monoergism and Monothelitism. It is safe to say that most Christians have zero knowledge about these concepts today. “Monothelitism” is the doctrine that Jesus Christ had only one will, presumably the divine will. “Monoenergism” was the doctrine that Christ had only one action or operation, i.e., when Christ did something he was acting in his divine capacity.

My understanding had been that these were opposed to the Chalcedonian doctrine of two natures in Christ, i.e., that Christ had both a human and divine nature. This “monophysitism” became orthodox Christianity, but not all Christians had accepted monophysitism. Some adhered to “monophysitism,” which held that Christ only had a divine nature. My understanding what that monophysitism presupposed Monoenergism and Monothelitism, i.e., one nature meant one will and one action from that will. Likewise, two natures meant two will and two operations.

The author/translator Richard Price has written an in-depth discussion of the history of the 7th century prior to the Lateran Synod of 649 AD and these issues. Price takes on the historical/political implications of Rome's successful war with Persia and loss to Islam and its connections with Christian theology.

The conventional explanation, as I understand it, is that Monotheletism and Monenergism were efforts by the Roman emperors to find a formula that would allow a reunion with the Monophysites. This was important because the division had weakened Imperial defenses when the Persians had attacked. Although it seems that some reunions occurred because of these initiatives, Price does not view the Monothelite controversy as being primarily about rapprochement with Monophysites. He thinks it was mostly a dispute between Chalcedonian (Diaphysite) Christians, particularly through a series of texts approved by either the emperor or the Patriarch of Constantinople. The texts include the Psephos (633/634), the Ekthesis (636), and the Typos (648). The gist of these texts was to forbid discussion of either one or two operations in Christ, albeit, in passing, the Ekthesis mentioned “one will.” (So, interestingly, Monoenergism was the issue prior to Monothelitism.)

Price also views conflict as arising from Imperial losses to the Muslims. Heraclius outreach to the Monophysites in a “unionist” initiative had met with success while he was winning against the Persians. When Heraclius began losing to Islam, the question was “why?” One conclusion is that the Christian Roman Empire had offended God through heresy, specifically, the heresies of Monothelitism and monergism. Price places the blame for this concern on Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, and his disciple Maximus, who would be known to history as Maximus the Confessor.

Price argues that the dispute over these doctrines was mostly based on a confusion of terms or perspectives. Monotheletes did not deny that Christ had a human will and Catholics acknowledged that the two wills were formally united into a single will. Price has a fascinating discussion of the situation of Pope Honorius. Honorius is a favorite of anti-Catholics for arguments against papal infallibility, but the situation of Honorius is far from clear. Maximus the Confessor denied that Honorius had ever espoused Monothelitism. It appears that Honorius may have been affirming either that Christ had a single human will - which is a live issue in that some perspectives asserted that emotions were a kind of will - or that the human and divine wills were coordinated in the person of Christ, which is an orthodox doctrine.

In reading Price, it sometimes seems that the two sides were disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, which is not uncommon in the history of the church.

It is clear, though, that the papacy went from an accommodationist position under Honorius to a rigorist position under Pope Martin, the pope of the Lateran Synod, and his immediate predecessors, which Price lays at the feet of Maximus and his fellow monks. Martin's immediate predecessor had called the Synod for the purpose of repudiating the heresies of Monothelitism and Monoenergism.

The first part of this book contains approximately 100 pages where Price covers virtually every issue related to the Lateran Synod. The rest of the book consists of Price's translation of the texts of the speeches, votes, and decisions of the Synod. Price argues, consistent with other experts, that these articles were written prior to the Synod as a kind of script that the bishops followed.

The whole text makes for interesting reading if you have an interest in getting into deep historical and theological weeds. It also helps to have some background in the issues. I've just finished reading Part III of the Summa Theologica concerning Christ's wills and actions, which comes right out of this debate. This text certainly helped my understanding of that text and vice versa.

After the Synod, Pope Martin was arrested by the emperor and sent into exile where he died. Maximus was also arrested and eventually had his tongue cut out and his right arm amputated. What's interesting is that Price attests that the Pope's primacy was essentially conceded by the rest of orthodox Christianity, which is itself surprising since we normally think that Catholic claims to such primacy are the result of the later “Dark Ages.” In that vein, it is noteworthy that Martin was the first pope not approved of by the emperor and the Lateran Synod was not called with Imperial sanction. It appears that by the seventh century, Rome was beginning to separate from the Imperial system.