This article addresses the question as to why Maximus the Confessor was first recognized as an official martyr and saint in the imperial Byzantine Church only in the tenth century, although his theology had been accepted by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and his followers began to practice and propagate his cult shortly after his death in 662. The argument begins with a brief description of Maximus’ early veneration and then examines the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s failure to rehabilitate him by detailing (...) the reasons why this was impossible in 681 and also thereafter. Clearly, in the seventh and eighth centuries the cult of Maximus had its centre outside the empire in parts of Palestinian monasticism. During the iconoclastic era, as in the seventh century, Maximus’ name stood once again for opposition to imperial religious policy, for he was held up by those venerating icons as the witness of Tradition to their use. Although during this time iconophile monastic circles in the capital probably fostered his cult as well, his veneration continued to find no official recognition in the ninth century because of on-going division within the church of Constantinople. Only after a great distance in time to the events of the seventh century could official recognition in Byzantium come to Maximus, since the conflicts of that earlier era were no longer relevant. In this context, the ‘Holy Confessor Maximus’ underwent a process of acceptance by the Byzantines who anchored his biography in Constantinople. As a result, the actual circumstances of the monothelete controversy have ultimately been obscured. (shrink)

This essay examines the main sources on the attitude of the Church of Cyprus in the so-called monoenergetic-monotheletic dispute. It is shown that the Church of Cyprus was a loyal and active partner in Constantinople’s policy of reconciliation with the Antichalcedonian churches of the East. Cyprus was also, especially under Archbishop Arkadios (624/25-641/2), a place of exile for opponents of this reconciliation, and in 636 also the venue of an important synod which was attended by legates of almost the whole (...) church. The resulting Ekthesis was approved also in Rome and Jerusalem. Even Maximos did not succeed, after 636, to influence the position of Arkadios through the Cypriot priest monk Marinos. His six letters to Marinos offer no evidence for a dyenergetic or dyotheletic position of the Church of Cyprus. A letter from 643, written by the successor of Arkadios, Sergios (642-655), clearly shows that there was until then no protest against the Constantinopolitan church policy in Cyprus in this time. This letter, which demonstrates the firm dyenergetic and dyotheletic position of the whole Church of Cyprus, was presented at the Lateran Synod of 649, but forged or completely rewritten for this Synod. Even after 643, there is no evidence for public dissent in the Church of Cyprus, nor should it actually be expected. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Byzantinische Zeitschrift Jahrgang: 109 Heft: 1 Seiten: 109-150.

This article investigates the plausibility of the proof presented at the Sixth Ecumenical Council to show that the Logos of Patriarch Menas and the two letters of Pope Vigilius were forgeries. These texts were among the most important testimonia of the so-called Monotheletes, and prove the assertion of one operation and one will in Christ long before the controversy of the seventh century. Through an analysis of the conciliar acts and other texts it is shown that the argumentation of the (...) council was not only incoherent and self-contradictory but actually scandalous, since the evidence presented by an authentic papyrus roll of the Acts of the Fifth Council, with its clear proof of the authenticity of the Vigilius letters, was ignored. In an adoption and further development of the frequently overlooked treatment of this matter in the 1971 edition of the Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council the following is demonstrated: the discovery of the longer first edition of the Acts, containing the Vigilius letters, in the original papyrus rolls of the Acts of the Fifth Council led, from the beginning of the so-called monenergist-monothelete controversy, to the introduction of the disputed texts into the shorter second edition contained in codices. It is indisputable that these texts are authentic. (shrink)