Peter's Rock in Mohammed's Flood, from St. Gregory the Great to St. Leo IIIAllies, T. W. (Thomas William)
Islamic
Peter's Rock in Mohammed's Flood, from St. Gregory the Great to St. Leo III
Allies, T. W. (Thomas William)
Christianity and other religions -- Islam; Church history -- Middle Ages, 600-1500; Papacy; Papacy -- History
Pope Martin also wrote to the emperor Constans II., sending him the acts
of the Council, together with a Greek translation. Thus, with the utmost
force, and with the presentiment of hard trials, he strove to prevent the
further spread of Monothelite error. He also declared himself against the
heretical patriarchs, Peter of Alexandria and Macedonius of Antioch,
deposed Paul, Archbishop of Thessalonica, and provided for sending
Catholic bishops and clergy to the East.
In these events, we have this very striking fact, that within eleven years
after the death of Pope Honorius in 638, we find four Popes his immediate
successors, Severinus, John IV., Theodorus, and Martin, opposing two
emperors, Heraclius, and his grandson, Constans II., censuring three
patriarchs of Constantinople, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paulus, besides other
eastern patriarchs, and the last of them solemnly condemning “the impious
Ecthesis and still more impious Typus,” and all manner of heretical
expositions, whether made by patriarchs, or imposed by emperors. There can
be no doubt that all these four Popes had been clergy of Honorius himself,
and as little doubt that they were maintaining the doctrine which he held.
There is no appearance that any one at Rome was the least inclined to the
Monothelite heresy, and the insidious manner in which it was propagated by
those who held it is conspicuous on every occasion. Nor must it be
forgotten that the publication of this judgment of Pope Martin fulfils all
the conditions of a judgment _ex cathedra_.
But the events which now took place are of so great an importance for all
subsequent time that it seems necessary to enlarge upon the epitome of
them just given, and to draw out the full range of their bearing, not only
on the doctrine of the Church, but on its government at the time.
We are witnessing a deliberate attempt by successive patriarchs of
Constantinople 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 as despotic lord of Rome to
overthrow the defence of the 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 in the whole of that time, it was the constancy of
the Roman See, the purely spiritual power of the successor of St. Peter,
in the midst of the greatest danger and a helpless temporal position,
which preserved the life of the Church, and foiled the Byzantine
oppressor, together with the underplay of the Byzantine patriarch.
I take from the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649 the following:—
“Pope Martin said, ‘Let the copy of the Typus lately composed against the
orthodox faith, by persuasion of Paul, Bishop of Constantinople, be
brought before our consideration’.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account