Am I allowed to believe Pope Honorius was a heretic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CampionTheChampion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CampionTheChampion

Guest
I’ve seen apologists literally argue that Pope Honorius wasn’t a heretic. I get that the motivation for this is to protect the doctrine of papal infallibility (especially from Protestant attacks), but is it permissible for me to agree with the 3rd council of Constantinople here?
 
I’d say you are free to believe what you want. However, to proclaim it publicly if it is not true is slander/libel, an offense against the 8th commandment. Your choice.
 
Just in case there was anyone else totally lost here…

www.catholic.com

The Truth about Pope Honorius

For the serious anti-Catholic, Pope Honorius I (625-638) occupies a small but pivotal role in the drama of Rome’s errors and abuses. Here's how to respond.
www.catholic.com www.catholic.com
 
No Pope can be a heretic otherwise the Pope wouldnt be Supreme teacher of the faithfull and would lead others atray. All the Popes have been given unfailing faith to guide our Church and that will always be the case. The Pope can error but never to the point of heresy.
 
I understand many Catholics think this, and I think some theologians have even defended your position. But is a Catholic permitted to dissent here?
 
CampionTheChampion said:
3rd council of Constantinople here
Click to expand...
Catholic Encylopedia
The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth century. Difficulties made themselves felt when, after the Great Western Schism, papal infallibility began to be doubted. Protestantism and Gallicanism made vigorous attacks on the unfortunate pope, and at the time of the Vatican Council Honorius figured in every pamphlet and every speech on ecclesiastical subjects. The question has not only been debated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as well as by the professed controversialists… since the letter of Honorius was not worthy of censure. Leo II, in confirming the council, expressly abrogated the censure, according to this view, and substituted a condemnation for negligence only (so also Grisar–see above). There is evidently no ground whatever for any of these assertions.

Pope Honorius was much respected and died with an untarnished reputation.
Click to expand...
Chapman, J. (1910). Pope Honorius I. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
 
Last edited:
I would say its an non infallible teaching(that the Pope cannot teach heresy) but Im not sure.
 
CampionTheChampion said:
I’ve seen apologists literally argue that Pope Honorius wasn’t a heretic. I get that the motivation for this is to protect the doctrine of papal infallibility (especially from Protestant attacks), but is it permissible for me to agree with the 3rd council of Constantinople here?
Click to expand...
To the thread title - Of course you can believe Honorius was a heretic.

The man was declared a heretic. Saying you could “disagree” with established history is akin to saying you can disagree about what 2+2 equals…
 
Last edited:
The better question: How does worrying about my personal opinion on whether Pope Honorius was a heretic or not help to lead me closer to Christ and the imitation of Him?
 
An interesting explanation I encountered years ago (but unfortunately can’t link to) drew the distinction that the Pope cannot be tried by the cardinals or anyone else, but that a trial could be held to determine whether or not he was still the Pope (which he would cease to be upon becoming a heretic.

hawk
 
AveOTheotokos said:
The better question: How does worrying about my personal opinion on whether Pope Honorius was a heretic or not help to lead me closer to Christ and the imitation of Him?
Click to expand...
The whole idea of Petrine supremacy resides on Peter’s confession of being the first to even acknowledge who Jesus really was. It’s inextricably bound with every believer’s relation to Jesus, in that statement “You are the Christ. The Son of the Living God.”

What if a Pope denied or did something less than what Peter did? It throws a monkey wrench into the whole idea of Papal Infallibility… Do you still follow a Pope when they don’t even live up to Peter’s words? God forbid. What gives Rome it’s authority? Peter’s actual confession or just some arbitrary distinction of the Office itself?

These are just questions btw. I’m not going to answer for you. It’s obvious what brings you closer to Christ though: Doing what Peter did, regardless of what any other man tells you.
 
Indeed, you may. But consider this. Over 40 years after Tyhe death of Honorius, Constantinople III declared that he be “expelled from the Church and anathematized . . . because we find in his letter to Sergius that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.”

Yet, this does nothing to disprove the Doctrine of Papal infallibility because the letters declared the pope’s errant opinion, not new, official doctrine excathedra. Such debate was not uncommon among Bishop’s in those days. Some of those Bishop’s were popes.
 
Hm. You are all giving me a lot to think about.

I’m now wondering what happens if a pope became a “formal” heretic. Does he cease to be pope in that moment? If so, it seems like the Church is at the mercy of one man…What about bishops of other sees? If they became “formal” heretics do they immediately loose their position as bishops?

I guess what I’m wondering if whether the Church has to declare a bishop/pope a heretic for them to loose their position or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top