The Lateran Synod of 649 AD and Papal Infallibility

 

Some Roman Catholic apologists have appealed to the Lateran Council of 649 AD as proof that the doctrine of papal infallibility was the general ecclesiology of the Christian church at that time. In this article, I want to dig into the history behind this council and why it does not prove the claims of papal apologists. 

Background: The Monothelite controversy really began when the Emperor Heraclius consulted Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, about how to appease the Monophysites (especially since at this time Christendom was in desperate need of unification). They agreed on the christological formula of "one divine-human energy" in the person of Christ. People such as Pope Honorius and Cyrus of Alexandria followed Sergius in his theology. However, Sophronius, the patriarch of Jerusalem, fought against this new heretical theology that Sergius and other monothelites were promoting. After Sophronius had died, the Emperor issued what is known as the "Ecthesis" a document which forbid theological discussion on the matter of the wills in Christ, but was biased towards the Monothelite heresy. Two synods in Constantinople adopted the Ecthesis. However, people like St. Maximus the Confessor and Pope Martin I continued the battle against Monotheletism. In 648, Emperor Constans II issued the Typus, another document trying to silence both sides of the controversy. Those who refused this decree were threatened with severe consequences. Eventually, Pope Martin I summoned the Lateran Council in the year 649 AD and condemned the Monothelite patriarchs. 

(Note: Ubi Petrus gave a good division of the "pieces of evidence" into four parts, and I have chosen to follow him in this regard. I give credit to him for a lot of the points I make in this article)

1. The Letter of Stephan of Dora

Here are the parts of this letter cited most often by Romanists:

"As a result of their troubling the whole catholic church in this way – in the words of the blessed Jeremiah, ‘we have been put to shame, because we heard reproach against us; it has covered our face with reversal, because aliens have entered our sanctuary’ – for this reason we the pious, all of us, have been looking everywhere, sometimes for ‘water for the head and fountains of tears for the eyes’ for lamenting this pitiable catastrophe, and sometimes for ‘the wings of a dove’ (in the words of the divine David), so that we might ‘fly away’ and announce these things to the See that rules and presides over all others (I mean your sovereign and supreme See), in quest of healing for the wound inflicted" (Fr. Richard Price, The Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649, pg. 143)

Stephen of Dora does not clarify his meaning when he uses terms like "preside", "rule", etc. Thus, whether or not he intends these terms in the Vatican I sense is unclear. 

Here is the next portion we will examine:

"On the basis of its apostolic and canonical authority, for the reason, evidently, that the truly great Peter, the head of the apostles, was deemed worthy not only to be entrusted, alone out of all, with ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ for both opening them deservedly to those who believe and shutting them justly to those who do not believe in the gospel of grace, but also because he was the first to be entrusted with shepherding the sheep of the whole catholic church. As the text runs, ‘Peter, do you love me? Shepherd my sheep.’ And again, because he possessed more than all others, in an exceptional and unique way, firm and unshakeable faith in our Lord, [he was deemed worthy] to turn and strengthen his comrades and spiritual brethren when they were wavering, since providentially he had been adorned by the God who became incarnate for our sake with power and priestly authority over them all." (Price, Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649, pg. 144)

Two things should be said in response:

[1]. The idea that the keys were given to Peter alone is against the patristic consensus. Not only that, but notice that Stephan says that Rome has authority by virtue of "apostolic and canonical authority", in contrast to Vatican I, which says Rome has authority by virtue of divine institution from Christ Himself.

[2]. Father Richard Price (who is a Roman Catholic priest and scholar, by the way) in a footnote on this passage says the following:

"This expresses the papalist theory that St Peter had unique authority among the apostles and that his role was fully and uniquely inherited by the popes of Rome. This theory was accepted in the East to the extent that it recognized that the popes had a special responsibility to stand up for the truth, but not in the sense that they were believed to possess a charism of truth in virtue of which their rulings were to be accepted without question or examination." (The Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649, pg. 144n47)

And again, Price says this:

"However, this did not mean that in the east papal pronouncements on matters of doctrine were regarded as automatically definitive and necessitating acceptance." (The Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649, pg. 41)

Here is the next portion quoted by our opponents:

"Therefore proceed in haste from one end of the world to the other until you come to the apostolic see, where are the foundations of the pious doctrines, and acquaint the all-sacred men there, not once or twice but many times, with everything that has with precision been mooted here. You are not to desist from vigorous exhortation and entreaty, until with apostolic wisdom they bring their judgement to a victorious conclusion and issue canonically a total refutation of the outlandish doctrines, lest, as says the apostle, these any longer 'spread like a cancer', feeding on the souls of the more simple-minded.’" (Price, Acts, pg. 145)

Notice that Stephan says "until with apostolic wisdom they bring their judgment....". He is referring to the Roman synod, not the pope all by himself (in contrast to the 11th century papal canons of Dictus Papae). 

2. The Letter of Sergius of Cyprus

This letter does indeed contain papal-sounding claims and assertions, but it would be strange to cite Sergius of Cyprus, considering that he later joined the Monothelite heretics, betraying the Christians (and yes, I am saying that Monothelites are not Christians). 

"The letter of Archbishop Sergius of Cyprus was a powerful document in Rome’s arsenal: his predecessor Arcadius of Cyprus had been an important figure in the early development of the controversy and had hosted a synod in 636 which had rejected the position of Sophronius and Maximus. Sergius’ letter is vehement in its support of Pope Theodore, calling for the anathematisation of those promoting the new teachings. However, it dated to 643 and thus predated the Typos. Furthermore, we know that at a later date Sergius abandoned the dyothelete position and joined the imperial camp." (Price, pg. 76)

3. The Letter from the Synods of Numidia, Byzacena, and Mauretania

"“That there is in the apostolic see a great and inexhaustible spring pouring forth abundantly for all Christians, from which flow forth rivulets that generously water the entire Christian world, no one can dispute." (Fr. Price, pg. 161)

This says that there is a "spring" in Rome, not that Rome is the spring itself.

"For it was laid down in ancient regulations that nothing, even if raised in remote and far distant provinces, should first be treated or accepted until it had been brought to the notice of your bountiful see, so that the sentence pronounced might be confirmed by her just authority, and the other churches might take from there, as from their native source, the origin of their preaching, and there might abide through the various regions of the whole world, unsullied in their purity, the mysteries of the saving faith." (Price, pg. 162)

Once again, this is contrary to Pastor Aeturnas, in grounding Rome's authority in "ancient regulations", rather than divine institution, which is what Vatican I claimed.  

Over all, I think the acts of the Lateran Synod of 649 would probably be one of the best cases one could make for papal infallibility being the faith of the church at that time. But in the end, it still falls short of the claims of Vatican I.