This essay examines the main sources on the attitude of the Church of Cyprus in the so-called monoenergetic-monotheletic dispute. It is shown that the Church of Cyprus was a loyal and active partner in Constantinople’s policy of reconciliation with the Antichalcedonian churches of the East. Cyprus was also, especially under Archbishop Arkadios (624/25-641/2), a place of exile for opponents of this reconciliation, and in 636 also the venue of an important synod which was attended by legates of almost the whole church. The resulting Ekthesis was approved also in Rome and Jerusalem. Even Maximos did not succeed, after 636, to influence the position of Arkadios through the Cypriot priest monk Marinos. His six letters to Marinos offer no evidence for a dyenergetic or dyotheletic position of the Church of Cyprus. A letter from 643, written by the successor of Arkadios, Sergios (642-655), clearly shows that there was until then no protest against the Constantinopolitan church policy in Cyprus in this time. This letter, which demonstrates the firm dyenergetic and dyotheletic position of the whole Church of Cyprus, was presented at the Lateran Synod of 649, but forged or completely rewritten for this Synod. Even after 643, there is no evidence for public dissent in the Church of Cyprus, nor should it actually be expected.

中文翻译：

---

Die Kirche von Zypern im sogenannten monenergetisch-monotheletischen Streit des 7. Jh.s

本文探讨了塞浦路斯教会在所谓的单能单身争议中的态度的主要来源。事实证明，塞浦路斯教会是君士坦丁堡与东方安第斯切尔顿教会的和解政策的忠实积极伙伴。塞浦路斯也是，尤其是在Arkadios大主教（624 / 25-641 / 2）的统治下，这是反对和解的流放者的流放地，在636年，也是重要的宗教会议的地点，几乎整个教会的代表都参加了会议。由此产生的Ekthesis在罗马和耶路撒冷也得到了批准。甚至在636年之后，马克西莫斯（Maximos）也未能通过塞浦路斯牧师马力诺（Marinos）影响阿卡迪奥斯的地位。他给马里诺斯（Marinos）的六封信没有提供塞浦路斯教会的染发性或起毛病地位的证据。来自643的一封信，由阿卡迪奥斯的继任者塞尔吉奥斯（642-655）撰写的书清楚地表明，在此之前，直到现在还没有抗议塞浦路斯君士坦丁堡教会政策的抗议活动。这封信在649年的拉特兰主教会议上提出，展示了整个塞浦路斯教会牢固的染料学和起毛病地位，但为该主教会议伪造或完全重写。即使在643年以后，塞浦路斯教会也没有任何证据表明存在公众异议，也不应实际期望这一点。