The use of the Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagiticum at the Lateran Council (649) and the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680- 681).

On the outset of the sixth century there appears a corpus of theological works known as Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagiticum (CD) whose writer is self-named Dionysius Areopagite and introduced himself as the disciple of Paul and the first bishop of Athens. What is more, he proclaims himself as a witness of many events of the apostolic era. The lack of any previous mention of these works, or of the author’s, naturally lead to a search of the writer in a post-apostolic era, during which the disciple of Apostle Paul, Dionysius Areopagite, lived. The retrieval of the identity of the writer of these works remains one of the greatest mysteries of philology. From this era, we also have the first confirmed use of these works, namely the first decades of the sixth century, by the patriarch Severus of Antioch in the synod at Tyrus 513/514. In the work of Severus which has survived, there are three indirect references to the use of the Areopagite work: the first two uses are connected with the same passage from the On Divine Names and are connected with the polemic against Julian of Halicarnassus, leader of the sect of the Aphthartodocetae, and the third is found in an epistle of his addressed to the abbot John. Furthermore, we also have two indirect references, which confirm the use of the CD by Severus. They have to do with Themistius, who states in his treatise against Collouthus that Severus used the Areopagite expression “the new theandric activity” (μίαν θεανδρικήν ενέργειαν). Also, the use of Dionysius on the part of Severus is similarly denoted by the patriarch of Alexandria Theodosius I (535-566), who writes that Severus of blessed memory not less by those, [namely the Chalcedonians], and with equal diligence read the works of Dionysius. However, the use of the name of Dionysius and his works is included in a public talk for the first time during the Constantinople colloquium in 532, which was convoked by Justinian between the Chalcedonian Orthodoxes and the followers of Severus (Severians or moderate Monophysites), the so-called Collatio cum Severianis. In this convention, among others, for the teaching on the side of the Monophysites to remain simple after the incarnation Christ, i.e. of one nature, they turned to the testimonies of some Ecclesiastical fathers and finally the authority of Dionysius Areopagite, whose renowned expression “the new theandric activity” they used. The reaction was expressed by Hypatius bishop of Ephesus, who put into question the authenticity as well as the orthodoxy of these writings and he impeached as false all the patristic uses on the part of Apollinarian forgeries. Despite the objections of Hypatius, in the beginning of the 530’s, will appear the first Scholia to the work of Dionysius by John of Skythopolis the Scholastic. At this time, however, before the publication of the Scholia, there will be published the Syrian translation of Sergius bishop of Theodosiopolis, or Res’aina (+536). Finally, the use of the Areopagite work is also observed in the West by Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), who is also mentioned by Dionysius as an ancient and revered teacher. In the 7^th c. efforts of emperor Heraclius to bridge the gap between the Chalcedonian and Anti-Chalcedonian Monophysites the Areopagite work was used indiscriminately by Orthodox and Monophysites. The reason for the Areopagite use, to the point of overuse on the side of the Monophysites, is due to the simple reason that the attributed and universally recognized authority and antiquity of Dionysius contributed a serious advantage to the “contrivance” by the Alexandrian deacon Themistius, leader of the Agnoetes, “a new theandric energy” (καινὴ θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια) of Christ, which was attributed to Dionysius; in this way he re-established the missing connection of the Monophysites with the ancient tradition. The forgery to “the new theandric activity” proved especially useful to the Severian circles, so as to be a basic point in the pact signed in Alexandria by patriarch Cyrus and the Theodosians (Severans) in 633. The formula by Cyrus was recognized as successful by all the patriarchs and by the pope Honorius and followed by a imperial edict, Ekthesis (Ἔκθεσις) in 638. Ever since, the invocation of the expression “the new theandric activity” (μία θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια) will be a commonplace and will continually appear in the discussions between the Monophysites and the Chalcedonians. But the new elected patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius pointed out early the forgery in the use of it to the testimony of Pyrrhus of Constantinople. The efforts of Heraclius failed and his successor and grandson Constans II (641-688) in 648 issued an imperial edict called the Typos (Τύπος) and by this was made illegal to discuss in any manner the topic of Christ possessing either one or two wills, or one or two energies. The polemic against the Typos on the Orthodox side was mainly expressed by Sophronius’s disciple monk Maximus, who had succeeded to unify a great part of the bishops of N. Africa and the pope of Rome, first Theodore and subsequently his successor Martinus. What is more, the latter’s opposition to the Typos happened to be decisive for the further evolution of Monothelitism, because as the new pope of Rome, Martinus (649-655), before receiving the iussio from the emperor Constans of the approval of his election required for consecration, with the urge and collaboration of Maximus summoned at the church of the St. Saviour, then St. John at Lateran in October 649. During the sessions of that Synod the use of the Areopagite work was peculiar. I should say political, in a broader sense, the basis of the whole confrontation was the defense of the Areopagite theology, through the expression, “one [new] theandric action (μία [καινήν] τινα τὴν θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργειαν)”. At the Monophysites invocation of the testimony of Dionysius, the Synod opposed the forgery of the relevant citations on their part and the juxtaposition of other citations, which proved its Orthodoxy. The main purpose of the Synod was the condemnation of the Ekthesis and the proving, most declaratively, the theological relationship among Themistius, Theodorus Faran, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus and Paul of Constantinople, which greatly facilitated in rendering reasonable their abhorrent condemnation. We understand that the purpose of the continual use of Dionysius, after the disclosure of the forgery and therefore the reinstatement of his orthodoxy, is to remove his name from the Monophysites’ arsenal and neutralize its invocation. From the study of the Dionysian citations, which are included in the proceedings of the Synod, nothing further seems to be added to the theretoforepatristic tradition. The VI Ecumenical synod was convened by the emperor Constantine IV the Pogonatos (Bearded), with the purpose to address the problem of Monothelitism. Unlike the Lateran synod, during the works of the VI Ecumenical synod the presence of the CD work was occasional. For the degraded use of Dionysius and the subsequent treatment of the CD in the VI Ecumenical Council, always in relation to the pivotal position it held in the works of the Lateran synod, a probable explanation could be the fact that the most important topic of the authenticity of the Areopagite saying “one theandric action” had sufficiently and successfully been also addressed in the Lateran synod. The unofficial recognition of the Lateran synod by Constantinople is due, in my opinion, to political reasons, as they were expressed in the indictments against its leaders, pope Martinus and Maximus the Confessor, and it is connected to the permanent fear of the New Rome of the secession of the Old Rome and the papal apostasy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]