Johannes Börjesson - Maximus the Confessor’s Knowledge of Augustine: An Exploration of Evidence Derived from the Acta of the Lateran Council of 649

Whether Maximus the Confessor knew of Augustine is a question of long standing uncertainty. In this paper, new evidence in the matter is presented through Maximus’ knowledge of the acta of the Lateran Council of 649. His later use of the acta reveals that he considered Augustine as one of the fathers of the Church whose teaching disproved monothelitism. In addition, following Rudolf Riedinger’s plausible thesis that Maximus is the author of the Lateran acta, a significant connection occurs through the acta’s use of two Augustinian texts from the fifth book of Contra Julianum opus imperfectum. These are woven into the argument in one of the acta’s final speeches, attributed to Maximus of Aquileia. The way these texts are cited and commented on clearly discloses the author’s familiarity with the extended context of the passages. This paper investigates the reason why this Augustinian work was particularly helpful in refuting one of the core ideas of monothelitism—the idea that everything natural is forced by necessity and that the will, if natural, consequently would lack genuine volition—an idea that was also held by Julian of Aeclanum. The paper also demonstrates Maximus the Confessor’s use of the structure of Augustine’s argument at other occasions and presents an argument for Maximus’ authorship of Maximus of Aquileia’s speech.

Marek Jankowiak - The Invention of Dyotheletism

Recent works by Uthemann and Hovorun have firmly rooted Monothelete theology in the Neochalcedonian background of the sixth century. Far from being a device contrived to lure the Monophysites into a union with the Imperial Church, the doctrine of one will in Christ evolved from the speculations of late sixth-century Chalcedonian theologians such as Anastasius patriarch of Antioch or Theodore of Raithu/Pharan. In this context, it seems legitimate to reconsider the beginnings of the rival position, that of the Dyotheletes. What was the prehistory of Maximus the Confessor’s engagement with the doctrine of two wills?

Through a close reading of several key texts from the first period of the Monothelete controversy in the 630s, I will try to expound the gradual emergence of the Dyothelete position. Two letters of Sophronius dating from 635, the very year of Honorius’ fateful letter to Sergius of Constantinople where the teaching of one will was for the first time set forth in an authoritative way, demonstrate that the problem of the wills was at that juncture marginal to the new patriarch of Jerusalem. The situation changed only several years later, around 641, the likely date of two texts illustrating the earliest stage of Dyothelete thought. Strikingly, they take very different roads to defend Honorius’ formulation and to provide the teaching of the two wills with a solid theological foundation. Maximus, in the opusculum 20 to Marinus of Cyprus, argued that while Honorius was referring to Christ’s divine will, he did not rule out the existence of an undefiled human will. At the same time, Pope John IV, in his letter to the sons of Heraclius known as the “Apologia pro Honorio”, chose an opposite approach, pleading that Honorius’ single will was Christ’s human will. In his interpretation, the use of the word “single” was only meant to emphasize that Christ was exempt from the human struggle between bodily and spiritual desires.

These are not mere theological subtleties. A study of these texts sheds new light on the origins of the Dyothelete theology, and thus leads to a reassessment of the Monothelete controversy.

Christian Lange - Miaenergetism - A New Term for the History of Dogma?

The Christological discussions of the 6^th and 7^th centuries are often referred to as “Monenergetic” or “Monothelete” Controversies.

It is the aim of this paper to suggest a new term for the History of Dogma: “Miaenergetism”. It will argue that the formula of the “mia energeia” was understood as a “combined” operation of the perfect Godhead and Manhood in Christ –and that by both Neochalcedonian and Miaphysite authors.

George Berthold - Dyothelite Language in Augustine's Christology

One intriguing question in the history of heresiology is how in the face of imperial pressure the Lateran Synod of 649 came up with substantially the same solution to the Monothelite crisis as would the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680-1. How did the decisions of a western council anticipate so closely the doctrines of a universal council agreed to thirty years later by both eastern and western Churches?

Certainly, the influence of Maximus the Confessor was preponderant at the earlier synod. For some years previous he had led the fight against both Monenergism and Monothelitism as corruptive of Christological orthodoxy. He was present at the Lateran Synod, and though not a bishop he exerted a heavy influence over Pope Martin I and the assembled bishops.

But there may be another layer in this line of dependency. Were the western bishops so theologically unsophisticated that they could be convinced by a single eastern monk, generally unconversant in Latin, to oppose a determined emperor in Constantinople on the abstruse question of the wills in Christ?

The great standard of orthodoxy in the west was St. Augustine of Hippo. It is logical to presume that whatever the level of their theological sophistication, the western bishops would be familiar with Augustine’s Christological teaching. When we look at the master’s writings on the subject of Christology, in fact, we find clear and unambiguous language about the two wills in Christ, human and divine. In treating of the Agony in the Garden in his Commentary on Psalm 93, especially, does he see the dynamic of their functioning in tandem. At Lateran 649, the western bishops could recognize Augustine’s dyothelite Christology in the theology of Maximus and could confess it boldly.