Did Pope Honorius teach monothelitism publicly?

[mardukm]

No. The evidence is in the Sixth Council itself. I will post more when I have time.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE understand that this is not a thread about whether or not Honorius was a heretic, or what his particular beliefs were. It is simply to consider whether or not Honorius taught monothelitism PUBLICLY - in other words, did he instruct the Church as a whole, or even his local Church, to ever accept monothelitism.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Here are some facts to consider:

1. Around 634, Pope Honorius gave the Patriarch Sergius the fated letter ordering the Patriarch to be silent on the matter of using the language of “one operation” or “two operations.”
2. At the time of Pope Honorius’ death in 638, the monothelite controversy was in full bloom.
3. The Sixth Ecumenical Council began in 680. That’s about 46 years folks!
4. At the first Session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council - called specifically to address the issue of monothelitism - the list of names of hierarchs - (both living and dead) and from all parts of the empire - to be judged were given. The list DID NOT INCLUDE POPE HONORIUS; equally of note is that the list DID NOT INCLUDE A SINGLE HIERARCH FROM THE LATIN CHURCH.
5. At this first Session, the monothelites responded by appealing, among other things, to the letter of Pope Honorius to Patriarch Sergius.
6. At the judgment of the Council in the 13th Session, the name of Pope Honorius is mentioned among the list.

With these facts in mind, what do you conclude?

DID OR DID NOT POPE HONORIUS PUBLICLY TEACH OR PUBLICLY ENJOIN THE CHURCH, EITHER LOCALLY OR UNIVERSALLY, TO BELIEVE IN MONOTHELITISM?

 

[eelpis]

No. The evidence is in the Sixth Council itself. I will post more when I have time.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE understand that this is not a thread about whether or not Honorius was a heretic, or what his particular beliefs were. It is simply to consider whether or not Honorius taught monothelitism PUBLICLY - in other words, did he instruct the Church as a whole, or even his local Church, to ever accept monothelitism.

Blessings,
Marduk

No, I don’t know much but I think that the pope just failed in condemning the heresy publicly.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No. The evidence is in the Sixth Council itself. I will post more when I have time.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE understand that this is not a thread about whether or not Honorius was a heretic, or what his particular beliefs were. It is simply to consider whether or not Honorius taught monothelitism PUBLICLY - in other words, did he instruct the Church as a whole, or even his local Church, to ever accept monothelitism.

Blessings,
Marduk

Your signature seems very apropos ​

As to the question - how about this:

• By the standards of his own time, he did
• By the standards of the definition of 1870, he did not
  “Public” teaching is (now at least) any teaching not confined to one’s own heart - by that standard, the letter of Honorius was a public act.

As to the orthodoxy of the contents - the words constituting the content could be taken in two different senses, a good or a bad.

So the answer is both “Yes”, & “No”; Orthodox Christians are right - & so are we Romans. There is no contradiction, because we are judging the same case considered from different aspects.

Does that answer at all ?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

*]By the standards of his own time, he did
*]By the standards of the definition of 1870, he did not
“Public” teaching is (now at least) any teaching not confined to one’s own heart - by that standard, the letter of Honorius was a public act.

Does that answer at all ?

Kind of. Can you please explain what “the standards of his own time” means?

I assumed “public teaching” for a bishop has ALWAYS meant an active and intentional endeavor to teach something to your flock. Can you explain how the “standards of his own time” is different from that?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[peregrinus_sg]

We must not forget that a counciliar judgement of individual persons do not fall under any degree of infallability.

I don’t think the claim that Pope Honorius embraced heresy, in the sense that people understand the term today, has any ground. The Pope in his letter discouraged the use of terms that were critical for the orthodox faith as well as the heretics, but did not enjoin one over the other. How can he be accused of heresy? It would be akin to accusing someone of heresy simply because he doesn’t use the term “transubstatiation” to describe the mystery of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist.

 

[jimmy]

No. The evidence is in the Sixth Council itself. I will post more when I have time.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE understand that this is not a thread about whether or not Honorius was a heretic, or what his particular beliefs were. It is simply to consider whether or not Honorius taught monothelitism PUBLICLY - in other words, did he instruct the Church as a whole, or even his local Church, to ever accept monothelitism.

Blessings,
Marduk

The sixth council specifically refers to him as “Honorius the heretic”.

 

[jimmy]

We must not forget that a counciliar judgement of individual persons do not fall under any degree of infallability.

I don’t think the claim that Pope Honorius embraced heresy, in the sense that people understand the term today, has any ground. The Pope in his letter discouraged the use of terms that were critical for the orthodox faith as well as the heretics, but did not enjoin one over the other. How can he be accused of heresy? It would be akin to accusing someone of heresy simply because he doesn’t use the term “transubstatiation” to describe the mystery of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist.

He specifically spoke of there being one will in Christ. That is monothelitism. Maybe you could say he was misunderstood just like the ‘monophysites’ were misunderstood but the fact is that he was condemned as a heretic.

 

[excaliber]

WOAH!!!
If any Pope was incorectly teaching…would that not make the
Orthodox correct?

 

[Atreyu]

That’s the purpose of this thread, Excaliber. Pope Honorius is the best example the Orthodox have of a heretical Pope. I suggest you stay with this thread and see how it goes. Judge for yourself if Pope Honorius publicly taught heresy*.

*Considering what I consider to be heretical will differ to yours, what I mean is I think you should judge for yourself whether Pope Honorius publicly taught heresy as understood by the Catholic Church.

 

[excaliber]

That’s the purpose of this thread, Excaliber. Pope Honorius is the best example the Orthodox have of a heretical Pope. I suggest you stay with this thread and see how it goes. Judge for yourself if Pope Honorius publicly taught heresy*.

*Considering what I consider to be heretical will differ to yours, what I mean is I think you should judge for yourself whether Pope Honorius publicly taught heresy as understood by the Catholic Church.

This is very good, because I respect both Rome and Orthodox equaly. I need a tie breaker.

For Roman Catholic popes to be Infalible, I BELIEVE that they would have to be instruments of The Holy
Spirit who we know canot make an error.
Basicaly that means to me that a pope can have his personal beliefs,and even speak to his frinds casualy about them. But he could not perform Mass and teach ANYTHING FALSE, regardless of if its localy or not.

He also canot write anything false, and intend for the Church to read it.

If a pope TEACHES false doctrine, then the Orthodox are correct. If he did not, then the Roman Catholics are correct because Orthodox taught arianism at one time.

this will be an interesting thread.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

honorius being declared a heretic by a pope and ecumenical council is a difficult historical fact for catholics. i think part of the problem is that in every heresy, there usually is truth in it so that, you need to interpret his words in light of the historical situation. but his statement does sound ex cathedra.

“Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin.”

a problem with papal infallibility is that it’s almost impossible to disprove, considering that popes make dogmatic declarations based upon what earlier popes have said, leaving little room for them to contradict each other, except possible in this case.

 

[mardukm]

you need to interpret his words in light of the historical situation. but his statement does sound ex cathedra.

I think the real problem is that non-Catholic polemicists don’t ever bother to look at the papal statement in the first place - they just base their entire argument on what the Fathers of the Sixth Ecum Council stated. It’s obvious just from the text itself that the Pope distinguished between flesh that is affected by sin and the flesh that is not (which is the Lord’s). Thus, to conlude that the Lord only had one will (i.e., his human will unaffected by sin was perfectly aligned to His Divine Will) is a perfectly understandable conclusion. BTW, I don’t take credit for that argument; several Church fathers contemporaneous with Pope Honorius explained it that way.

a problem with papal infallibility is that it’s almost impossible to disprove, considering that popes make dogmatic declarations based upon what earlier popes have said, leaving little room for them to contradict each other, except possible in this case.

It’s almost impossible to disprove EVERY dogma of the Church. She has thought about each dogma, answered every objection, and thus proclaimed the dogma. If there was a valid objection in the first place, it would not have become dogma.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

He specifically spoke of there being one will in Christ. That is monothelitism. Maybe you could say he was misunderstood just like the ‘monophysites’ were misunderstood but the fact is that he was condemned as a heretic.

The miaphysites were also condemned as heretics, but look at where a deliberate attempt at understanding each other has placed the OO and the CC. We now have OFFICIAL statements acknowledgeing the orthodoxy of each others’ positions.

The same must be applied to Pope Honorius. Let’s look beyond the mere condemnation, but look at the statements of Pope Honorius himself, and whether or not those statements were intended for public consumption/belief. Only then can the issue of whether the case of Pope Honorius can be adjudged to make or break the dogma of infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gferrer]

honorius being declared a heretic by a pope and ecumenical council is a difficult historical fact for catholics. i think part of the problem is that in every heresy, there usually is truth in it so that, you need to interpret his words in light of the historical situation. but his statement does sound ex cathedra.

The citation for the quote (Catholic Encyclopedia) goes on to explain:

As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance.

 

[jimmy]

The same must be applied to Pope Honorius. Let’s look beyond the mere condemnation, but look at the statements of Pope Honorius himself, and whether or not those statements were intended for public consumption/belief. Only then can the issue of whether the case of Pope Honorius can be adjudged to make or break the dogma of infallibility.

I am not really concerned about whether Honorius was a heretic or not. That seems irrelevant to me. What is relevant is the way the other heirarchs viewed him. The fact that they were willing to condemn him, and his successors even condemned him indicates that the concept of infallibility is not a patristic concept.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I am not really concerned about whether Honorius was a heretic or not. That seems irrelevant to me. What is relevant is the way the other heirarchs viewed him. The fact that they were willing to condemn him, and his successors even condemned him indicates that the concept of infallibility is not a patristic concept.

Thanks for your concise explanation. May I ask what part of the dogma of infallibility affects a condemnation of him by the Church as a heretic? Are you saying that the dogma teaches that the Pope cannot be a heretic? Can you cite what portion of the dogma leads you to believe that?

If your argument, rather, is that an Ecumenical Council judged him AT ALL, then I can understand. But then, that would not be an issue of infallibility, but rather of papal primacy/jurisdiction. From there, we can continue our discussion on the matter.

Hence, can you please clarify your position a bit more? Thank you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Thus, to conlude that the Lord only had one will (i.e., his human will unaffected by sin was perfectly aligned to His Divine Will) is a perfectly understandable conclusion. BTW,

thanks. this is a good point and goes to show that it wasn’t black and white and could be interpreted as orthodox. this seems to be the same issue with the monophystite heresy of the oriental orthodox in that it was mostly a misunderstanding. same goes for the filioque and original sin.

but, no catholic may reject the immaculate conception nor the church’s teaching on contraception, two major obstacles between the catholic church and the eastern orthodox.

it’s a lot like a paradox, that somehow Jesus had two wills but they were perfectly united as if he had one. it’s not one or the other, but both.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Let us take a look at the documentation from the Council:

Session XIII
But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; … And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.

Definition of Faith
But as the author of evil, who, … having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius

PROSPHONETICUS TO THE EMPEROR
… we cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous novelties as well as their inventors: to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius and Paul, … and with them Honorius, who was the ruler of Rome, as he followed them in these things.

The Imperial Edict Posted in the Third Atrium of the Great Church Near What is Called Dicymbala
The heresy of Apollinaris, etc., has been renewed by Theodore of Pharan and confirmed by Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, who also contradicted himself.

Confirmation of Constantinople VI by Pope Leo II
We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius,…and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.

Extracted from fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const3.html and newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm.

The Council certainly considered Pope Honorius as a heretic, but in what capacity did they understand it? The documentation showed that Pope Honorius is often (though not always) mentioned in a different way than the rest of the other condemned ‘heretics’.

The Council attributed a manifestly more passive role to Pope Honorius. He followed others’ view, he confirmed Sergius’ impious suggestion that the orthodox formula be forbidden together with the heretical formula, he was inconsistent and contradicted himself and he permitted the purity of the faith to be polluted.

It seems quite clear to me that the Council was careful not to accuse Pope Honorius of positively holding and teaching heresy. It appears that the Council considered Pope Honorius a heretic simply because he was an accessory to the crime by accepting the use of vague expressions as orthodox, thus putting before the faithful a stumbling block. It was this sense that Pope Leo II interpreted in his confirmation of the Council, as well as how the old Papal oath understood it:

smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics

So to answer the question by the OP: no, I think history shows clearly that the men of the time did not know of Pope Honorius publicly teaching heresy. History shows that the Pope was weak and assisted the development of the heresy by his bad decisions. While the men of the time considered this serious enough to warrant labelling Pope Honorius a heretic, most people would agree that by today’s standard, Pope Honorius cannot be considered one.

 

[steve_b]

I think the real problem is that non-Catholic polemicists don’t ever bother to look at the papal statement in the first place - they just base their entire argument on what the Fathers of the Sixth Ecum Council stated.

It’s obvious just from the text itself that the Pope distinguished between flesh that is affected by sin and the flesh that is not (which is the Lord’s). Thus, to conlude that the Lord only had one will (i.e., his human will unaffected by sin was perfectly aligned to His Divine Will) is a perfectly understandable conclusion. BTW, I don’t take credit for that argument; several Church fathers contemporaneous with Pope Honorius explained it that way.

I think what gets missed by polemicists on this subject is that they don’t know scripture. While Jesus has a human and Divine will, Jesus human will was never exercised against His Divine Will. Jesus says it himself very clearly

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

These quotes are useful for many CC teachings… such as, Simon being made Rock, and head of the entire Church, to feed and rule, etc etc. The Father from ALL eternity made His selection

Mardukm:

It’s almost impossible to disprove EVERY dogma of the Church. She has thought about each dogma, answered every objection, and thus proclaimed the dogma. If there was a valid objection in the first place, it would not have become dogma.

Blessings,
Marduk

The other aspect polemicists don’t take into consideration is the mystical aspect of the CC, which is, God builds His Church, and He confounds all His opponants.