Письма, не вошедшие в собрание Ф. Комбефиса Письмо святого Максима к игумену Фалассию (Письмо А) 233 , 234 . Записка о том, что сделали римские легаты 235 в Константинополе

From a letter of Saint Maximus written to Abbot Thalassius. Knowing that you, my father, are one of such people and others like them, and realizing that you, with all your might, more than anyone else in our generation, care only about what belongs to Him, I considered it necessary to inform you of what I have just received a letter from the most blessed City 236 from certain respectable men, who together with you love God with all their hearts, about the valor of these people 237 in a matter concerning the dogmas of the most holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For they made it known that because of this matter there, that is, in the royal City 238, there was great confusion among the sacred and ecclesiastical men; this was the case before, but especially at the very time when they received the Apocrisiari, sent there for the sake of the installation of the pope with the approved decision 239. For then, just then, after many speeches which they had made in connection with the confirmation of the pope, they again, to accomplish this and in fulfillment of their desire, proposed to them the dogmatic charter (chartam) 240 now drawn up by them, declaring: “We will give you support in the capitula (in capitulo) 241 for which you came here, having undertaken such a long sea journey, only if you promise to convince the one who will be consecrated pope, sign this charter, and agree without any exception to the dogmas contained in it. They 242, realizing the value of what they defend, and realizing that because of [all] this, the first of the Churches, the metropolis and the City 243 remained a widow for so long, achieved the implementation of their plan in the following way. Namely, when these people 244 decided that, contrary to reason, their new heresy would reach him too 245, they 246, in order to achieve what they were striving for, began to act calmly and rationally, and, as if yielding, said: “We, for our part, cannot provide you with guarantees, for we have been entrusted with the ministry, but not the right to decide matters of faith. However, we assure you that we will communicate everything that you have proposed and will show the charter itself to the one who will be ordained pope, and if he judges that it is good, we will ask him to certify it with his signature. Now, do not try to hinder us because of this and drive us away by force or keep us here by force, for it is impossible for anyone to force someone to do anything by force, especially in matters of faith. For in this matter, even the very timid becomes extremely brave, and the most cowardly turns out to be the greatest warrior, and, strengthening the soul with the Word of God, even in the greatest persecution he will be stronger rather than weak; how much more does this apply to the Roman Church and clergy, [the Church] which from time immemorial to this day has been the eldest (senior) of all the Churches that are under the sun? This canonically follows both from the councils and the apostles, and from their supreme head, 247 and is accepted by lot (in sortem adepta), and no reports have ever been written concerning the pontificate, and she 248 is not obliged to issue synodal messages (synodicarum chartarum), since they are all 249 in these matters equally subordinate to her, according to sacred right. Such and similar words were spoken without fear, but in holy and righteous confidence, to the clergy of the royal city 250 by these faithful servants of the true and irresistible Rock (petrae) 251, that is, the greatest (maximae) Apostolic Church that resides here. And it seems that they calmed them down and wisely made them think humbly and modestly, from the very beginning showing them the purity and orthodoxiam (orthodoxiam) of their faith. They, marveling (admirantes) 252 at their piety, said that such an act should be rewarded according to merit and, refusing the proposal of a charter, promised that through their efforts the episcopal election of [Severin] would be confirmed. Realizing that the job was done, God’s beloved apocrisiaries thanked them and went home. And a copy of this charter, venerable father, was sent to me. They set forth the reason for the natural 253 actions (facendarum) that take place in Christ God, that is, in His essences, from which He is and in which He is and is thought; and they declare that it must not be said that there are one or two [causes of action] in Him. They recognize that it is necessary to confess only that from the One and the same incarnate Word of God flows both that which belongs to God and that which is human, and that both should be related to the One and the Same 254. The same [Maxim] to the most pious Stephen, presbyter and abbot (Letter B) 255, 256 By caring for the word of God and exercising in the paths of truth, shaking off from your mind the dullness of oblivion and the darkness of ignorance, you became the salt of the earth, according to the word of the Lord, and you yourself, the man of God, caring for the deeds of virtue, fleeing the passions of corruption, preserving the noble purity of the soul, became the light of the world, raising us through spiritual contemplation to Divine wisdom, showing the secret meaning hidden in things, having revealed the cause, source and origin of all things, and, in short, by the wisdom and virtue of soul and body, you, as far as is possible for a person, became God 257, and now you show us the life that is to come in Christ, and the face of the Lord, having crossed not only the Red Sea of temptations, but also the Jordan itself, that is, the river of passions and sensory phenomena, and having found yourself in the Holy of Holies, and appearing by grace such as by nature is the One towards whom your movement strives and in Whom it will calm down. And then, imitating the incomprehensible exhaustion of God for our sake, when He condescended to us and demanded a small payment for this, you did not consider it unworthy to show undoubted concern for us. I ask you, my blessed lord and teacher, who resides in Constantinople, to take care regarding what I gave the cyrus to Theocharist, and the fact that I sent the cyrus to John, the cubicular, so that nothing is discovered added due to the efforts of the scribe, which will completely change the whole meaning of my arguments. Be healthy, my beloved, and may God always be merciful to you in your word and deed. Theological-polemical treatise XII (TR 12) 258, 259. From a letter of the same Saint Maximus, written to the glorious Peter, where he mentions Pyrrhus, Saint Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem and Pope Honorius ...and then continues a little later: In your glorious message you deigned to inform your unworthy servant about Abbot Pyrrhus 260. And a little further: And indeed, for this sake, I would hasten in your God-protected and most glorious footsteps, in order to refute it and everyone who indiscriminately follows this new heresy - so that everyone who follows you loves piety knows the extreme abundance of their ignorance and wickedness. But I am afraid that they will think that I am acting against the sacred right, doing this against the will of the most sacred throne of the apostolic men, who well govern the entirety of the Catholic Church and govern it correctly, in accordance with the Divine law. For it is precisely this Divine law that constitutes what is heavenly and earthly, and one should not deviate from it in anything, but it should be that those who, following you, decided to live holy, should do divine deeds, following God, for they have God as the patron of their deeds and their unyielding protection. For, most glorious sir, the new faith and Ekphesis, as I previously made clear, are even worse than the ancient heretics. For his predecessor wickedly carried in her womb for many years, which he spent in the bishopric 261, as evidence of his wickedness (for God can often endure for a long time for the sake of the subsequent exposure of wickedness, not so that by allowing wickedness to increase, but in order to punish him, in its fullness, more justly), and this man gave birth to him even more wickedly [Ekphesis] 262. And their followers propagate it in contempt for the Divine. And further: But here is an even more vile custom of theirs, as if a generic sign of all perverted heretics - that they attribute guilt to the innocent in their own wickedness. For here and there they whisper that Sophronius, who wisely preached and proclaimed the dogmas of the Catholic Church, fell into error 263. And a little further: For the divine Sophronius, to which you yourselves are witnesses, most praiseworthy, was in the region of the Africans with me and with all the wandering monks, when they invented these perversions of faith against everyone. And a little further: And everyone had a common home by Divine consent and unanimity, and the Churches were strengthened in the unity of the grace of God, which founded them under the sun, in a peaceful and calm faith. But those who were jealous of their agreement and the confession of Christ God, invented a new Ecphesis against the true faith of Christians, like some kind of black cloud, like a thundering and menacing storm or an invasion of barbarians, and no one else prompted them, like the devil himself, the friend of every rebellion, who also encourages the human race to discord. Then decrees and wicked writings were issued in his 264 favor; then acts were issued requiring its observance; then [there were] robber councils and gatherings of bishops who came not of their own free will, but were dragged by force, not in a hurry to be called, but fleeing from the barbarians; then, here and there, decrees and threats began to spread against the pious, for they also made the one who then ruled, with insidious gifts 265, their slave. And further: They convinced this man to spread Ekphesis in their own name 266. And a little lower: He, having published their work, became his enemy and defender, or, rather, both the patron of his distribution and the accuser; and, discovering that he was not acting on his own initiative, but was forced by them, he created the most wicked Ekphesis, attributing it to himself in writing and referring to John 267, the most holy pope of ancient Rome of blessed memory. And a little lower: And so they exposed themselves in the fact that it 268 was clearly composed by those who took advantage of their influence 269, but in no way by him. For in the future this did not bother him at all; he turned his attention to other things. And in all this they, unfortunate ones, do not understand the significance of the apostolic throne, and, what is more than laughter, or, better to say, most of all crying worthy, as a sign of their audacity, they were not afraid to weave intrigues against the apostolic throne itself, and, as if having received some kind of decree from it, in their actions, intertwined for the sake of the wicked Ecphesis, they took the great Honorius as their allies, making this man the greatest height in the matter piety by proving one’s false opinion before others. So, who, O most glorious one, and which Sophronius convinced these deceivers to do this so severely and for such a long time? What Church has not addressed them with prayer? What pious and Orthodox leader did not beg them to deviate from their heresy, praying and conjuring? For Saint Arcadius 270 breathed his last and gave up his spirit to God, but until the last hour he did not stop praying to them. And a little further: What about the divine Honorius? What is Elder Severin 271 after him? And what about the one who came after him, Saint John? And didn’t the most blessed pope, who is now on the throne, 272 use everything possible for prayer? Did not the entire East and the entire West offer up tears, sobs, prayers, and curses to God in prayers, and to them in messages? God accepted the faith of these truly blessed men and preserved their rewards for it throughout the centuries. The same 273, despising the long-suffering of God, which meekly prompted them to convert, and not touched by the prayer of these most worthy men, who they had been working for such a long time, did not tolerate the Divine faith being preferred to their faith. And below: So, the divine and great Sophronius, then coming to Alexandria, almost immediately after the first reading (for Cyrus also gave him these nine chapters of wickedness for review 274), lifting up his voice in great lamentation, poured out streams of tears, fervently asking him, begging and imploring him, falling at his feet so that he would not pronounce any of this from the pulpit against the Catholic Church of God, for here it is clear the dogmas of the wicked Apollinaris 275 are present. And below: So these people, O most venerable man, tormented the Divine cause with godless mockery and even some kind of dishonest acting, and the Holy Sophronius, who sobbed so lamentably - as if mourning, like a certain second Jeremiah, the death of the Catholic Church, and mourning such a great fall of Divine dogmas, was in no way consoled. And a little lower: So, if the Roman See is aware that Pyrrhus is not only wicked, but thinks incorrectly and believes incorrectly, it is absolutely clear that anyone who anathematizes those who condemn Pyrrhus, anathematizes the Roman See, that is, the Catholic Church. It will be unnecessary to say that such a person also anathematizes himself. If he is still in communion with the Roman See and with the Catholic Church of God. Therefore, I beg you, my blessed lord, to warn everyone, so that they do not call Pyrrhus “most holy” or “most blessed,” and the sacred rules do not allow him to be called in this way, for he fell from all holiness, since of his own free will he apostatized from the Catholic Church and should not be called with any honorable title one who has long been condemned and rejected from the apostolic see of the city of Rome because of his acceptance alien opinion, until he is accepted back, turning to her 276 or, rather, to the Lord our God through pious confession and Orthodox faith, by which he will regain his holiness and holy name. So, if he does not want to be and be called a heretic, let him not justify himself first to one, then to another, for this is unnecessary and unreasonable, for just as when one was offended by him, everyone was offended, so if he is justified before one, he will be justified before all. Let him first of all hasten to justify himself before the Roman throne; when he is justified before him, everyone will call him pious and orthodox. For he is wasting words in vain who believes that he can persuade and outwit such as I, and does not plead and fall before the most blessed Pope of the most holy Church of Rome, that is, the holy Apostolic See, which from the very incarnate God the Word, as well as from all the sacred Councils, according to the holy canons and definitions, received and has authority (imperium), authority (auctoritas) and power (potestas) in everything and through everything [that concerns] all without exception (universarum) of the holy Churches of God, no matter how many of them there are on earth, knit and solve (Matthew 16:19) 277; just as in heaven the Word Himself, which rules over the heavenly powers, binds and decides. If he thinks that he needs to be reconciled with others and does not beg the most blessed Pope of Rome, he acts like someone who, accused of murder or some other crime, rushes to prove his innocence not to the one who is designated by law as a judge, but only futilely and pointlessly bothers to prove his purity to other people, private individuals who do not have the power to remove the charge from him. Therefore, my blessed lord, first of all give instructions about what is well defined by you in accordance with the will of God - so that this person will not have the opportunity to say anything about dogmas to anyone. But find out exactly, by carefully examining his thoughts, whether he wants to agree to accept the truth. If he strives to do this and, obeying reason, hastens to this, encourage him to make an appropriate appeal to the Most Blessed Pope; for only in this way, according to his divine precept, 279 will he, and those around him, be bridled to the glory of God and to your greater praise. Per. 3. A. Barzakh, scientific editing and notes by G. I. Benevich. This letter, which received the name “Letter A” in Maxim studies, has been partially preserved in the Latin translation, see: Mansi X, 677A-678C (PL 583D-586B). As J.-C. writes Larche (Reverend Maximus the Confessor - mediator between East and West. M., 2004. P. 172), the letter describes the history of the Roman embassy to Constantinople, sent to confirm the new pope, Severinus (28. V. 640 - 2. VIII. 640), elected by the pope after the death of Honorius (638). Severin was elected in Rome almost immediately after the death of Honorius, but Heraclius, apparently on the advice of the patriarchs. Sergius, demanded that the Ekphesis be signed as a condition of his approval. St. Maximus, who was then in Carthage, in a letter to Abbot Thalassius, describes the circumstances of the stay of the Roman apocrisiaries in Constantinople, explaining how they, without recognizing Ekphesis, managed to achieve the approval of Severinus by the pope. Letter from Rev. The Maxima dates from the beginning of 640. So in the Latin text. In fact, we are talking about the apocrisiaries, as can be seen from the further text. This refers either to the Romans in general, or specifically to the Roman apocrisiaries. Apparently, this refers to the decision of the Roman Church to elect Severinus as pope. As Fr. writes. John Meyendorff, the election of popes took place in the Basilica aurea of ​​the Lateran with the participation of the clergy and people, and then a document signed by the presbyter and the candidate himself was submitted to the emperor (or exarch) with a request for permission to perform the consecration (see: Meyendorff J. Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions. N. Y., 1989. P. 299). So does Anastasia the Librarian. What exact procedure for approving Severinus, chosen to be installed as pope, did Anastasius have in mind here when he translated St. Maxim, it is not entirely clear, as well as what exactly he meant by “capitule”. It is possible that we are talking about that body consisting of three bishops, chaired by the Bishop of Ostia, which, after receiving approval from the emperor of the candidate elected to the pope by the clergy and people of Rome, performed the dedication and enthronement of the new pope in Rome (see Meyendorff J. ibid). However, it is more likely that we are talking about the support of the Byzantine clergy for a candidate in the Senate (synclitus), who, if this hypothesis is correct, could, therefore, give advice to the emperor regarding the confirmation of the pope. Ecclesiarum principem matrem et urbem. V.I. Zemskova proposed a translation in correspondence with us: “the primal mother of the Churches and the City,” referring to the fact that the Lateran was called the mother of the Churches. Translation option by J.-M. Garriga: “the head and metropolis of the Churches” (see: Garriga J.-M. The idea of ​​​​Roman Supremacy in Maximus the Confessor / Symbol. 14, 1985. P. 9, despite the fact that Garriga completely omitted the word “urbs” [city]) - as J.-C. notes. Larcher (Reverend Maximus the Confessor... P. 173) seems tendentious and less justified. That is, other Churches. This passage is from a letter to St. It is interesting to compare Maxim with the statement of J.-C. Larcher: “In the ancient church and even during the life of Maximus, it was customary for every patriarch, as well as the newly elected pope (my italics - G.B.) to accurately set out the content of his faith to his brethren, sending them a “Synodical letter” [sic!], and to receive their approval, which was the condition for the legality of his consecration and communication with him" (Larchet J.-C. The question of the primacy of Rome in the works of St. Maximus the Confessor / Peter's ministry. Dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox. Ed. Walter Kasper. Wed. Matthew 16:18: “I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” A statement of the essence of the document that was proposed for signing by Severin and which was sent from Rome to St. Maxim, attracts attention. St. Maximus does not say anything about the fact that this document contains a confession of one will in Christ, and yet this, it would seem, was a feature of the heresy of Ekphesis, which the Byzantines tried to force the Apocrisiaries to recognize. Why St. Maxim (if you believe the translation of Anastasius the Librarian) in the presentation of this document does not focus on the question of one will, but on the affirmation of one agent as the cause of actions, instead of recognizing as such causes two natures (Divine and human) - it does not seem very clear. We can make the following hypothesis. As is known, already Psiphos, recognized by the Orthodox, prohibited the expressions “one” or “two actions”. It is possible that Rev. Maxim shifts the emphasis in his presentation of the new heresy to the question of the cause of actions, since he believes that it is the assertion that such a cause is the hypostasis of Christ that is the main error, and not a statement about one will. It is known that Rev. Maxim at this time found it possible to interpret the expressions “one will” and “one action” found in the holy fathers in an Orthodox manner, and considered them quite usable, and in some sense even necessary, but he always categorically rejected the idea that the cause of actions is hypostasis. For more details, see the work: Benevich G.I., Shufrin A.M. The Case of Maxim / Maxim the Confessor: polemics with Origenism and monoenergism Comp. G. I. Benevich, D. S. Biryukov, A. M. Shufrin. St. Petersburg, 2007, pp. 33–46. Due to the complexity and ambiguity of translating this historically and dogmatically important passage from Letter A, we present it in Latin: Exposita vero ab eis fuerat causa facendarum in Christo Deo, id est in substantiis ejus, ex quibus videlicet et in quibus est et creditur, naturalium operationum; et ne de caetero in eo sive una sive duae penitus praedicarentur. Fatebatur autem solummodo confitendum esse, ex uno eodemque Dei Verbo incamato Deo decibilia et humana processisse, et in unum eumdemque referenda. This letter to Rev. Maxim's message to the presbyter and abbot Stefan was given the name “Letter B” in science. It was first published by S. L. Epifanovich (see: Epifanovich S. L. Materials for the study of the life and works of St. Maxim the Confessor. Kyiv, 1917. pp. 84–85). J.-C. Larcher, following P. Sherwood, dates this letter to the winter of 642 - Approx. comp. This is a letter addressed to the Exarch of Africa, illustrated by Peter, and dated by J.-C. Larche, following P. Sherwood, either late 642 or 643, is preserved in Latin fragments translated by Anastasius the Librarian - PG 91 141A-146A (PL 129 573B-576D). See: Larcher J.-C. Reverend Maxim the Confessor... P. 177–178, as well as our clarifications regarding this story in the work: Benevich G. I., Shufrin A. M., The Case of Maxim... St. Petersburg, 2007. P. 41–42, approx. 70 and p. 46, approx. 88 and 89. We are talking about Pyrrhus, who was once the abbot of the Chrysopolis monastery, the closest associate of the patriarch. Sergius of Constantinople, and later himself became patriarch (20. XII. 638 – 29. IX. 641). After the change of power in Constantinople, Pyrrhus found himself in exile in Africa, but still enjoyed respect among the Monothelite community, in particular among the patriarchs. Paul (1. X. 641 – 27. XII. 653). In this environment, Pyrrhus, judging by this letter, was still called “most holy.” We're probably talking about Patr. Sergius of Constantinople (18. IV. 610 – 9. XII. 638), whom St. Maxim considered responsible for the publication of the imp. Irakli Ekfesis. St. Maxim, apparently, means that from the monoenergist Union of 633, through the efforts of St. Sophronius was “neutralized” by Psiphos, and before the publication of Ekphesis in 638, some time passed until the heresy of Sergius had yet manifested itself in full force and was not condemned by the church. At this time, the Orthodox did not break church communion with the hidden heretics. Perhaps the reason for such accusations against St. Sophronius of Jerusalem was his recognition of Psiphos, which imposed a ban on the use of expressions, both “one” and “two actions”. It is known, however, that St. Sophronius in his Synodal Epistle of 634, without using the expression “two energies,” unambiguously confessed divine and human action in Christ. Attitude of St. Sophrony to Ekphesis, who confirmed the prohibition on the expressions “one” and “two actions”, but rejected the expression “two wills” and professed one will in Christ, is not documented, since St. Sophrony died almost simultaneously with its publication. Var.: services. Most likely, we are talking about imp. Iraklia. Perhaps, Rev. Maximus hints that Sergius “enslaved” Heraclius by providing him with significant financial support on behalf of the Church during the war with the Persians (in fact, it was a loan that the emperor more than returned after the victory). See: Kulakovsky Yu. A. History of Byzantium. St. Petersburg, 2004. T. 3. P. 54–55. We can, of course, only talk about the close relations between them that arose as a result of the services rendered by Sergius to Heraclius, since by the time the Ekphesis was published, Heraclius had long since defeated the Persians and paid off the Church. It is possible, however, that Rev. Maxim here does not mean a specific case of financial assistance, but the political and ideological support that Sergius provided to Heraclius throughout his reign. Since Heraclius published Ekphesis. This refers to Pope John IV (24. XII. 640 - 12. X. 642), who, of course, could not have anything to do with the publication of the Ekphesis in 638. In Constantinople, however, they could and did refer (see below) to another pope - Honorius (27. X. 625 - 12. X. 638), in whose letter of 634 to Patr. Sergius actually had the expression “one will.” Pope John IV, however, like St. Maxim, rejected the Monothelite interpretation of this expression. See for more details: Benevich G.I., Shufrin A.M., Maxim’s case... P. 33–41. We are talking about Archbishop Arcadia of Cyprus, a consistent fighter against monothelitism. St. Maxim speaks highly of him in an essay sent to the Cypriot presbyter Marin - TR 20 (PG 91 245BC). Pope Theodore (24. XI. 642 – 14. V. 649). Nine chapters of the union pact with the Theodosian Monophysites, concluded by Patr. Cyrus of Alexandria in 633 St. Maxim, following in this, apparently, St. Sophronius, compared monothelitism with Apollinarianism, which (albeit on different grounds) also taught about one will in Christ. We thank S. A. Zavyalov and A. M. Shufrin for their help in translating this difficult but very important passage. As the modern Romanian canonist V. Nicolae Dure writes, “the terms potestas and auctoritas are borrowed from Roman law; in Rome they replaced older pastoral expressions, particularly cura and sollicitudo. The first two terms denoted the power of the highest person (head), and the second two corresponded to the dignity of the shepherd. Therefore, cura and sollicitudo were not applied to the pope, but at the same time applied to all bishops” (Dure V.N. “The Primacy of Peter.” The role of the Bishop of Rome according to the canon law of the Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium / Peter’s ministry... P. 205). The translation of this place by O. Nikolaeva in Larcher’s book (Larchet J.-C. Venerable Maximus the Confessor ... P. 180), apparently made from French, cannot be considered satisfactory, as well as the Russian translation of this place in the text of the article: Garrigues J.-M. The idea of ​​Roman Supremacy... P. 12). Another version of the translation of this passage, probably also from French, is given in the text of the article: Larcher J.-C. The question of the primacy of Rome in the works of St. Maximus the Confessor / Peter's Ministry... P. 214. The original of this article is not available to us, we present the Russian translation of the passage that interests us: “... St. Maximus even believes that the Roman Church is “the very incarnate Word of God, which [probably means the Church. - G.B.], just like all the holy councils, according to sacred rules and definitions, has received and possesses everything for the sake of everything more than other churches on earth, has primacy, authority and the power to bind and decide.” The inaccuracy of this translation is obvious, see Latin text: “Nam frustra solummodo loquitur, qui mihi similes suadendos ac subripiendos putat, et non satisfacit et implorat sanctissimae Romanorum Ecclesiae beatissimum papam, id est apostolicam sedem, quae ab ipso incarnato Dei Verbo, sed et omnibus sanctis synodis, secundum sacros canones et terminos, universarum, quae in toto terrarum orbe sunt, sanctarum Dei Ecclesiarum in omnibus et per omnia percepit et habet imperium, auctoritatem et potestatem ligandi atque solvendi. Cum hoc enim ligat et solvit etiam in coelo Verbum, quod coelestibus virtutibus principatur.” We cannot here, following J.-C. Larche, dwell on the view of the Venerable expressed in this place. Maximus in place of the Roman See in the Church. Let's just say that the significance of the Roman See for St. Maxim, as can be seen both from this passage and from a number of places in Letter A (unless they are distorted by Anastasius the Librarian), was exceptional. Moreover, it seems that the discussion should not just be about what for St. Maximus The Roman throne was “first among equals,” which is generally accepted for Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology in relation to Rome, but in reality it refers to primacy, which consists “in ensuring the unity of the Church in true faith and canonical discipline” (we took this formula, which, in our opinion, coincides with the position of St. Maximus, from the article of the Greek scholar Vlasiodas Fidas: Fidas V. Primacy of the Pope Roman and the pentarchy of patriarchs in the Orthodox tradition / Peter's ministry... P. 88). Moreover, according to A.M. Shufrin, this passage from TR 12 should be understood in the sense of analogy: Rome relates to other Churches as the Word relates to the heavenly powers. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the high calling of Rome placed upon him a great responsibility, and his leadership becomes meaningless if Rome ceases to stand in the true faith. St. Maxim, as can be seen from his reaction to the betrayal of Pope Vitalian, who accepted the heretical confession of Patriarch Peter of Constantinople, was far from believing in the infallibility of Rome. Ultimately, as is known, Rev. Maximus called the Catholic Church “the right and saving confession.” It is obvious that only if Rome stands in this confession does it have a primary place in the Church with the associated powers and rights. You might be interested in: