Okay I’ll provide them
Yes Pope Honorius was not a monothelite. Honorius used “one will” in relation to Christ’s human nature and not, as did the monothelites, to his person (divinity and humanity).
However he was guilty of not stopping the rise of error which is just as bad! Pope Francis is in a similar position as he refuses to speak out against heretical interpretations of Amoris Laetitia
*Pope Leo II
:Honorius, who did not, as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence"* (Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispanie in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:455; emphasis added).
And Pope St. Felix III
"Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
And with regards to pope John XXII : he was a heretic and he taught privately against established doctrine. The pope is protected from binding the church to error but can hold erroneous opinions as pope John XXII who had to be formally corrected before he recanted his error.
*Pope Adrian VI
"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII"*
So it is clear that Pope Honorius I did not teach any error, but as Pope Leo II stated, was guilty of negligence in allowing the monothelite heresy to spread.
That leaves the only accusation of a Pope teaching heresy as Pope John XXII. As I quoted from Catholic Encyclopedia earlier, Pope John XXII wrote his view of the Beatific Vision
before he became Pope. He never wrote this view once he became Pope. And it is merely
alleged (by whom exactly?) that he “advanced” this view in his sermons after becoming Pope. Without an authentic transcript of these alleged sermons, that is no basis whatsoever to accuse a Pope of heresy.
And what is this “formal correction” you speak of? Here is the whole quote from Catholic Encyclopedia again:
“In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope’s view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.”
newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm
As for Pope Adrian VI, he wrote his view of Pope John XXII
before becoming Pope.
You are grasping at straws to find the slightest trace of heresy in the 2000 year stewardship of Saint Peter’s successors, when in fact the remarkable 2000 year history of unblemished orthodoxy of the Bishop of Rome should be cause for celebration and thanksgiving to God who has preserved the Vicar of Jesus Christ free from error for two millennia.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1037146
And lastly, how dare you accuse of His Holiness Pope Francis I of being in a “similar postiion” to the negligence of Honorius I.
