Peter Mongus
Peter Mongus
(moggos, “stammerer”, or “hoarse”.)
Intruded Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria (d. 490). Under Timothy Ailuros, who was made patriarch by the Egyptian Monophysites after Chalcedon (454-460), Peter Mongus was an ardent adherent of that party. As Timothy’s deacon he took part in the persecution of the Melchites. Timothy Ailuros was expelled from the patriarchal throne in 460 and the orthodox Timothy Salophakiolos was set up by the government instead (460-75). In 475 another revolution recalled Ailuros, who held his place till death (477). His party thereupon elected Peter Mongus to succeed him. The Emperor Zeno (474-91) sentenced Mongus to death; he escaped by flight. Meanwhile Salophakiolos returned and reigned till his death (481). The Melchites chose John Talaia to succeed (481-82; see JOHN TALAIA). Peter Mongus, always claiming to be patriarch, now comes forward again. John had quarrelled with Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, and refused to sign Zeno’s Henoticon (482); so he was expelled, the emperor changed his attitude, and supported Mongus (482). Talaia fled to Rome, Mongus took possession of the see, and sent notice of his succession to Rome, Antioch, and Constantinople. He had signed the Henoticon and was therefore inserted in Acacius’s diptychs as Patriarch of Alexandria. But the pope (Felix II or III, 483-92) defended Talaia’s rights in two letters to Acacius.
From this time Mongus became the chief champion of all Monophysites. He held a synod to condemn Chalcedon, and desecrated the tombs of Proterios and Salophakiolos, his Melchite predecessors. He was excommunicated repeatedly by the pope. It was communion with Mongus and the acceptance of the Henoticon that caused the Acacian schism of Constantinople (484-519). When Acacius died and was succeeded by Flavitas (or Fravitas, 489-90) Mongus wrote to the new patriarch again condemning Chalcedon and encouraging him in his schism with Rome. He died in 490 and was succeeded by another Monophysite, Athanasius II (490-96). For a long time after his death the name of Peter Mongus was still a party word. To read it in the diptychs (of the dead) was a kind of profession of Monophystism; the first condition of reunion with Rome and the Catholic world generally was to erase it, with that of Dioscurus and the other great champions of the heresy. In the line of Alexandrine patriarchs Mongus is counted as Peter III. He is said to have written many books, of which however nothing remains. A pretended correspondence between him and Acacius (in Coptic) is proved to be spurious by Amelineau in the “Memoires publiés par les membres de la mission archéologique française au Caire”, IV (Paris, 1888), 196-228.
———————————–
Mongus takes an important place in any history of Monophysitism, as EVAGRIUS, Chronicon Pascale in P.G., XCII; LIBERATUS. See also GUTSCHMID, Verzeichniss der Patriarchen von Alexandrien in Kleine Schriften, II (Leipzig, 1890), 395-525; HEFELE-LECLERCQ, Histoire des Conciles, II (Paris, 1908), 916-26; NEALE, History of the Holy Eastern Church, II (London, 1847), 21-24.
ADRIAN FORTESCUE Transcribed by Herman F. Holbrook Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus per Iesum Christum.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XICopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Peter Mongus
a Monophysite, flourished as patriarch of Alexandria in the 5th century. Liberatus gives him also the surname of the Stammerer. He was ordained deacon by Dioscorus, successor of Cyril, who held the patriarchate for seven years (A.D. 444-451). Peter was the ready participator in the violences of Dioscorus, and earnestly embraced his cause when he was deposed by the Council of Chalcedon, withdrawing from the communion of the successor of Dioscorus, Proterius, who supported the cause of the council, and uniting in the opposition raised by Timothy LElurus and others. Peter was consequently sentenced, apparently by Proterius, to deposition and excommunication. Whether he was banished, as well as Timothy AElurus, is not clear, but he seems to have accompanied Timothy to Alexandria, and to have been his chief supporter when, after the death of the emperor Marcian, he returned, and either murdered Proterius or excited the tumults that led to his death, A.D. 457. Timothy AElurus was immediately raised to the patriarchate by his partisans, but was shortly after banished by the emperor Leo I, the Thracian, who had succeeded Marcian. Peter also was obliged to flee. Another Timothy, surnamed Salofaciolus, a supporter of the Council of Chalcedon, was appointed to succeed Proterius in the patriarchate. When, in the following reign of Zeno, or rather during the short usurpation of Basiliscus, Timothy AElurus was recalled from exile (A.D. 475), and was sent from Constantinople to Alexandria to re- occupy that see, he was joined by Peter and his party, and with their support drove out his competitor Salofaciolus, who took refuge in a monastery at Canopus. On the downfall of Basiliscus and the restoration of Zeno, Timothy AElurus was allowed, through the emperor’s compassion for his great age, to retain his see; but when on his death (A.D. 477) the Monophysite bishops of Egypt, without waiting for the emperor’s directions, elected Peter (who had previously obtained the rank of archdeacon) as his successor, the emperor’s indignation was so far aroused that he determined to put the new prelate to death. His anger, however, somewhat abated, and Peter was allowed to live, but was deprived of the patriarchate, to which Timothy Salofaciolus was restored. On the death of Salofaciolus, which occurred soon after, John of Tabenna, surnamed Talaia, was appointed to succeed him; but he was very shortly deposed by order of Zeno, on some account not clearly ascertained, and Peter Mongus was unexpectedly recalled from Euchaita in Pontus, whither he had been banished, and was (A.D. 482) restored to his see.
His restoration appears to have been part of the policy of Zeno to unite, if possible, all parties; a policy which Peter, whose age and misfortunes appear to have abated the fierceness of his party spirit, was ready to adopt. He consequently subscribed the Henoticon of the emperor, and readmitted the Proterian party to communion on their doing the same. John of Tabenna had meanwhile fled to Rome, where the pope, Simplicius, who, with the Western Church, steadily supported the Council of Chalcedon, embraced his cause, and wrote to the emperor in his behalf. Felix II or III, who succeeded Simplicius (A.D. 483), was equally zealous on the same side. Peter had some difficulty in maintaining his position. In order to recover the favor of his Monophysite friends, whom his subservience to Zeno’s policy had alienated, he anathematized the Council of Chalcedon; and then, to avert the displeasure of Acacius of Constantinople and of the court, to whose temporizing course this decisive step was adverse, he denied that he had done so. Evagrius has preserved the letter he wrote to Acacius on this occasion, which is the only writing of Peter now extant. By this tergiversation he preserved his see, and was enabled to brave the repeated anathemas of the Western Church. When, however, to recover the attachment of the Monophysites, he again anathematized the Council of Chalcedon, and Euphemius, the newly elected patriarch of Constantinople, forsaking the policy of his predecessors, took part with the Western Church against him, his difficulties became more serious. What result this combination against him might have produced cannot now be known; death removed him from the scene of strife A.D. 490, shortly before the death of Zeno. He was succeeded in the see of Alexandria by another Monophysite, Athanasius II. See Cave, Hist. Litt. 1:455; Fabricius, Bibl. Graeca, 11:336; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, volume 2, col. 416, etc.; Tillemont, Memoires Ecclesiastiques, volume 16.