The Lowest Point…

…thus far…

[Islam’s] sudden appearance and extraordinary expansion through “holy war” (djihad) shocked the Byzantine empire and rapidly destroyed its domination of the Middle East.

Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD 450 – 680, John Meyendorff

The focal point of this chapter for Meyendorff is the discussion of Monothelitism and Monenergism relative to orthodoxy – and by orthodoxy, it is meant the Chalcedonian definition as further addressed in the century-and-a-half thereafter. The rise of Islam and the conquest by Arabs of many Christian lands is a story woven into the ongoing Christological issues of the time.

This story begins with Heraclius I, emperor from 610 – 641, and Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople from 610 – 638. Neither were Greek, both being from the east (Heraclius almost certainly Armenian, and Sergius a Syrian). Battles with Persia, pitting Christianity vs. Zoroastrianism – a fight for universal victory of absolute Truth, as each side saw it. Yes, other wars had religious elements; this war was seen completely in this light. On top of this, Slav and Avar tribes occupied practically the entire Balkan peninsula.

Persians would take Antioch and Damascus in 613. They would arrive at the Bosphorus in 615, with Egypt falling in 619. It was at this point that Heraclius began his “celebrated” counter-offensive. He would leave the defense of Constantinople in the hands of Patriarch Sergius. Heraclius would then land on the eastern shore of the Black Sea, attacking the Persians in Armenia and liberating Asia Minor.

While he was doing this, the Persian emperor attacked Constantinople, supported by the Avars and Slavs. This attack failed, repelled by forces directed by Sergius – with the success attributed to the special protection of the Virgin Mary.

By 627, Heraclius invaded Persian territory through Armenia. Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Syria, and Egypt were returned to Byzantine rule. Overall, an extraordinary military success – and also regaining the possibility of reconciliation with the Christians of these territories: the so-called “Monophysites.”

This is where the issues of Monothelitism and Monenergism come in…and I will spend no time on these, as mentioned. Just to say these were driven by further attempts to development a statement that would be acceptable in both East and West; subsets of leaders on each side could find common ground based on some aspect of this conversation. But only subsets.

Which comes to the Islamic invasion. Damascus would fall to the armies of Islam in 635 – just eight years after Heraclius reconquered this territory from the Persians! Antioch would fall in 638, the same year that Jerusalem would be captured. In this case, surrender meant survival: the khalif would issue a document guaranteeing the rights of Christians as long as they did not prevent conversion to Islam and would not attempt to convert Muslims.

By 651, less than twenty-five years after Heraclius wrested these territories from the Persians, the armies of the disciples of Muhammad conquered Syria and Egypt as well as the remnants of the Persian empire. They would eventually expand from Central Asia to all lands in the east and also the south of the Mediterranean – all the way to the Atlantic Ocean.

Is this point low enough for you? Well…just wait:

The participation of the patriarchate in these shameful events makes this period, morally, the lowest point in the history of the church of Constantinople.

What events? Let’s begin with a brief description of two new statements – new attempts to overcome the divide brought on by Chalcedon:

The Ecthesis is a letter published in 638 CE by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius which defined monotheletism as the official imperial form of Christianity. … The Ecthesis was another attempt by the Byzantine emperors to heal the schism in the Christian Church over the nature of Jesus Christ.

The Typos of Constans (also called Type of Constans) was an edict issued by Eastern Roman emperor Constans II in 648 in an attempt to defuse the confusion and arguments over the Christological doctrine of Monotheletism.

These were condemned in a synod in 649, made up of bishops mostly from Italy and Africa. St. Maximus played in a decisive role in this condemnation (which included twenty anathematisms), although no personal attack was made against either Heraclius or Constans. This strong condemnation in the West provoked an equally strong reaction in Constantinople.

As punishment, in 653, pope Martin was arrested – accused of being made pope illegally (without imperial sanction). He was kept in prison for three months. He was tried, defrocked, divested of his episcopal ornaments, chained and humiliated. He died in exile.

It is this that Meyendorff decries as the morally lowest point of the church of Constantinople. But we aren’t done yet. There was resistance to all, this, and it was led by St. Maximus the Confessor. He was arrested, along with two of his companions, and sent to Constantinople.

His trial followed that of pope Martin. He was asked if he was not in communion with Constantinople; he replied, no, because they have rejected the four holy councils (through Chalcedon) by their acceptance of these two aforementioned edicts by the two different emperors. He even denied that the emperor had any right to make such pronouncements.

Condemnation was inevitable. Maximus was cruelly tortured, had his tongue and right hand amputated, and he was exiled to Lazica in the Caucasus. He died there in August, 662.

No protests came either from Rome, or from any other part of the Christian world.

Conclusion

Which brings us to the sixth ecumenical council, the Third Council of Constantinople. Unlike previous ecumenical councils, Rome would bring an entire delegation; representation by Eastern patriarchs was minimal, partly due to Arab conquests. The council was held in eighteen sessions, from 680 – 681.

The issue was on “tradition”: could the writings of the Church Fathers be used to justify the concepts of “one energy” and “one will” in Christ. As Maximus was dead, there was no theologian who could elevate the conversation to levels held by him or Cyril before him.

The final decree was for two energies and two wills, but that these two wills were not opposed to each other – the human will following the divine will. Meyendorff sees this decision as fully confirming the Chalcedonian formula. I guess I find it as confusing and unhelpful…and unnecessary.

Epilogue

A long one, but this will conclude my study of this volume by Meyendorff.

The Arab conquests opened a new chapter in Christendom. Copts, Syrians, and Armenians were destined to remain in a state of isolated struggle – losing the sense of belonging to a world bigger than their own. What memory they kept of the Byzantine world was tainted with bitter memories of their treatment in the years after their rejection of Chalcedon.

Yet the foundations and earlier, common, traditions of that bigger world of Christendom also belonged to them.

Their faithfulness to that Tradition, and to a Christology which has remained fundamentally Cyrillian, was elucidated by the consensus of modern scholarship beginning in the nineteenth century and culminating in more recent meetings of theologians.

Even when I understood very little of the Christological differences that divided those for or against Chalcedon, from what I could tell I saw hardly any difference. I am more convinced of this today, after many volumes of study on the matter. It seems that this is, in fact, the more recent scholarly view as well.

Meyendorff notes that it has become “increasingly embarrassing to use the term ‘Monophysite’ to designate these ancient churches…,” although he also has done so as he finds no better name. As I have noted often, these Churches now seem to use the term “Miaphysite” to describe their Christology, and this term is found in Cyril.

One nature incarnate of God the Word. This formula is Cyrillian and was deemed orthodox at the fifth council in 553. By then, there was, unfortunately, too much negative water under the bridge for any reconciliation.

Any theology invariably uses imperfect human language, but, within the catholic Church and by the power of the Spirit of Truth, a variety of terminologies may adequately express the one living apostolic tradition.

With this I agree one hundred percent. I only question the necessity of going beyond the Nicene Creed. On this Creed, there was full agreement. Yet, as we have seen in this study and the companion study of Cyril’s work, the language was not fully developed nor were the definitions even agreed at the time of the divisions in the Church.

Meyendorff concludes his epilogue with a look at the place of Rome. His main point, for which the evidence (to me, at least) is clear: the idea that Rome alone had claim on a Petrine seat and that this seat somehow gave them authority over all Christendom was not believed in early Christendom, and never really believed anywhere outside of Rome. For many centuries, Rome did not even have authority outside of its locality and one or two other provinces, let alone authority even of the entire West.

Early on, Rome held a position of honor, but as a first among equals – the key term being “equals.” All churches had an apostolic claim, and more than one bishop had a claim to Peter. For tradition to be accepted as Tradition, all patriarchates had to agree – not merely Rome.

The study of Church history would be meaningless if it did not include a search for consistent and permanent ecclesiological principles, enshrined in Holy Tradition, but frequently hidden by the “traditions of men.”

In this sense, Church history is the indispensable tool of any legitimate search for a theology of Christian unity.

I agree, and will add: I have found it indispensable in order to gain an understanding of why the Church believes what it believes about Christ. As I have mentioned before, this work represents my ongoing study of my faith seeking their understanding. It would be arrogant and a sign of pride for me to deal with such matters in any other way.